patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,261,276 comments by 15,059 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President, AmericanKulak, Patrick, The_Deplorable online now
invite responseComments 1 - 11 of 11 Search these comments
1
Robert Sproul
2014 May 6, 1:38am
irrational trust of the status quo
Nice phrasing.
The dividing line is who has been harvested already and who is still in the feed chute. I doubt that any Patnet'ers are among the impervious .01%.
2
mell
2014 May 6, 4:30am
That's what you get for voting for one and the same party. Next time vote Ron Paul to get habeas corpus restored.
3
CL
2014 May 6, 6:25am
CL
2014 May 6, 6:25am
That's what you get for voting for one and the same party. Next time vote Ron Paul to get habeas corpus restored.
Hahahaaha. Hilarious. Paul is as consistent as his positions on Federal Disaster aid. On top of that, the system makes even a well-intentioned President virtually powerless.
Lastly, there are no politicians who would work with a Paul presidency, which would make him less effective than they've made Obama.
4
anonymous
2017 Oct 25, 7:28pm
The US is a bankrupt warmongering police state now. Many Americans want to blame Communists, Nazis, blacks, Jews, Muslims, feminists, or illegal immigrants for the collapse of the USA, but if Americans really want to know who to blame, they just need to look in the mirror.
The scary thing is not that the Jews or Freemasons are controlling the world. What is terrifying is that no one is running the world.
The US is rigged. Since the USA is a police state, Americans are wondering how to resist. Voting doesn't work. Protesting is illegal. An armed rebellion would probably be crushed.
Perhaps one way for Americans to fight back is to just drop out and stop complying. Why pay taxes or obey the law when the government doesn't?
They can't kill us all. If everything is illegal and everyone is a criminal, then there aren't enough prisons for everyone.
Don't buy health insurance.
Don't buy car liability insurance.
Don't get a driver's license.
Don't get a business license.
Don't use seatbelts.
The only reason the system has power is because everyone obeys and thinks it's legitimate, but the government has lost the consent of the people.
A law doesn't mean justice.
Burn it down. Burn it to the ground.
http://www.history.com/topics/french-revolution
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/22/yes-in-the-u-s-the-people-can-reject-a-president-if-theyre-convinced-hes-a-tyrant/?utm_term=.e84aab6b3d40
The scary thing is not that the Jews or Freemasons are controlling the world. What is terrifying is that no one is running the world.
The US is rigged. Since the USA is a police state, Americans are wondering how to resist. Voting doesn't work. Protesting is illegal. An armed rebellion would probably be crushed.
Perhaps one way for Americans to fight back is to just drop out and stop complying. Why pay taxes or obey the law when the government doesn't?
They can't kill us all. If everything is illegal and everyone is a criminal, then there aren't enough prisons for everyone.
Don't buy health insurance.
Don't buy car liability insurance.
Don't get a driver's license.
Don't get a business license.
Don't use seatbelts.
The only reason the system has power is because everyone obeys and thinks it's legitimate, but the government has lost the consent of the people.
A law doesn't mean justice.
Burn it down. Burn it to the ground.
http://www.history.com/topics/french-revolution
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/22/yes-in-the-u-s-the-people-can-reject-a-president-if-theyre-convinced-hes-a-tyrant/?utm_term=.e84aab6b3d40
5
anonymous
2017 Oct 25, 7:49pm
Anon - what is your objection to seatbelts? (I say this somewhat facetiously as I think anon is a bot and incapable of answering the question)
6
anonymous
2017 Oct 25, 7:55pm
Wearing seatbelts is fine, but being forced to
wear seatbelts by the government is wrong.
wear seatbelts by the government is wrong.
7
anonymous
2017 Oct 25, 8:02pm
Why specifically? I have no issue with single perple offing themselves but Otherwise they cause issues to third parties.
8
anonymous
2017 Oct 25, 8:39pm
Since everything was illegal in the USSR, Russians just gave up. Now we're seeing the same thing happening in the US.
Why bother doing anything if you're just going to go to jail?
Why bother doing anything if you're just going to go to jail?
9
anonymous
2017 Oct 25, 8:40pm
There was a time when Americans believed in freedom.
The US is dying from a million cuts. Part of the reason the USA is a nanny police state now is that whenever there is a problem, the kneejerk reaction in the US is to call for a new law.
Nanny state laws are not the best solution, however. Nanny state laws lead to more laws, higher fines, and tougher sentences. Thirty-five years ago, DWI laws were enacted that led to DWI checkpoints and lower DWI levels. Seatbelt laws led to backseat seatbelt laws, childseat laws, and pet seatbelt laws. Car liability insurance laws led to health insurance laws and gun liability laws. Smoking laws that banned smoking in buildings led to laws against smoking in parks and then bans against smoking in entire cities. Sex offender registration laws led to sex offender restriction laws and violent offender registration laws.
Nanny state laws don't make us safer, either. Nanny state laws lead people to be careless since they don't need to have personal responsibility anymore. People don't need to be careful crossing the street now because drunk-driving has been outlawed and driving while using a mobile phone is illegal. People don't investigate companies or carry out due diligence because businesses must have business licenses now.
The main point of nanny state laws is not safety. The main purposes of more laws are control and revenue generation for the state.
Another reason laws are enacted is because corporations give donations to lawmakers to stifle competition or increase sales.
Many laws are contradictory, too. Some laws say watering lawns is required, while other laws say watering lawns is illegal.
Many nanny state laws that aim to solve a problem can be fixed by using existing laws. If assault is already illegal, why do we need a new law that outlaws hitting umpires?
Nanny state laws are not even necessary. If everything was legal would you steal, murder, and use crack cocaine? Aren't there other ways to solve problems besides calling the police? Couldn't people educate or talk to people who bother them? Couldn't people be sued for annoying behavior? Couldn't people just move away? Even if assault was legal, wouldn't attackers risk being killed or injured, too? Do people have consciences? Having no laws doesn't mean actions have no consequences.
If there is no victim, there is no crime.
We don't need thousands of laws when we only need 10.
Should swimming pools be banned because they are dangerous? Hammers? Bottles? Rocks? Energy drinks? Pillows?
Where does it end?
If one state can have self-serve gas stations, why can't every state have them? If sodas were legal 20 years ago, why can't they be legal now?
Freedom is not just a one way street. You can only have freedom for yourself if you allow others to have it.
Control freaks might get angry when a neighbor owns three indoor cats, but what did the neighbor take from them? Why should this be illegal? Is outlawing cats something a free country should do? Doesn't banning everything sound like the opposite of liberty?
Instead of getting mad at people who like freedom, why don't people realize that freedom is a two way street?
If you allow others to paint their house purple then you can, too.
If you allow others to own a gun then you can, too.
If you allow others to swear then you can, too.
If you allow others to gamble then you can, too.
Who wants to live in a prison?
Think. Question everything.
The US is dying from a million cuts. Part of the reason the USA is a nanny police state now is that whenever there is a problem, the kneejerk reaction in the US is to call for a new law.
Nanny state laws are not the best solution, however. Nanny state laws lead to more laws, higher fines, and tougher sentences. Thirty-five years ago, DWI laws were enacted that led to DWI checkpoints and lower DWI levels. Seatbelt laws led to backseat seatbelt laws, childseat laws, and pet seatbelt laws. Car liability insurance laws led to health insurance laws and gun liability laws. Smoking laws that banned smoking in buildings led to laws against smoking in parks and then bans against smoking in entire cities. Sex offender registration laws led to sex offender restriction laws and violent offender registration laws.
Nanny state laws don't make us safer, either. Nanny state laws lead people to be careless since they don't need to have personal responsibility anymore. People don't need to be careful crossing the street now because drunk-driving has been outlawed and driving while using a mobile phone is illegal. People don't investigate companies or carry out due diligence because businesses must have business licenses now.
The main point of nanny state laws is not safety. The main purposes of more laws are control and revenue generation for the state.
Another reason laws are enacted is because corporations give donations to lawmakers to stifle competition or increase sales.
Many laws are contradictory, too. Some laws say watering lawns is required, while other laws say watering lawns is illegal.
Many nanny state laws that aim to solve a problem can be fixed by using existing laws. If assault is already illegal, why do we need a new law that outlaws hitting umpires?
Nanny state laws are not even necessary. If everything was legal would you steal, murder, and use crack cocaine? Aren't there other ways to solve problems besides calling the police? Couldn't people educate or talk to people who bother them? Couldn't people be sued for annoying behavior? Couldn't people just move away? Even if assault was legal, wouldn't attackers risk being killed or injured, too? Do people have consciences? Having no laws doesn't mean actions have no consequences.
If there is no victim, there is no crime.
We don't need thousands of laws when we only need 10.
Should swimming pools be banned because they are dangerous? Hammers? Bottles? Rocks? Energy drinks? Pillows?
Where does it end?
If one state can have self-serve gas stations, why can't every state have them? If sodas were legal 20 years ago, why can't they be legal now?
Freedom is not just a one way street. You can only have freedom for yourself if you allow others to have it.
Control freaks might get angry when a neighbor owns three indoor cats, but what did the neighbor take from them? Why should this be illegal? Is outlawing cats something a free country should do? Doesn't banning everything sound like the opposite of liberty?
Instead of getting mad at people who like freedom, why don't people realize that freedom is a two way street?
If you allow others to paint their house purple then you can, too.
If you allow others to own a gun then you can, too.
If you allow others to swear then you can, too.
If you allow others to gamble then you can, too.
Who wants to live in a prison?
Think. Question everything.
10
HEY YOU
2017 Oct 25, 8:50pm
anonymous says
The White Male Republicans & Democrats have held power. It's their fault.
The White Males R/Ds will pay with the rest of the population.
When they come for WMRDs,don't call me.
You might look in a mirror & see your enemy.
Many Americans want to blame Communists, Nazis, blacks, Jews, Muslims, feminists, or illegal immigrants for the collapse of the USA,
The White Male Republicans & Democrats have held power. It's their fault.
The White Males R/Ds will pay with the rest of the population.
When they come for WMRDs,don't call me.
You might look in a mirror & see your enemy.
11
anonymous
2017 Oct 25, 8:53pm
Chris Hedges:
"The U.S. Supreme Court decision to refuse to hear our case concerning Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which permits the military to seize U.S. citizens and hold them indefinitely in military detention centers without due process, means that this provision will continue to be law. It means the nation has entered a post-constitutional era. It means that extraordinary rendition of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil by our government is legal. It means that the courts, like the legislative and executive branches of government, exclusively serve corporate power—one of the core definitions of fascism. It means that the internal mechanisms of state are so corrupted and subservient to corporate power that there is no hope of reform or protection for citizens under our most basic constitutional rights. It means that the consent of the governed—a poll by OpenCongress.com showed that this provision had a 98 percent disapproval rating—is a cruel joke. And it means that if we do not rapidly build militant mass movements to overthrow corporate tyranny, including breaking the back of the two-party duopoly that is the mask of corporate power, we will lose our liberty."
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_post-constitutional_era_20140504