doublegunshop.com - home Forums Communism and the Internet

It sounded to me like he didn't believe you. But I would have taken it a step further and said you're feeding us more of your BULLSHIT flavored KoolAid.



Ah, but you lie to us yet again. Snowden did take secrets to the Kremlin. That much is well known, but you think you can tell us more lies and we'll believe you. The fear in the intelligence community is that he has stolen much more which he has stored on a heavily encrypted and multiple password protected internet cloud data storage bank. As far as having some files being cached with responsible persons and newspapers... are you speaking of responsible Journalistic agents and agencies like Brian Williams and NBC? We've all seen enough to know the "trusted media" is anything but trustworthy. If they're anything like you, we're all in deep shit.

Nobody here really worried about the government looking at our library cards or destinations of phone calls, not actual content of those calls... because we were not contacting Muslim terrorist cells and had nothing to hide.

Isn't it ironic that what we apparently really have to fear is the same Liberal Leftist Democrats who would protect illegal aliens and keep the borders open to terrorists, yet regulate and spy on law abiding citizens. We have to fear the very politicians which you support and defend King.

It is not government we apparently have to fear King. It is Democrats who pose a threat to our freedom. Anti-Gun, Anti-Freedom Democrats!

You're the last guy I'd think of as a huffin' puffin' duped patriot, Ken.
You seem as entertained as much as I am by those who fail to recognize that all deeply held beliefs are ideological in nature, whether true or not.

Even when not part of organized religion, they're based on beliefs that require as much faith. Canadian law regarding terrorism, for example, is ideological.

This is why governments seek to control the definition of terrorism. I believe this is one of your points i.e. "terrorism" is by "others" culturally different from the dominant group.

Changing seats in Washington and Ottawa wouldn't change it.

Well, that's the true issue is it not? Is one's ideology that of Individual Freedom and Equality, as defined by the Constitution, or one of Sociopathic, Statist, Religious Totalitarianism and unconstitutional infliction?

Food for thought, I spent 6 years in Northwest Montana. 1 mile from the Canadian border. When the Patriot act was passed only 1 Senator opposed it. Dem. Fiengold WI. Sorry for the spelling. He was applauded where I lived. A VERY Republican area. Twice I had border patrol at my home. Once they asked, the second they TOLD me they were going to check my property. When we give up our freedoms for security, we loose both.

That is very true Doublefan, but what seems more important is which political Party of our representative government is most prone to abusing any freedoms we voluntarily cede to them in the hope that they are looking out for our best interests as a nation.

We hope and trust that both major parties will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. But as shooters and gun owners, we all know that it has been almost totally Democrats who have encroached and infringed upon the rights of law abiding gun owners.

And look at your personal situation with the Border Patrol since the Patriot Act was passed. Was there a credible threat from terrorists coming across the Canadian Border which is much much more secure than our Southern Border? The Democrats who now impede Customs and the Border Patrol from doing their jobs and enforcing existing laws now wish to control and regulate the internet, even as they fight tooth and nail against any efforts to control our Southern Border.

If any of us are stupid enough to vote for a party with a history of abusing and infringing upon the rights of law abiding citizens, we are going to end up losing our rights with or without a Patriot Act. That is why the following quote by King Brown is both ridiculous and dishonest...

Terrorism is not an ideology, it is a tactic. Changing the definition on the basis of culture is absurd. It's another example of the soviet rationalization called "Moral Equivalency", when "One Man's Terrorist is another Man's Freedom Fighter". An absurd, sociopathic, doctrinal response. It falls in line with this point of Skousen's Communist Goal list:

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

Both parties are at fault. We need to have people who work for a living being are representatives. These millionaires have no clue! Both sides are corrupted! Sorry for the rant but we need a third party who is for the lower and middle class. I drive a 2004 so I can have a Parker. I choose my purchases. My truck will die, my SxS will live on! Agree to disagree. Compromise and get things done! Don't crawl into corners!

This brings us to another point on the Skousen list.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

It's the statist, mainstream Republicans who are "enabeling" Obama and the Democrats. You can speak of "compromise" all you want, but the fact is that the march toward Statism/Communism has NEVER had a single aspect of it reversed, so compromise merely facilitates its progression.

And I drive a 1995 so I can have a 1900 Lebeau Courally

Changing definitions may be absurd but it's what we do. And just when you're making sense you raise that individual-freedom-by-constitution line.

You forget the unions---the liberal and conservative parties with their enormous unaccountable checkoffs from majorities who don't realize they're playing the punk's game.

You're an engaging and personable outlier of the unions although obliged to contribute to them because you receive public benefits legislated by the majorities.

You indulge in a radical individualism fantasy bordering on asceticism, retiring into a solitude, an utopia where each does as she pleases.

As James in Arizona, you see the Constitution and the Second as immutable and inalienable when the evidence daily demonstrates no serious longevity.

If they are what literalists claim, there would be no challenges with differing outcomes across the country as "social engineering" common to our lexicon.

Whatever individual freedom existed in the US vanished when the Puritan fathers made law collectively to keep from cutting each other's throats.

I don't think the Puritans were communists.