From: oldwifetale@yahoo.com   
      
   On Friday, October 10, 2014 12:15:33 AM UTC-7, joshb wrote:   
   > Op 2014-10-08, oldwifetale schreef :   
   >    
   > > On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 7:15:29 AM UTC-7, joshb wrote:   
   >    
   > >> Op 2014-10-07, oldwifetale schreef :   
   >    
   > >>> I said what i had to say. Putting 10,000 words in my mouth that   
   >    
   > >>> i'd never say is not really 'debating' anything.   
   >    
   > >>    
   >    
   > >> What did I put in your mouth ? You support COINTELPRO, you said it.   
   >    
   > >> I even wondered if you knew what COINTERPRO is, not putting more in   
   >    
   > >> your mouth then may be reasonable.   
   >    
   > >   
   >    
   > > Uh, no. I clearly said that i did *not* support any of the   
   >    
   > > illegal methods that might have been used, but that i can   
   >    
   > > see no reason why a counter-intelligence program used to   
   >    
   > > investigate Communist infiltration of militant anti-American   
   >    
   > > and/or hate groups in the 70s was "wrong" or "immoral". I would   
   >    
   > > be supportive of an investigation if that was truly happening   
   >    
   > > or if there were good reasons to think it was happening. Why   
   >    
   > > would i 'not' be? I also wouldn't expect investigators to   
   >    
   > > act 'fairly' in the eyes of people being investigated. I   
   >    
   > > would, however, expect them to act within the law and not be   
   >    
   > > criminals themselves, and that's where i *do* have a problem   
   >    
   > > with COINTELPRO. Don't tell me what i said. I know what i said.   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > Have you thought of the possibility that the American Government   
   >    
   > is waging the wars it is waging, so that people will accept   
   >    
   > tyrannical practices such as COINTELPRO ?    
      
      
   Um, no. Have you thought of the possibility that the Jinn are taking over?   
      
   I think the government has a way of reflecting the leadership or   
   administration, which changes every 4 or 8 years. It changes. There have been   
   many times when America was more isolationist, less inclined to get involved   
   in other people's wars. FDR's    
   administration changed that after Pearl Harbor which was a pretext or reason   
   for going to war with Japan. However, over the past 20-30 years or so (since   
   around 1980), the differences in administrations have been extreme on the   
   surface, but geared toward    
   similar goals that aren't so apparent, but seem to have a great deal to do   
   with a 'New World Order' or some kind of global dominance determined by people   
   who are sitting at the pinnacles of their organizations. And then the last two   
   administrations have    
   seemed like a 1-2 punch from the same hidden contender.     
      
   I think there are people who are running our government who aren't even *in*   
   government positions, and America is not the only one.     
      
      
      
   If there is any merrit   
   >    
   > to such a statement, then what should that mean for the supermacy   
   >    
   > of the making of war over civil rights, or should civil rights    
   >    
   > always have the supremacy over the making of war ?   
      
      
   There's no merit to it, as a reason for war. It's a byproduct of war. Civil   
   rights and human rights are closely connected in America, but they're rights   
   granted to citizens who agree to live under the 'system' of Constitutional   
   Law, the Bill of Rights,    
   etc. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and i   
   don't usually hear anyone objecting to either. It's the 'breaking' of laws   
   inherent in those two documents that i hear about.    
      
   If your nation is at war (whether you're communist, capitalist, or   
   *whatever*), you should not be conspiring with the 'enemy' to cause   
   destruction of your own nation and still expect your nation not to step on   
   your toes because of 'civil rights' that you    
   only have because you're a citizen of a nation you're trying to wreck. I   
   mean... please. Under what other situation could you expect that to fly?   
      
   So while i don't support all the methods used by COINTELPRO in the 60s and   
   early 70's (to 1971, i think) that were based only on suspicion, and certainly   
   wouldn't support assassinations *if* that ever even really happened... if the   
   actions that we    
   actually *know* about were based on evidence rather than suspicion only, then   
   i think the argument would have to change somewhat.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)