Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    Ben Franklin fathered an illegitimate son. He also became estranged from his son when his son took the side of the Loyalists. He never reconciled with him. Is this an example of virtuous behavior?




    I didn't say we all had to be perfect because no one is perfect.  We can all strive to be virtuous and sometimes that takes a life time but it's worth the effort.  It's certainly worth the effort when it comes to our country don't you think?




    It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues.

    Abraham Lincoln

    Are you speaking from experience ;0)

    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In recent years, there has been a concerted effort by many in academia, the media and the entertainment industry to discredit this country and it's history. They have succeeded to at least some extent, especially among younger people. Is that a good thing?  I would say no. Obviously, there is much disagreement on this issue. Arguing about it is futile. No minds are going to be changed.

    Stabbed by Foulke.




    I agree with you when you say our young people are being led astray but I don't think we are arguing here.  We are sharing ideas and opinions and I think that's a good thing.  

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    In retrospect had the South and North just became separate countries, it might have saved thousands of lives over the years. The differences between the Southern and Northern colonies were vast and their common thread was interference from the King's rule.




    I was born in boston but now live in northern virginia.  When in the north I heard that point of view now in the south I hear the opposite.  Some people don't think northern virginia is the south, they call it occupied virginia and indeed it is!

    I decided to study the civil war to see where the truth lies and I have found that there is some truth on both sides.  It is a complicated issue, so much so that it would be impossible to discuss here.

    In the simplest terms lincoln felt it was necessary that this country, the experimental republic stand against all odds.  He felt if it failed here it would not succeed anywhere.

    I sometimes wonder where we would be if the united states became divided.  Would we become two, three or even more countries?  Would we end up looking like europe?  If we did end up looking like europe would we have been able to turn back hitler?

    Nature abhors a vacuum so if we don't stand against those who are trying to overtake the world then who will?




    The state voluntarily joined the Union.  Later, they wanted to voluntarily leave the Union.  Lincoln said "NO" - he wanted to keep the Southern States under his jurisdiction.  All the states wanted to do was form their own nation.  That is not a Civil War - CW means the South would have tried to occupy Washington.  It was really the 2nd Rev. War for Independence.  If you want to understand why it was fought you look at what the winner imposed

    13th, 14th Amendments and the Organic Act of 1871

    13 - made VOLUNTARY Servitude OK

    14 - brought state citizens under the jurisdiction of the fed gvt and made them liable for fed debt

    O.A. - incorporated the fed govt and made it SUPERIOR to the states (prior, the states created the fed and since 1871, the fed created the states)

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    In retrospect had the South and North just became separate countries, it might have saved thousands of lives over the years. The differences between the Southern and Northern colonies were vast and their common thread was interference from the King's rule.




    I was born in boston but now live in northern virginia.  When in the north I heard that point of view now in the south I hear the opposite.  Some people don't think northern virginia is the south, they call it occupied virginia and indeed it is!

    I decided to study the civil war to see where the truth lies and I have found that there is some truth on both sides.  It is a complicated issue, so much so that it would be impossible to discuss here.

    In the simplest terms lincoln felt it was necessary that this country, the experimental republic stand against all odds.  He felt if it failed here it would not succeed anywhere.

    I sometimes wonder where we would be if the united states became divided.  Would we become two, three or even more countries?  Would we end up looking like europe?  If we did end up looking like europe would we have been able to turn back hitler?

    Nature abhors a vacuum so if we don't stand against those who are trying to overtake the world then who will?




    The state voluntarily joined the Union.  Later, they wanted to voluntarily leave the Union.  Lincoln said "NO" - he wanted to keep the Southern States under his jurisdiction.  All the states wanted to do was form their own nation.  That is not a Civil War - CW means the South would have tried to occupy Washington.  It was really the 2nd Rev. War for Independence.  If you want to understand why it was fought you look at what the winner imposed

    13th, 14th Amendments and the Organic Act of 1871

    13 - made VOLUNTARY Servitude OK

    14 - brought state citizens under the jurisdiction of the fed gvt and made them liable for fed debt

    O.A. - incorporated the fed govt and made it SUPERIOR to the states (prior, the states created the fed and since 1871, the fed created the states)

     




    It is far more complicated than that.  I have spent hours and hours studying this and I still have only scratched the surface.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    In retrospect had the South and North just became separate countries, it might have saved thousands of lives over the years. The differences between the Southern and Northern colonies were vast and their common thread was interference from the King's rule.




    I was born in boston but now live in northern virginia.  When in the north I heard that point of view now in the south I hear the opposite.  Some people don't think northern virginia is the south, they call it occupied virginia and indeed it is!

    I decided to study the civil war to see where the truth lies and I have found that there is some truth on both sides.  It is a complicated issue, so much so that it would be impossible to discuss here.

    In the simplest terms lincoln felt it was necessary that this country, the experimental republic stand against all odds.  He felt if it failed here it would not succeed anywhere.

    I sometimes wonder where we would be if the united states became divided.  Would we become two, three or even more countries?  Would we end up looking like europe?  If we did end up looking like europe would we have been able to turn back hitler?

    Nature abhors a vacuum so if we don't stand against those who are trying to overtake the world then who will?




    The state voluntarily joined the Union.  Later, they wanted to voluntarily leave the Union.  Lincoln said "NO" - he wanted to keep the Southern States under his jurisdiction.  All the states wanted to do was form their own nation.  That is not a Civil War - CW means the South would have tried to occupy Washington.  It was really the 2nd Rev. War for Independence.  If you want to understand why it was fought you look at what the winner imposed

    13th, 14th Amendments and the Organic Act of 1871

    13 - made VOLUNTARY Servitude OK

    14 - brought state citizens under the jurisdiction of the fed gvt and made them liable for fed debt

    O.A. - incorporated the fed govt and made it SUPERIOR to the states (prior, the states created the fed and since 1871, the fed created the states)

     




    It is far more complicated than that.  I have spent hours and hours studying this and I still have only scratched the surface.




    yes there are many more details and I have studies it for hours and hours too

    but you don't have to over complicate it

    the reason for the war was the new "laws" that were passed after it

    those laws would not had passed with consent from the South

    So the North had to impose their will

    Win the war and then could pass it

    People think things just went on like normal

    Both sides shook hands and slaves were freed

    Deeper changes happened than would ever be taught in text books

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:


    In response to 67redsox's comment:


    In response to andrewmitch's comment:


    In response to 67redsox's comment:


    In response to dannycater's comment:


    In retrospect had the South and North just became separate countries, it might have saved thousands of lives over the years. The differences between the Southern and Northern colonies were vast and their common thread was interference from the King's rule.





    I was born in boston but now live in northern virginia.  When in the north I heard that point of view now in the south I hear the opposite.  Some people don't think northern virginia is the south, they call it occupied virginia and indeed it is!


    I decided to study the civil war to see where the truth lies and I have found that there is some truth on both sides.  It is a complicated issue, so much so that it would be impossible to discuss here.


    In the simplest terms lincoln felt it was necessary that this country, the experimental republic stand against all odds.  He felt if it failed here it would not succeed anywhere.


    I sometimes wonder where we would be if the united states became divided.  Would we become two, three or even more countries?  Would we end up looking like europe?  If we did end up looking like europe would we have been able to turn back hitler?


    Nature abhors a vacuum so if we don't stand against those who are trying to overtake the world then who will?





    The state voluntarily joined the Union.  Later, they wanted to voluntarily leave the Union.  Lincoln said "NO" - he wanted to keep the Southern States under his jurisdiction.  All the states wanted to do was form their own nation.  That is not a Civil War - CW means the South would have tried to occupy Washington.  It was really the 2nd Rev. War for Independence.  If you want to understand why it was fought you look at what the winner imposed


    13th, 14th Amendments and the Organic Act of 1871


    13 - made VOLUNTARY Servitude OK


    14 - brought state citizens under the jurisdiction of the fed gvt and made them liable for fed debt


    O.A. - incorporated the fed govt and made it SUPERIOR to the states (prior, the states created the fed and since 1871, the fed created the states)


     





    It is far more complicated than that.  I have spent hours and hours studying this and I still have only scratched the surface.





    yes there are many more details and I have studies it for hours and hours too


    but you don't have to over complicate it


    the reason for the war was the new "laws" that were passed after it


    those laws would not had passed with consent from the South


    So the North had to impose their will


    Win the war and then could pass it


    People think things just went on like normal


    Both sides shook hands and slaves were freed


    Deeper changes happened than would ever be taught in text books



    Sorry andrew but my studies have led me to believe that there were much deeper and far more complicated reasons for the war.  Since it's impossible to get into all the reasons here I will just leave it at that.

    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    In retrospect had the South and North just became separate countries, it might have saved thousands of lives over the years. The differences between the Southern and Northern colonies were vast and their common thread was interference from the King's rule.




    I was born in boston but now live in northern virginia.  When in the north I heard that point of view now in the south I hear the opposite.  Some people don't think northern virginia is the south, they call it occupied virginia and indeed it is!

    I decided to study the civil war to see where the truth lies and I have found that there is some truth on both sides.  It is a complicated issue, so much so that it would be impossible to discuss here.

    In the simplest terms lincoln felt it was necessary that this country, the experimental republic stand against all odds.  He felt if it failed here it would not succeed anywhere.

    I sometimes wonder where we would be if the united states became divided.  Would we become two, three or even more countries?  Would we end up looking like europe?  If we did end up looking like europe would we have been able to turn back hitler?

    Nature abhors a vacuum so if we don't stand against those who are trying to overtake the world then who will?




    The state voluntarily joined the Union.  Later, they wanted to voluntarily leave the Union.  Lincoln said "NO" - he wanted to keep the Southern States under his jurisdiction.  All the states wanted to do was form their own nation.  That is not a Civil War - CW means the South would have tried to occupy Washington.  It was really the 2nd Rev. War for Independence.  If you want to understand why it was fought you look at what the winner imposed

    13th, 14th Amendments and the Organic Act of 1871

    13 - made VOLUNTARY Servitude OK

    14 - brought state citizens under the jurisdiction of the fed gvt and made them liable for fed debt

    O.A. - incorporated the fed govt and made it SUPERIOR to the states (prior, the states created the fed and since 1871, the fed created the states)

     




    It is far more complicated than that.  I have spent hours and hours studying this and I still have only scratched the surface.




    yes there are many more details and I have studies it for hours and hours too

    but you don't have to over complicate it

    the reason for the war was the new "laws" that were passed after it

    those laws would not had passed with consent from the South

    So the North had to impose their will

    Win the war and then could pass it

    People think things just went on like normal

    Both sides shook hands and slaves were freed

    Deeper changes happened than would ever be taught in text books




    You have to be one of the few people in this country who sound unhappy about the North winning the civil war, and the freeing of slaves.  You're clearly in a league of yourown Andrewmitch, as you sound ever embittered about the south having lost the Civil War, and consequently losing their bid for cessation from The United States of America.  Perhaps I'm missing something, but you also seem troubled by the South losing the right to own slaves?

    Am I missing something here Andrewmitch?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    I know this is slightly off topic but I figured I'd toss this question out to the forum. I enjoy watching soccer and often try to catch some of the Premier League games. I've been watching a little more here and there with the start of the World Cup ( hopefully my enjoyment of Soccer does not get my BDC Sox forum card revoked!).

     

    One cannot help but notice that many other countries sing along with their National Anthems..loudly, proudly, and passionately. In fact in Brazil's opening match, the team continued on with a second verse even after the music stopped.

     

    So..my question is this. Why, in America, do we sit back so passively when our Anthem is being sung. It is only on the rarest of occasions ( games after a tragedy such as 911 or the Boston Bombings). I remember the Bruins game shortly after the Marathon Bombings where everyone in the Garden sang out loudly. We don't do that as a rule though..and I guess I am just wondering why?

     

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)



    The answer to this is simple.

    It's a cultural thing.  Some people find it rude to stare in the eyes or shake hands.  It doesn't mean we have less of a sense of nationalism than other countries because we don't sign our national anthem.

    Someone in another country might be asking....how come all we do is belligerently sing along with our country anthem when other country's stand proud with their hands over their hearts, or the salute???

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

     

    It appears that I am pretty much alone in my concerns.  Not good.

    Very interesting story today in the Washington Times.  Cheryl Chumley wrote a book entitled "Police State USA: How George Orwell's Nightmare is Becoming our Reality"

    "The Founding Fathers wouldn't recognize America today. The God-given freedoms they championed in the Bill of Rights have been chipped away over the years by an ever-intrusive government bent on controlling all aspects of our lives in the name of safety and security. NSA wire-tapping and data collection is Orwellian in its scope. The TSA, BLM, and IRS are all jockeying for control of our lives. Warrantless searches are on the rise and even encouraged in some communities. Free speech, the right to bear arms, private property, and freedom of religion all are under attack. The Constitution has been tossed on the same trash pile as the Bible.”

    Spying is one thing, but control is, in fact, key. During the Obama administration, most of us have grown concerned about the massive buy-up of ammunition of various federal agencies. The U.S. Postal Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Commerce Department and even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among so many other agencies, have acquired billions of rounds of ammunition.

    In an article for Newsmax, Mrs. Chumley spoke with Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who asked a telling question: “Why exactly does a weather service need ammunition?
    “NOAA — really? They have a need? One just doesn't know why they’re doing this,” he said. “The problem is, all these agencies have their own SWAT teams, their own police departments, which is crazy. In theory, it was supposed to be the U.S. marshals that was the armed branch for the federal government.”

    In addition to mini-police forces attached to federal agencies, Mrs. Chumley addresses the “acquisition by police departments of major battlefield equipment emboldens officials to strong-arm those they should be protecting.”

    The New York Times reports, “During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.”

    Silencers? Machine guns? Now why would local law enforcement need that sort of gear?

    They do if they’re conditioning everyone, including local law enforcement itself, to believe that a police state is necessary and inevitable. The good news is, that’s a lie. It doesn’t have to be either. Speaking to a solution, Cheryl Chumley’s book concludes with a call to “Throw the bums out — why virtue, accountability are key.”

    It’s one thing to have this unfold, and quite another to allow it to continue. One of the first things necessary to take back this nation is becoming informed. “Police State USA” is the book that will get you there and inspire you to defend this nation from big government zealots who believe you won’t notice what they’re up to."

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/

    I don't care which side of the aisle you're on this is scary and just plain wrong.  If you want to read more just click on the link.

    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.  

    Eleanor Roosevelt











     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    I know this is slightly off topic but I figured I'd toss this question out to the forum. I enjoy watching soccer and often try to catch some of the Premier League games. I've been watching a little more here and there with the start of the World Cup ( hopefully my enjoyment of Soccer does not get my BDC Sox forum card revoked!).

     

    One cannot help but notice that many other countries sing along with their National Anthems..loudly, proudly, and passionately. In fact in Brazil's opening match, the team continued on with a second verse even after the music stopped.

     

    So..my question is this. Why, in America, do we sit back so passively when our Anthem is being sung. It is only on the rarest of occasions ( games after a tragedy such as 911 or the Boston Bombings). I remember the Bruins game shortly after the Marathon Bombings where everyone in the Garden sang out loudly. We don't do that as a rule though..and I guess I am just wondering why?

     

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)



    The answer to this is simple.

    It's a cultural thing.  Some people find it rude to stare in the eyes or shake hands.  It doesn't mean we have less of a sense of nationalism than other countries because we don't sign our national anthem.

    Someone in another country might be asking....how come all we do is belligerently sing along with our country anthem when other country's stand proud with their hands over their hearts, or the salute???

    When I was young we used to sing at fenway all the time, it was fun.  I think once they started having soloist lead the anthem people stopped singing because they thought it was rude to sing over the soloist.  This is how my husband feels.  


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    Very interesting story today in the Washinton Times.  Cheryl Chumley wrote a book entitled "Police State USA: How George Orwell's Nightmare is Becoming our Reality"

    "The Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize America today. The God-given freedoms they championed in the Bill of Rights have been chipped away over the years by an ever-intrusive government bent on controlling all aspects of our lives in the name of safety and security. NSA wire-tapping and data collection is Orwellian in its scope. The TSA, BLM, and IRS are all jockeying for control of our lives. Warrantless searches are on the rise and even encouraged in some communities. Free speech, the right to bear arms, private property, and freedom of religion all are under attack. The Constitution has been tossed on the same trash pile as the Bible.”

    Spying is one thing, but control is, in fact, key. During the Obama administration, most of us have grown concerned about the massive buy-up of ammunition of various federal agencies. The U.S. Postal Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Commerce Department and even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among so many other agencies, have acquired billions of rounds of ammunition.

    In an article for Newsmax, Mrs. Chumley spoke with Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who asked a telling question: “Why exactly does a weather service need ammunition?
    “NOAA — really? They have a need? One just doesn’t know why they’re doing this,” he said. “The problem is, all these agencies have their own SWAT teams, their own police departments, which is crazy. In theory, it was supposed to be the U.S. marshals that was the armed branch for the federal government.”

    In addition to mini-police forces attached to federal agencies, Mrs. Chumley addresses the “acquisition by police departments of major battlefield equipment emboldens officials to strong-arm those they should be protecting.”

    The New York Times reports, “During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.”

    Silencers? Machine guns? Now why would local law enforcement need that sort of gear?

    They do if they’re conditioning everyone, including local law enforcement itself, to believe that a police state is necessary and inevitable. The good news is, that’s a lie. It doesn’t have to be either. Speaking to a solution, Cheryl Chumley’s book concludes with a call to “Throw the bums out — why virtue, accountability are key.”

    It’s one thing to have this unfold, and quite another to allow it to continue. One of the first things necessary to take back this nation is becoming informed. “Police State USA” is the book that will get you there and inspire you to defend this nation from big government zealots who believe you won’t notice what they’re up to."

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/

    I don't care which side of the aisle you're on this is scary and just plain wrong.  If you want to read more just click on the link.

    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.  

    Eleanor Roosevelt











     




    1984 was about 25 years too late, but it's here now



    I don't know about the rest of the people here but this makes me shudder.
    [object HTMLDivElement]



    You should move to SHUDDER ISLAND.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to BogieAt12oclock's comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    Very interesting story today in the Washinton Times.  Cheryl Chumley wrote a book entitled "Police State USA: How George Orwell's Nightmare is Becoming our Reality"

    "The Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize America today. The God-given freedoms they championed in the Bill of Rights have been chipped away over the years by an ever-intrusive government bent on controlling all aspects of our lives in the name of safety and security. NSA wire-tapping and data collection is Orwellian in its scope. The TSA, BLM, and IRS are all jockeying for control of our lives. Warrantless searches are on the rise and even encouraged in some communities. Free speech, the right to bear arms, private property, and freedom of religion all are under attack. The Constitution has been tossed on the same trash pile as the Bible.”

    Spying is one thing, but control is, in fact, key. During the Obama administration, most of us have grown concerned about the massive buy-up of ammunition of various federal agencies. The U.S. Postal Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Commerce Department and even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among so many other agencies, have acquired billions of rounds of ammunition.

    In an article for Newsmax, Mrs. Chumley spoke with Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who asked a telling question: “Why exactly does a weather service need ammunition?
    “NOAA — really? They have a need? One just doesn’t know why they’re doing this,” he said. “The problem is, all these agencies have their own SWAT teams, their own police departments, which is crazy. In theory, it was supposed to be the U.S. marshals that was the armed branch for the federal government.”

    In addition to mini-police forces attached to federal agencies, Mrs. Chumley addresses the “acquisition by police departments of major battlefield equipment emboldens officials to strong-arm those they should be protecting.”

    The New York Times reports, “During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.”

    Silencers? Machine guns? Now why would local law enforcement need that sort of gear?

    They do if they’re conditioning everyone, including local law enforcement itself, to believe that a police state is necessary and inevitable. The good news is, that’s a lie. It doesn’t have to be either. Speaking to a solution, Cheryl Chumley’s book concludes with a call to “Throw the bums out — why virtue, accountability are key.”

    It’s one thing to have this unfold, and quite another to allow it to continue. One of the first things necessary to take back this nation is becoming informed. “Police State USA” is the book that will get you there and inspire you to defend this nation from big government zealots who believe you won’t notice what they’re up to."

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/

    I don't care which side of the aisle you're on this is scary and just plain wrong.  If you want to read more just click on the link.

    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.  

    Eleanor Roosevelt











     




    1984 was about 25 years too late, but it's here now



    I don't know about the rest of the people here but this makes me shudder.
    [object HTMLDivElement]



    You should move to SHUDDER ISLAND.




    67 actually seems to be trying to clean up her act, so an unprovoked attack seems a bit gratuitous. 

     

    Having said that, Shudder Island was a very good movie!   :)

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:


    In response to BogieAt12oclock's comment:


    In response to 67redsox's comment:


    In response to andrewmitch's comment:


    In response to 67redsox's comment:


    Very interesting story today in the Washinton Times.  Cheryl Chumley wrote a book entitled "Police State USA: How George Orwell's Nightmare is Becoming our Reality"


    "The Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize America today. The God-given freedoms they championed in the Bill of Rights have been chipped away over the years by an ever-intrusive government bent on controlling all aspects of our lives in the name of safety and security. NSA wire-tapping and data collection is Orwellian in its scope. The TSA, BLM, and IRS are all jockeying for control of our lives. Warrantless searches are on the rise and even encouraged in some communities. Free speech, the right to bear arms, private property, and freedom of religion all are under attack. The Constitution has been tossed on the same trash pile as the Bible.”


    Spying is one thing, but control is, in fact, key. During the Obama administration, most of us have grown concerned about the massive buy-up of ammunition of various federal agencies. The U.S. Postal Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Commerce Department and even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among so many other agencies, have acquired billions of rounds of ammunition.


    In an article for Newsmax, Mrs. Chumley spoke with Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who asked a telling question: “Why exactly does a weather service need ammunition?
    “NOAA — really? They have a need? One just doesn’t know why they’re doing this,” he said. “The problem is, all these agencies have their own SWAT teams, their own police departments, which is crazy. In theory, it was supposed to be the U.S. marshals that was the armed branch for the federal government.”


    In addition to mini-police forces attached to federal agencies, Mrs. Chumley addresses the “acquisition by police departments of major battlefield equipment emboldens officials to strong-arm those they should be protecting.”


    The New York Times reports, “During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.”


    Silencers? Machine guns? Now why would local law enforcement need that sort of gear?


    They do if they’re conditioning everyone, including local law enforcement itself, to believe that a police state is necessary and inevitable. The good news is, that’s a lie. It doesn’t have to be either. Speaking to a solution, Cheryl Chumley’s book concludes with a call to “Throw the bums out — why virtue, accountability are key.”


    It’s one thing to have this unfold, and quite another to allow it to continue. One of the first things necessary to take back this nation is becoming informed. “Police State USA” is the book that will get you there and inspire you to defend this nation from big government zealots who believe you won’t notice what they’re up to."


    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/bruceraising-a-police-state-army/


    I don't care which side of the aisle you're on this is scary and just plain wrong.  If you want to read more just click on the link.


    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.  


    Eleanor Roosevelt











     





    1984 was about 25 years too late, but it's here now





    I don't know about the rest of the people here but this makes me shudder.
    [object HTMLDivElement]




    You should move to SHUDDER ISLAND.






    67 actually seems to be trying to clean up her act, so an unprovoked attack seems a bit gratuitous. 


     


    Having said that, Shudder Island was a very good movie!   :)




    The guy who wrote the novel is from Boston; his name is Denis Lehane. One of this country's best novelists.


    Btw, it wasn't an attack; all people who shudder should live there.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

     

     I was hoping this was about Radiohead.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     I was hoping this was about Radiohead.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Me too.  Great f*&kin' song.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    Ben Franklin fathered an illegitimate son. He also became estranged from his son when his son took the side of the Loyalists. He never reconciled with him. Is this an example of virtuous behavior?




    I didn't say we all had to be perfect because no one is perfect.  We can all strive to be virtuous and sometimes that takes a life time but it's worth the effort.  It's certainly worth the effort when it comes to our country don't you think?



    I asked if this was virtuous behavior. You said lack of such behavior was the problem today. Wasn't it also a problem in Franklin's time? Were people really more virtuous then?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    Ben Franklin fathered an illegitimate son. He also became estranged from his son when his son took the side of the Loyalists. He never reconciled with him. Is this an example of virtuous behavior?




    I didn't say we all had to be perfect because no one is perfect.  We can all strive to be virtuous and sometimes that takes a life time but it's worth the effort.  It's certainly worth the effort when it comes to our country don't you think?



    I asked if this was virtuous behavior. You said lack of such behavior was the problem today. Wasn't it also a problem in Franklin's time? Were people really more virtuous then?



      Perfect in every way no, more virtuous than today yes.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    Forget the Civil War. How many colonists voluntarily supported the Revolution? It was not unanimous nor even a majority. Was violent action against British rule really justified? Did the ends justify the means? Is killing for liberty a virtuous act?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    Forget the Civil War. How many colonists voluntarily supported the Revolution? It was not unanimous nor even a majority. Was violent action against British rule really justified? Did the ends justify the means? Is killing for liberty a virtuous act?



    .

    Are you freaking kidding?  What is the point here?  to out lunatic Andrew?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    Forget the Civil War. How many colonists voluntarily supported the Revolution? It was not unanimous nor even a majority. Was violent action against British rule really justified? Did the ends justify the means? Is killing for liberty a virtuous act?




    You must be reading your kid's text books  I realize there are those who want to demonize the history of america but I'm not one of them.

    The reasons for the revolutionary war are many and again this is not the place to bring them all up.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    Oh wait.   Our founders should have sucked it up, paid confiscatory taxes, and quartered British soldiers happily.  Perhaps offering up their wives as often as possible to boot.

    Yeh!  I guess you're right.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    Taking your first sociology course at the local Community college are we?     LOL

    Seriously dude.......   Take an Econ. class.  Lots of openings in dental hygienist programs.....   One that might someday net you a JOB, as opposed to simply muddling your already waning grasp on reality.  

    You might want to also do a bit of reading on U.S. history?  Just a thought.....

     

    OY VEY!    ;)

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     I was hoping this was about Radiohead.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Me too.  Great f*&kin' song.




    One of my favourites 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    Forget the Civil War. How many colonists voluntarily supported the Revolution? It was not unanimous nor even a majority. Was violent action against British rule really justified? Did the ends justify the means? Is killing for liberty a virtuous act?



    .

    Are you freaking kidding?  What is the point here?  to out lunatic Andrew?



    And you didn't respond to the content of my post but resorted to personal attack. Simply because the Revolution took place doesn't mean we can't question its motivation or how it was carried out. Every successful revolution writes its own history and justifies its actions. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Slightly off topic...but The National Anthem

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    Taking your first sociology course at the local Community college are we?     LOL

    Seriously dude.......   Take an Econ. class.  Lots of openings in dental hygienist programs.....   One that might someday net you a JOB, as opposed to simply muddling your already waning grasp on reality.  

    You might want to also do a bit of reading on U.S. history?  Just a thought.....

     

    OY VEY!    ;)




    I have taken econ courses and read American history. Once again you resort to personal attacks questioning my intelligence. All I did was ask debateable questions. However it appears that you know everything and you have decided there is nothing up for debate. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share