| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
Just to be clear, the bill does not single out the internet ---
it says (611p2A) "distribute by any means information pertaining to, in
whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive,
destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction", so this
would pertain just as well to books as to internet discussions.
A chemistry or physics professor who explains how explosives
work or writes about them in a textbook or a librarian who helps
someone locate books on explosives could also be in hot water.
To be sure, it is limited by an intent clause, so I suspect the primary
reason for this is to slap extra charges on people, but intent is open
to interpretation, so I won't put too much weight in that clause should
the bill pass.
It goes without saying that this completely flies in the face of freedom
of speech and freedom of press, but freedoms are as often only honored
in the breach. When I get a chance, I will have a look to see what the
EFF has to say about this.
[Edited on 11-1-2008 by microcosmicus]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
`(p) DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVES,
DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION-
`(1) DEFINITIONS- In this subsection--
`(A) the term `destructive device' has the same meaning as in section 581;
`(B) the term `explosive' has the same meaning as in section 614; and
`(C) the term `weapon of mass destruction' has the same meaning as in section
271.
`(2) Prohibition- It shall be unlawful for any person--
`(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive
device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information
pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive
device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or
information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of
violence; or
`(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a
destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any
means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an
explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person
intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an
activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.
Oh my god. This will be the last straw for me. This is the biggest and most outright violation of the first amendment I have ever seen in my life.
Notice how they tried to hide it in the middle? They did that 21 years ago with the Firearms Owner's Protection Act.
We cannot allow this to pass.
EDIT
Also, from what I understand 'explosive' includes black powder and safety fuse according to the definitions at the beginning of the bill.
[Edited on 11-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
| Quote: |
Also, from what I understand 'explosive' includes black powder and safety fuse
according to the definitions at the beginning of the bill.
|
It is made explicit in the middle of the bill (top of section 611):
| Quote: |
the term `explosives' means any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion; the term
includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses,
squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters
|
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
It shall be unlawful for any person.... to teach or demonstrate to any person the making...of an explosive...or weapon of mass destruction...in whole
or in part
|
There goes all chemistry books, if it is applied in the most naziesque manner.
Anyone ever read university texts from the 50s? Enough info(and in their own well noted sections!) there for mustard gas, lewisite RDX, TNT, etc
hello 1984
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
I had a closer look at this bill and, sad to say, the part discussed
above is just the tip of the iceberg. Passing over the sections
which would put the Founding Fathers behind bars to get to the parts
that could impact the sort of activities which go on around this bulletin
board, I noted the following:
From the summary:
Provides for the punishment of attempts and conspiracies to commit a
crime on the same basis as the completed offense, as a general rule.
As noted here, people have gotten into trouble with the law simply because
they happened to have solvents and other chemicals which could have
been used to make drugs. This would open the door to doing likewise in
all sort of cases.
Section 408:
OFFENSE- Whoever knowingly--
. . .
possesses or distributes, a listed chemical knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the listed chemical will be used to manufacture a
controlled substance except as authorized by the Controlled Substances Act
. .
shall be imprisoned not more than 20 years in the case of a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) involving a list I chemical or not more than 10 years in
any other case
. . .
. . .
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT GENERALLY- It shall be unlawful for any person--
. . .
to distribute a laboratory supply to a person who uses, or attempts to use, that laboratory supply to manufacture a controlled substance
or a listed chemical, in violation of the Controlled Substances Act or the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, with reckless disregard for
the illegal uses to which such a laboratory supply will be put.
`(b) DEFINITION- As used in subsection (a)(11), the term `laboratory supply' means a listed chemical or any chemical, substance, or item on a
special surveillance list published by the Attorney General, which contains chemicals, products, materials, or equipment used in the manufacture of
controlled substances and listed chemicals.
. . .
GENERALLY- It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly--
. . .
to manufacture, distribute, export, or import any three-neck round-bottom flask, tableting machine, encapsulating machine, or gelatin capsule, or any
equipment, chemical, product, or material which may be used to manufacture a controlled substance or listed chemical, knowing, intending, or having
reasonable cause to believe, that it will be used to manufacture a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this title, the Controlled
Substances Act, or the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act or, in the case of an exportation, in violation of this title, the Controlled
Substances Act, the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, or of the laws of the country to which it is exported;
Bye, bye chemical shop. Given that a store which offers
chemicals and scientific apparatus to the general public would
be at risk of being prosecuted should something they sell get used
in drug cooking, I would expect that the few such stores
which remain would consider this risk too great and stop selling
to private individuals (or be busted, but either way the result
would be the same).
From subchapter F
In general- The term `toxic chemical' means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation
or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and
regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
. . .
In general- The term `precursor' means any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical.
The term includes any key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.
. . .
Chemical weapon- The term `chemical weapon' means the following, together or separately:
`(A) A toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this chapter as long as the type and quantity is
consistent with such a purpose.
. . .
The term `purposes not prohibited by this chapter' means the following:
. . .
Peaceful purposes- Any peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity.
. . .
. . .
Unlawful Conduct- Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly--
`(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use,
any chemical weapon; or
`(2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).
. . .
`(1) In general- Any person who violates section 631 of this title shall be imprisoned for any term of years.
`(2) Death penalty- Any person who violates section 631 of this title and by whose action the death of another person is the result shall be punished
by death or imprisoned for life.
Given the rather broad definition, this worries me --- most chemicals,
if not toxic themselves, could easily enough be used in the synthesis of
some poison, hence could qualify as chemical weapon. Stockpiling,
owning, and making sounds like what usually goes on in labs. To be sure,
there is the part about intended purpose, but then there is the issue
of how likely judges and juries are to accept what goes on in a home
lab as legitimate research or otherwise acceptable activity.
Again, there is this element of being held responsible for what others
do with information. Suppose that someone looked on this forum for
information on producing Cl2 and asked for clarification of the procedure,
then turned around and did something nasty like let loose a bottle full
of the stuff in a public place with grevious effect. Given "assist in any
way", that would make the person who answered the questions or
wrote up the synthesis equally guilty in the eyes of this law. To be sure,
I see that people around here are quite good about not answering
questions if it seems that someone is asking for reasons other than
scientific curiosity, but there is only so far one can go. Also, as a matter
of principle, I question this notion of restricting information and holding
information providers liable for misuse of information (yet another
instance of screwed-up notions of liability).
Just for completeness, they even threw in a section about ammonia!
(sect. 416)
(a) It is unlawful for any person--
`(1) to steal anhydrous ammonia, or
`(2) to transport stolen anhydrous ammonia across State lines,
knowing, intending, or having reasonable cause to believe that such anhydrous ammonia will be used to manufacture a controlled substance in
violation of this part.
Even if things would not go as badly as I outlined above, there is plenty in
this bill to worry me. Given how precarious the situation of amateur
science already is, this could be the straw which breaks the camel's back.
I don't know enough about Washington to make a reasonable estimate of
how likely this bill is to pass. However, it definitely seems worth keeping
an eye on it. Also, given its scope --- it would affect all sorts of people, not
just amateur scientists --- and the cavalier way which it tramples over rights,
I cannot see how the ACLU, EFF, and similar groups are not going to raise a
big stink should there be any chance of passing. If that happens, we should
consider add our voices to theirs to point out how woefully misguided
this legislation is.
|
|
|
Fleaker
International Hazard
Posts: 1252
Registered: 19-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: nucleophilic
|
|
While some of the bill is necessary and makes sense (i.e. stolen anhydrous ammonia), the rest is disgusting, absolutely so.
I don't understand how one could be culpable for supplying information on how something is done or answering a question or even supplying lab
equipment. If someone were prosecuted for that I would be outraged. It is analogous to arresting the store clerk that unknowingly sold the bullets
used in a homicide. How is the purveyor of lab goods and chemicals to ensure that they are to be used responsibly? How is the gun store owner to be
sure that the weapons he sells will be used responsibly?
This legislation isn't just misguided, it's downright treason.
Neither flask nor beaker.
"Kid, you don't even know just what you don't know. "
--The Dark Lord Sauron
|
|
|
chloric1
International Hazard
Posts: 1136
Registered: 8-10-2003
Location: GroupVII of the periodic table
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stoichiometrically Balanced
|
|
Well Fleaker, the reason for the clause for persecuting lab suppliers as opposed to gun shop owners is simple. In the eyes of the establishment, a
citizen with a well stocked home lab and the knowledge to operate it is far more dangerous than someone with a basement of guns and ammo. I think
this is because with the right equipment, a home chemist can grab materials from virtually anywhere and make whatever they need.
But whatever the case, it is not only unconstistutional, but violates personal rights on the most basic level. How much more control can we give to
these power lust thugs? What will it take for a revolution. Is there going to be a massive civilation upheavel with new countries and governments?
Everyday I ask these questions hoping for change.
[Edited on 1/12/2008 by chloric1]
Fellow molecular manipulator
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by chloric1
with a well stocked home lab and the knowledge to operate it is far more dangerous |
My friend, it's the KNOWLEDGE.... not the lab, not the bullets; just the knowledge...
The Nazis burned books before people, the Soviets crushed men's minds before their bodies because the mind has the power to shape the action.*
I encourage all of you to visit the various sites that have posted laws pending review of Bills before committee or rulings. KNOW what the fuck is
being debated, by who, & when it may be made law. LEARN who is doing what to whom.
The tragedy is that it is NOT the Democrats or Republicans, Whigs or Tory's doing. They ALL perpetrate this shit. You cannot say with a bit of
confidence that Hillery will not crush your rights and Bush will put you in a camp. Or vice-versa. the moment you fall for voting party line, you
loose. Their job is to keep their job.
The reason why America has some of the lowest functioning schools in the civilized world is the Teacher's Union has their own self interest as a
primary footing. There really cannot be another explanation as any organizational group MUST put it's self preservation first. And when the essence of
that group is SUPPOSEDLY to do some selfless thing like teach children (or help the public), you can see how that will NOT be it's primary concern!
The same condition exists for elected officials. Term limits would have had some impact....and look where that went!
*(That's why I always laugh at the expression "muscle memory", as if muscles remember anything...)
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
@chloric1
Careful, there is not really a scenario here in which scientific supplies
would be singled out. The bill also has a similar proviso for guns:
From section 296:
Whoever-- . . . teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary
device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully
employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce or the performance of any federally
protected function;
shall be imprisoned not more than five years.
There is also a lengthy subchapter Ｂof chapter 21, which deals
with firearms and has a lot to say about gun shops.
As if to underscore how flawed this bill is, posting
| Quote: |
What will it take for a revolution. Is there going to be a massive civilation upheavel with new countries and governments? Everyday I ask these
questions hoping for change.
|
on this bulletin board could land one in jail (section 265):
"IN GENERAL- Whoever-- . . . with intent to cause the overthrow or
destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues,
circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability,
or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United
States by force or violence . . . shall be imprisoned not more than 20
years
Do not come away with the wrong impression from the fact that the
excerpts I posted last night were the ones directly related to chemistry ---
the scope of this bill is quite broad, not just dealing with issues related to
terrorism, but also having sections about domestic violence, abortion,
flag burning, copyright, mail fraud, embezzling Native American tribes,
bankruptcy, and just about every other legal topic under the sun. In short.
what Sensenbrenner proposes to do here is nothing less than completely
overhauling the criminal justice system to reconstruct it on a very different
notion of culpability and liability, with all manner of curious provisions such
as victim impact statements in copyright cases.
Exactly because this is so far-reaching, I have the most hope that it will
never become law. Were the bill narrowly focussed on terrorism and drugs
and the only innocent bystanders citizen scientists and similar marginal
groups, I would consider enactment into law a foregone conclusion.
With the broad focus, however, this is going to upset feminists, gun lobby,
and just about anyone who at all cares about freedom so there is going to
be pretty broad opposition.
Even more to the point, this is not the first time this bill was introduced.
He proposed substantially the same act as H.R. 6253 in 2006, but nothing
came of that, so I suspect that this bill will not become law either. To me,
a more realistic possibility is that he might sneak some of the provisions of
his bill, such as the stuff about chemical weapons of lab supplies, into
some other law and get them enacted that way.
Alright, enough politics for now; back to figuring out what the heck that
yellow precipitate in my test tube might be --- when I make progress in
that investigation, I will post in the titania thread. For those who are
interested in the politics, here are a few links:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Sensenbrenn...
http://sensenbrennerwatch.blogspot.com/
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1070\
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/sensenbrenner-a...
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/07/30/773/87392
I hope the voters of Wisconsin relieve this menace to freedom
of his office ASAP.
[Edited on 12-1-2008 by microcosmicus]
|
|
|
chloric1
International Hazard
Posts: 1136
Registered: 8-10-2003
Location: GroupVII of the periodic table
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stoichiometrically Balanced
|
|
Well it could land us in prison Although I never implicated either you or I being
involved in any violent overthrow or attempted overthrow. So this is worse than many would realize as even theorizing or trying to contemplate future
events is a crime. Oh man this sucks.
[Edited on 1/12/2008 by chloric1]
Fellow molecular manipulator
|
|
|
JohnWW
International Hazard
Posts: 2849
Registered: 27-7-2004
Location: New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What an absolutely DISGU$TING Bill!! For a start, it violates the First, Second (the things they want to ban or prevent the sale of can be classed as
"arms"), and Fourth Amendments. Such a Bill would be totallly unacceptable here in New Zealand. No wonder the U$ education system isgetting so "dumbed
down" if amateur scientific experimenters, along with legitimate industrial chemists, cannot acquire and use such items.
BTW That ban on "three-necked round-bottomed flasks" is pointless, because one can made a single-necked RBF with a wide neck into a 3-necked one by
fitting it with a rubber (or cork or wood or plastic) bung of appropriate diameter through which three holes are bored, and the desired tubes (or a
thermometer in one of them) fitted into those holes.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I never quite understood how our government can say (by way of law) that overthrowing a govt by violence is wrong. Isn't that basically what we did
to make this country? I know the revolution was more like international war than revolution but we still threw out the British govt when you get
right down to it. How else can you overthrow a violent govt except by violence?
I am as much against unnecessary violence as the next guy but you sometimes have to weigh loss of life against the atrocities and human suffering that
are perpetrated on a daily basis by an oppressive govt.
If only it were black and white.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by JohnWW
BTW That ban on "three-necked round-bottomed flasks" is pointless, because one can made a single-necked RBF with a wide neck into a 3-necked one by
fitting it with a rubber (or cork or wood or plastic) bung of appropriate diameter through which three holes are bored, and the desired tubes (or a
thermometer in one of them) fitted into those holes. |
Or putting a stopper in a 4 neck flask, or two in a 5, which shows how absolutely MORONIC those legislators are.
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
I never quite understood how our government can say (by way of law) that overthrowing a govt by violence is wrong. |
Not since the whisky rebellion(forget the year, but it was a long time ago) have members of the gov advocated such things, and even then it was only
Jefferson who did, leading the the famous 'tree of liberty' quote
Also, I would like to see this thread go back to discussion on the chemistry part of legislation, and not onto the overthrowing stuff.
[Edited on 12-1-2008 by The_Davster]
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
Such a law is still of some use against equally moronic cooks
who only know that the instructions said to use a flask with
three holes and are clueless about how to make do if
such a flask is unavailable because they have no real
understanding of what they are doing. Of course, the
problem is that, sooner or later, somebody is going to
tip the cooks off to the fact that they could make do with
four-holed flasks and stoppers. Then the law will be expanded
to include four-holed flasks. This soon escalates into some
sort of "arms race" with the net result that more and more
apparatus and chemicals get banned.
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
| Quote: |
Not since the whisky rebellion (forget the year, but it was a long time ago) have members
of the gov advocated such things, and even then it was only Jefferson who did, leading the
famous 'tree of liberty' quote
|
And let's not forget that, were Jefferson and Franklin around today, they might
well be members of Sciencemadness 
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I just find it hypocritical for a govt to make something illegal that gave it the ability to make laws in the first place. Like Lenin advocating a
law against revolution.
Now, let us get back on topic.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
-jeffB
Hazard to Others
Posts: 185
Registered: 6-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by JohnWW
BTW That ban on "three-necked round-bottomed flasks" is pointless, because one can made a single-necked RBF with a wide neck into a 3-necked one by
fitting it with a rubber (or cork or wood or plastic) bung of appropriate diameter through which three holes are bored, and the desired tubes (or a
thermometer in one of them) fitted into those holes. |
Texas is way ahead of you, requiring a permit for three-neck, two-neck, single-neck, round-bottom, Florence, AND Erlenmeyer flasks.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/criminal_law_enforcement/narcot...
I briefly thought about opening up an eBay storefront that specialized in supplying Texas customers with unregulated four- and five-neck flasks, along
with similarly unregulated plain glass stoppers.  But since nearly all such
flasks have round bottoms, the legal foundation would be a bit shaky. Maybe jacketed flasks with bottom drains would be okay?
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Nearly all glassware is regulated in Texas, whether it has 1 neck or 8 necks, round, flat, cone etc...
One thing that might have been mentioned earlier that I would like to reiterate is the fact that if they can't get rid of crack by banning cocaine
(much more rare than baking soda) what makes them think they can do anything by regulating the bicarbonates?
Also, if you can make crack, you can make pure freebase cocaine with any weak base (ammonia) and something that is immiscible with water that will
dissolve the base. This is so stupid, although not near as stupid as the bill that is being proposed to ban people from TEACHING others to make
explosives. How can you ban conversations? I know they already try to do that with the "advocation violent overthrow" law. Advocating could be me
telling you that violently overthrowing the govt is a good idea. And that would make me a criminal? Fuck that!
[Edited on 13-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
JohnWW
International Hazard
Posts: 2849
Registered: 27-7-2004
Location: New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It is becoming increasingly obvious that, when the Second Revolution comes in the U$A, ALL laws that have been passed, both Federal and in all States,
since 20 January 2001, when Bu$h assumed (was not genuinely elected into) office, will have to be abolished, as the first Act of the new régime! This
applies not only to law$ affecting the supplies of chemicals and laboratory equipment, but also such things as who can buy night-vision goggles and
arms, the DMCA, the Patriot Acts, and laws allowing for greater surveillance and repression of the populace generally. And the day will not be long
before the Revolution comes - by 2010 at the latest, heralded by general economic collapse.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
John,
Please keep your inane ramblings in Whimsy.
Tim
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
2010? That's pretty soon. I think you are jumping the gun, pun intended. What'$ with you doing thi$? It'$ kind of annoying.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
The concept of using the dollar sign is meant to imply that one politician is more focused on financial issues or general money grubbing than another.
Which, of course, is an inane crock of $hit. All elected officials, especially of the two major parties are money-grubbing, financially focused
crooks. Only the politically immature would assume that one party has the interests of "the people" over another.
As we examine this issue in it's totality we see BOTH parties [represented in repressive] attempts via the focus on object restriction to circumvent
human behaviour. Let's not turn this thread into a childish "bashing" discourse. I would leave that for actors in Hollywood who play to a crowd of
youth-centric consumers.
|
|
|
chloric1
International Hazard
Posts: 1136
Registered: 8-10-2003
Location: GroupVII of the periodic table
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stoichiometrically Balanced
|
|
2010 is not as far fetched as you think. Most of the traits of repressive totaltarian dictatorship are already in place or very soon to be
implemented. All that is needed is a "catalyst" of sorts, an event to galvenize the public to widely support further security initiatives to remove
our liberties. Chertoff is getting restless becuase the May 11, 2008 deadline is approaching and the Real ID act is in serious trouble. I could
easily some immigration issue being raised this spring. Maybe a Mexican terrorist attack?
Fellow molecular manipulator
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
BTW, note that the same congressman (Sensenbrenner) is behind this
Real ID act as the bill described at the top of this page! What deadline
is supposed to happen on 11 May?
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Both political party's are full of real shitheads & Sensenbrenner is a dangerous man.
I was a young teen when President Lyndon Johnson used the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to launch us into a full war in S. E. Asia. He then escalated it and
escalated it...till more than half a million men in uniform were there. JFK sent "advisers" there but Johnson cranked it up to it's highest level.
Would we need a "catalyst" today? Perhaps. If so - it's easily manufactured.
The country KNEW that "Tonkin" was very questionable but there is so much money to be made from war that it takes a momentum of it's own after a time.
I remember when I got my induction letter, appointment for my physical & draft card. I remember what that felt like. I remember when the first one
of my circle of friends got drafted. The shit ain't funny when it really happens. I was very young so I was in the Lottery. My number was something
like 300+ so I knew that I might not go if we got out. After Johnson quit and didn't try to get re-elected a good friend came back from overseas. He
HATED Johnson. LBJ used to talk about the "Domino" theory and the communist taking over all of S E Asia.... Folks like to blame Nixon for Vietnam
because he's an easy target and was a crook. But those who grew up then KNEW is was not the media manufactured "bad-guy", Nixon...he was a jerk
alright....but it was the Posturing Good Guys who actually moved the war along.
I think only one candidate for President voted against the sending of troops to the middle east. Don't [for one minute] be fooled....It was NOT
Hillery.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
