Good.
Yes, they are willing tools of the corporations and thus, almost all politicians who get funded have their masters, and that is no question. Having said that there are solutions, as long as we don't define a solution as making excuses for the aggressor. My expectation is that the policies employed by the current egoist, will end in big troubles for those who do want western freedoms. I am paranoid that the dude might be waiting for a grande attack, so he can employ a dictatorship-to protect us, and our "freedom." Why not? In the US we sell votes for a free Trac phone. -----Original Message----- From: LizR <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Feb 2, 2015 8:06 pm Subject: Re: Free Speech is not Free unless it is allowed for every point of view On 3 February 2015 at 13:25, spudboy100 via Everything List <[email protected]> wrote: Agreed so far. I tend towards libertarian small scale solutions and never trusted 43, nor his competence, nor, the people he chiefly, represented. BHO is much much worse, in both incompetence and lies. The man's policies fail, one by one, and thus, will cause troubles not only to his home country, but far off kiwiland as well. Al Qaeda did shoot its bolt 14 years ago, but remember al qaeda means the base, named after the ancient relational database called DB3. The various groups, personnel, funding, areas of control, etc., were all on Bin Ladens littile database. So, in the meantime, all these orgs competed in a darwinian fashion for leadership and have evolved onward into ansar, the other into isis. The fear is that another catastrophe will be created by BHO's negligence, and thus we all will fall into a big war cycle. This event, should it happen will change the politics, but not after lots of carnage. Hating one's home country, as many seem to, will not persuade the perception of the islamists, but likely encourage their agression. That is my view. Also agreed so far. I don't know how 43 and 44 compare (convenient shorthand) in terms of incompetence and lies, but they seem to have mainly proved that... ...and I agree that there is a threat from ISIS etc - what I don't want is to give up our existing feedoms to combat them. To put it bluntly Id' rather live in a land of (relative) freedoms and take the risk that I will be blown up by a terrorist than live in a repressive police state in which every "person of interest" is under surveillance. The price of freedom is constant vigilance, but there is also a tradeoff between freedom and security. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
