Does anyone fear that the internet...

[Abyss]

Was the american revolution won through peaceful truth?

Sometimes you have to get physical. It always boils down to agressive encounteres before real changes are made anyway.

 

[The Machine]

It frightens and saddens me that so many of you sound so ready to use your guns in anger.

I watched the movie "Gandhi" again last night. There's a scene where Margaret Bourke-White asks Gandhi whether his non-violent strategy would be effective against someone like Hitler. Gandhi nodded sadly and admitted that there will be many defeats. But he added that history shows that there have been many tyrants in the world and every one of them fell eventually. Truth endures.

We cannot defeat the Enemy with weapons, because He outguns us a millionfold. We can defeat him by upholding the Good and by refusing to become Evil ourselves.

As long as there are people who recognize cruelty and tyranny for what it is, there is reason for hope. It might be only a tiny Remnant for a while, but that sense of decency is something to protect and nurture. I will do my part by trying to keep it alive in myself and in my children.
.

I don't get the impression that "so many of you sound so ready to use your guns in anger"; I think you might be reading too much into it. Pacifism and diplomacy are a good start and work to a point.

The authors of the Bill of Rights were intelligent and insightful, among other things. If they thought Pacifism was the solution, maybe the Second Ammendment would have wording such as "The right to bear signs and baskets of fruit"--it doesn't!

The American Indians were very peaceful and accommodating to the first Europeans--don't be fooled if you were taught otherwise--and the fruits of their efforts amounted to the largest, most down-played, mass genocide that the world has witnessed. Guess what? The Europeans had guns and germs to do their bidding. Eventually, the Indians obtained the same weapons and became resistant to the germs--so the playing field was leveled somewhat--and some of their race survived. If the Indians didn't resist, some still would have survived, living a life of servatude. Instead, they were allowed life on the reservation; almost, but not quite as bad.

I am just trying to give you another perspective on the subject of defending liberty. The biggest threat to the establishment right now, is the ability of freedom and liberty loving people to communicate (internet) and defend (guns) themselves. That is what these folks are referencing in this thread...I think. Some people choose to take an alternative approach to self-preservation; i.e. liberty. I certainly respect your liberty and view points as well.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to take your kids to the firing range and teach them gun safety...just in case you change your mind.

 

[RonRules]

Watch out for IPTV. Joost TV is one example. It's a program that takes over your computer, no need for a browser, no possibility to enter a web address, no user generated content.

Tracks everything you do, online.

All pre-programmed for your enjoyment!

 

[RPinUptownChi]

--

 

[WilliamC]

Didn't a number of undersea cables feeding internet service to the middle east just get accidentally cut?

hummm.....

 

[thuja]

do we have to resume letter writing and depend upon each other to deliver that mail, since the post office may just be too busy checking on us and our mail to be tusted to deliver it?

i must be getting hysterical, excuse me.

 

[sajorojas]

Didn't a number of undersea cables feeding internet service to the middle east just get accidentally cut?

hummm.....

Yes, about four undersea cables that were hundreds of miles apart were mysteriously cut recently. Many countries have lost all internet access. But surely it was an accident. Even though these cables are some of the strongest and most resilient on the planet.

 

[4RPinKC]

This thread was just posted on a message board where I have been trying to convince folks Ron Paul is not nuts. Thanks alot for all the help you all are giving the sane Paul supporters who are trying to won over undecided voters.

 

[CorkyAgain]

This thread was just posted on a message board where I have been trying to convince folks Ron Paul is not nuts. Thanks alot for all the help you all are giving the sane Paul supporters who are trying to won over undecided voters.

Here's what you tell them if they're worried about that:

Ron Paul isn't nuts, but some of his supporters are.

Liberty is for everyone, including the nuts, as long as they don't violate anyone else's rights.

One of the more disturbing trends in our society is the tendency to use the "paranoid conspiracy theory" label to marginalize and forestall any discussion of possible threats to our liberty. Now legislators are considering laws that will legally brand any such discussion as subversive, and will subject the participants to surveillance and possible imprisonment. As the old saying goes "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." Instead of acting ashamed of the "nuts" in the RP camp and trying to read them out of the movement, perhaps you should be explaining to your listeners what the government is doing that's provoking the "nut's" to react the way they are.

 

[Dennis Peterson]

Y'all have got to be kidding me

Do you guys have the faintest clue what Net Neutrality is?

It's the idea that internet packets all get passed through without prejudice. No filtering, no charging extra to visit certain websites, no special high-speed routing for FOXNews.com, none of that.

If you'd rather have the major media we all know and love fiddling with the Internet, then go ahead, oppose net neutrality. They do.

Outfits like AT&T would love to be able to filter networks. They'd love to extort extra money from Google for the bandwidth it's already paying for. They'd love to sell you a cheap internet connection that gives you access to 200 media sites, and a more expensive one with 2000, and make you pay through the nose for unlimited.

Why not? It's their lines, right?

Network neutrality is nothing other than the principle the Internet was designed around. Now the telecoms and media companies are trying to change that, so they can regain control. And they're doing their level best to convince everybody that network neutrality is the opposite of what it really is - the only guarantee of free speech we have left.

Try to see through their propaganda. An internet-based grassroots political movement opposing network neutrality is about the most self-destructive thing I can think of.

(Now, if they pass a bill that calls itself Net Neutrality but does the opposite, that's another matter. But why would they bother - right now, AT&T can play all those games I mentioned, and it would be perfectly legal. They haven't done it much, yet, but they're starting to.)