Tex -USMC- 0 Posted February 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Naturally the common people don't want war...that is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country that determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a facist dictatorship, or a parliment or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." --Herman Goering<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. --H. L. Mencken <span id='postcolor'> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 9, 2003 Technically, in that quote H. L. Mencken is setting up the government as an imaginary hobgoblin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted February 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 09 2003,07:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Technically, in that quote H. L. Mencken is setting up the government as an imaginary hobgoblin.<span id='postcolor'> You couldn't be more wrong. It is stated, clear as day, that the aim of politics (and by proxy, government) is to keep the citzenry scared and reliant on the government. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 9, 2003 And whats he trying to do in that quote? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted February 9, 2003 2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 09 2003,082)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And whats he trying to do in that quote?<span id='postcolor'> It's very simple. Mencken recognizes that at one point another along the line of social evolution, government became not just a means to an end, but an end in and of itself. So, when this happens, government has to justify why it should exist to the people who pay the government's bills (the taxpayers). What better way to do that than to make the people believe that they are reliant on the government for certain things. This is the idea of the endless series of hobgoblins. Although Mencken states his view in a rather cynical way, the point nonetheless stands. In general, people are not nearly as reliant on their government as they think they are. However, to perpetuate the illusion, the government will exagerate an existing problem or create an entirely new one to justify the citizenry giving power and certain rights to the government. The simplest (but also very cynical) analogy I can think of would be a Mafia boss running a protection racket: "Hey, I know you're alright and everything, but you know there's some unsavory types around these days, and for a price, I'll keep you and yours safe. Of course, if you don't pay, who knows what'll happen? Accidents happen, people's kneecaps get broken, horse heads appear in people's beds..." That's pretty heavy handed, and I'm not saying that the government is running a protection racket, I'm just pointing out that both concepts are self perpetuating. They create problems so that the people will ask them to deal with the problems, and by doing so the people cede certain rights and powers to the government, in addition to substantial amounts of taxes. That is what Mencken was saying in the quote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 9, 2003 He's just a little more concise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted February 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 09 2003,08:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He's just a little more concise. <span id='postcolor'> Well, you did ask for it. And seeing as how you misunderstood it the first time, maybe he could stand being a little more verbose. Also, if you don't want lectures in political theory in the future, just tell me so that I can save my fingers some keyboard mileage Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 9, 2003 It just looked like he was trying to scare people into believing what he did by telling them the government was lying to them. IMO, anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted February 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 09 2003,08:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It just looked like he was trying to scare people into believing what he did by telling them the government was lying to them. IMO, anyway.<span id='postcolor'> Speaking of opinions that could do with some elaboration... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 9, 2003 He's trying to make people afraid of the government by telling them that they're trying to control the people by lying to them. Which may or may not be true. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted February 9, 2003 4 pages and not one quote from the original link. Allow me: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 26, 2001, gave law enforcement officials broader authority to conduct electronic surveillance and wiretaps, and gives the president the authority, when the nation is under attack, to confiscate any property within U.S. jurisdiction of anyone believed to be engaging in such attacks. <span id='postcolor'> The statement a bit vague but IIRC, the authorities can spy on anyone that they suspect is a 'terrorist' and they can do it with less legal problems. I think it also increases the U.S. governments ability to spy on people over the internet. Big brother is already present in the U.K., I woudln't want it over here, not by a long shot. Some Liberals in Canada actually think a national I.D. card with a fingerprint or iris scan tecnology is a good idea. Why don't they just tatoo a barcode on to our foreheads while they are at it? Crazy fucks. Besides, they can't even manage a long gun registry with a few million people, how would they handle 31 million+? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He's trying to make people afraid of the government by telling them that they're trying to control the people by lying to them. Which may or may not be true.<span id='postcolor'> Because we all know that all governments are infallible, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 1 Posted February 9, 2003 Glancing through the replies here, I have two comments: 1. Ben Franklin would first be rolling over in his grave because of the sheer existance and level of cruelty of international terrorism. 2. While not necessarily agreeing to the details of the Patriot Act, the idea that the US must be allowed in some form or another to increase their abilities to prevent terrorist activities is overdue. In what form and to what extent this should be allowed is what should be discussed. To hide ones head in the sand pretending that this is the same world B. Franklin or, for that matter, our parents and grandparents grew up in, is to risk losing one's liberties altogether, as well as possibly losing the lives of family, friends and one's homeland. Sad but true, I believe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted February 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 09 2003,12:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Glancing through the replies here, I have two comments: 1. Ben Franklin would first be rolling over in his grave because of the sheer existance and level of cruelty of international terrorism. 2. While not necessarily agreeing to the details of the Patriot Act, the idea that the US must be allowed in some form or another to increase their abilities to prevent terrorist activities is overdue. In what form and to what extent this should be allowed is what should be discussed. To hide ones head in the sand pretending that this is the same world B. Franklin or, for that matter, our parents and grandparents grew up in, is to risk losing one's liberties altogether, as well as possibly losing the lives of family, friends and one's homeland. Sad but true, I believe. <span id='postcolor'> But this ignores the fact that attacks like those on September 11th could have been prevented using existing laws and regulations. Remember, there were some very clear red flags along the way: over half the hijackers were on expired visas, and the fact that they had no interest in landing the planes while at flight school had to have rung a few bells. If organizations like the INS, the FBI, and the CIA were better funded, more competently run, and less interested in turf-wars than national security, then there would have been a very good chance that, knowingly or unknowingly, they would have broken up one of the cells critical to the attacks. Also, at the risk of ruffling some more self-righteous feathers, I'd like to point out that it is the government that got us into this mess with Arab extremists in the first place. Adventures in Afghanistan (circa 1970's and 80's), support of the Shah in Iran, tacit approval of Saddam's actions in the Iran/Iraq War, the list goes on. So, you can go ahead and apply Mencken's quote once again- if it wasn't for our government's actions (for better or for worse), we wouldn't need to worry about Arab terrorists. So, there is no way in hell I will sacrifice my rights to be 'kept safe' from an enemy that shouldn't have been made in the first place. Why? Because I'm already safe. In 2001, about 3,010 people died from terrorism in the US. Simultaneously, over 400,000 annual deaths can be attributed to smoking. Also, 41,000 people a year are killed in car accidents in the US, and that's on a good year. Now, what should I be more worried about? Well, to be fair, I'm not incredibly worried about any of them, because I am a good driver and I don't smoke, but the point stands. Terrorists have been vastly inflated in their ability to hurt America, through the media (ESPECIALLY the media), opportunists like John Ashcroft, and of course the terrorist's own choice of target. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foxer 0 Posted February 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 09 2003,05:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 09 2003,06:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is reason i hate right wingers. <span id='postcolor'> Because we disagree with you? Â You do understand that the power to disagree is one of the freedoms of an American citizen.<span id='postcolor'> I hate far right wingers,i also hate far left wingers.Because we all know they will never change their opinion about anything.Plus they always think their right,but most of the time their wrong.Plus they always blaming the other side for the problems we have now in days. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 1 Posted February 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 09 2003,21:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate far right wingers,i also hate far left wingers.Because we all know they will never change their opinion about anything.Plus they always think their right,but most of the time their wrong.Plus they always blaming the other side for the problems we have now in days.<span id='postcolor'> All of these can apply to complacent centrists no less. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
