394 Forum Posts by "1Shot-Paddy"
fuck the jews.
sieg heil.
fucking jews are gonna burn. sieg heil bitches.
Freedom dies quietly
The bill marks the end of true parliamentary democracy; it is as significant as Congress abandoning the Bill of Rights
By John Pilger
04/13/06 "ICH" -- -- People ask: can this be happening in Britain? Surely not. A centuries-old democratic constitution cannot be swept away. Basic human rights cannot be made abstract. Those who once comforted themselves that a Labour government would never commit such an epic crime in Iraq might now abandon a last delusion, that their freedom is inviolable. If they knew.
The dying of freedom in Britain is not news. The pirouettes of the Prime Minister and his political twin, the Chancellor, are news, though of minimal public interest. Looking back to the 1930s, when social democracies were distracted and powerful cliques imposed their totalitarian ways by stealth and silence, the warning is clear. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has already passed its second parliamentary reading without interest to most Labour MPs and court journalists; yet it is utterly totalitarian in scope.
It is presented by the government as a simple measure for streamlining deregulation, or "getting rid of red tape", yet the only red tape it will actually remove is that of parliamentary scrutiny of government legislation, including this remarkable bill. It will mean that the government can secretly change the Parliament Act, and the constitution and laws can be struck down by decree from Downing Street. Blair has demonstrated his taste for absolute power with his abuse of the royal prerogative, which he has used to bypass parliament in going to war and in dismissing landmark high court judgments, such as that which declared illegal the expulsion of the entire population of the Chagos Islands, now the site of an American military base. The new bill marks the end of true parliamentary democracy; in its effect, it is as significant as the US Congress last year abandoning the Bill of Rights.
Those who fail to hear these steps on the road to dictatorship should look at the government's plans for ID cards, described in its manifesto as "voluntary". They will be compulsory and worse. An ID card will be different from a driving licence or passport. It will be connected to a database called the NIR (National Identity Register), where your personal details will be stored. These will include your fingerprints, a scan of your iris, your residence status and unlimited other details about your life. If you fail to keep an appointment to be photographed and fingerprinted, you can be fined up to £2,500.
Every place that sells alcohol or cigarettes, every post office, every pharmacy and every bank will have an NIR terminal where you can be asked to "prove who you are". Each time you swipe the card, a record will be made at the NIR - so, for instance, the government will know every time you withdraw more than £99 from your bank account. Restaurants and off-licences will demand that the card be swiped so that they are indemnified from prosecution. Private business will have full access to the NIR. If you apply for a job, your card will have to be swiped. If you want a London Underground Oyster card, or a supermarket loyalty card, or a telephone line or a mobile phone or an internet account, your ID card will have to be swiped.
In other words, there will be a record of your movements, your phone calls and shopping habits, even the kind of medication you take. These databases, which can be stored in a device the size of a hand, will be sold to third parties without you knowing. The ID card will not be your property and the Home Secretary will have the right to revoke or suspend it at any time without explanation. This would prevent you drawing money from a bank.
ID cards will not stop terrorists, as the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, has now admitted; the Madrid bombers all carried ID. On 26 March, the government moved to silence parliamentary opposition to the cards, announcing that a committee would investigate banning the House of Lords from blocking legislation contained in a party's manifesto. The Blair clique does not debate. Like the zealot in Downing Street, its "sincere belief" in its own veracity is quite enough. When the London School of Economics published a long study that in effect demolished the government's case for the cards, Clarke abused it for feeding a "media scare campaign".
This is the same minister who attended every cabinet meeting at which Blair's lies over his decision to invade Iraq were clear.
This government was re-elected with the support of barely a fifth of those eligible to vote: the second-lowest proportion since the franchise. Whatever respectability the famous suits in television studios try to give him, Blair is demonstrably discredited as a liar and war criminal.
Like the constitution-hijacking bill now reaching its final stages, and the criminalising of peaceful protest, ID cards are designed to control the lives of ordinary citizens (as well as enrich the new Labour-favoured companies that will build the computer systems). A small, determined and profoundly undemocratic group is killing freedom in Britain, just as it has killed literally in Iraq. That is the news. "The kaleidoscope has been shaken," said Blair at the 2001 Labour party conference. "The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us."
With thanks to Frances Stonor Saunders and Hanna Lease. John Pilger's new book, Freedom Next Time, will be published in June by Bantam Press
Chris Floyd's Global Eye
By Chris Floyd
It won't come with jackboots and book-burnings, with mass rallies and fevered harangues. It won't come with "black helicopters" or tanks on the street. It won't come like a storm, but like a break in the weather, that sudden change of season you might feel when the wind shifts on an October evening: everything is the same, but everything has changed. Something has gone, departed from the world, and a new reality has taken its place.
As in Rome, all the old forms will still be there: legislatures, elections, campaigns - plenty of bread and circuses for the folks. But the "consent of the governed" will no longer apply; actual control of the state will have passed to a small group of nobles who rule largely for the benefit of their wealthy peers and corporate patrons.
To be sure, there will be factional conflicts among this elite, and a degree of free debate will be permitted, within limits; but no one outside the privileged circle will be allowed to govern or influence state policy. Dissidents will be marginalized - usually by "the people" themselves. Deprived of historical knowledge by an impoverished educational system designed to produce complacent consumers, not thoughtful citizens, and left ignorant of current events by a media devoted solely to profit, many will internalize the force-fed values of the ruling elite, and act accordingly. There will be little need for overt methods of control.
The rulers will often act in secret. For reasons of "national security," the people will not be permitted to know what goes on in their name. Actions once unthinkable will be accepted as routine: government by executive fiat, the murder of "enemies" selected by the leader, undeclared war, torture, mass detentions without charge, the looting of the national treasury, the creation of huge new "security structures" targeted at the populace. In time, all this will come to seem "normal," as the chill of autumn feels normal when summer is gone.
It Will All Seem Normal
President George W. Bush signed an executive order about ten days ago overturning a law requiring the release of presidential papers 12 years after the end of an administration, The Associated Press reports. Bush officials say the president has "reinterpreted" the law - ordinarily the job of the Supreme Court under the old Republic - to mean that no papers can be released unless both the current president and the former president in question agree to it.
Historians, journalists or ordinary citizens seeking information about the actions of past administrations will have to file suit to show a "demonstrated, specific" need for access to the blocked material. The mere assertion of a "right to know" about governmental affairs will not be sufficient. Such a right no longer exists.
A Bush spokesperson acknowledged that anyone requesting to see such documents would be tied up in expensive court battles for years. However, the use of executive fiat to abrogate the function of the Supreme Court and overturn a law passed by the people's representatives was necessary in order to protect "national security," the spokesperson said.
Of course, a sitting president already has the authority to withhold any past documents that might endanger national security. But Bush's new edict will allow the quashing of presidential papers that might be politically embarrassing or reveal criminal behavior by past administrations.
Seem Normal
Former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr predicts that the curtailment of civil liberties, including admitting the use of torture, will be approved by "at least five Supreme Court Justices," the Washington Post reports. (No points for guessing which five.) The Quiescent Quintet will gladly give "heightened deference to the judgments of the political branches with respect to matters of national security," says Starr.
Indeed, the Bush administration is now openly considering the use of torture to compel testimony from suspected terrorists - or anyone designated as a suspected terrorist, Slate.com reports. True, a few girlie-men are still fretting about "constitutional rights," but the clever dicks in the Oval Office have that one sussed: recalcitrant prisoners can always be exported to friendly regimes, like Egypt or Kenya, where they don't bother with such prissy concerns. Information "extracted" there can then be used in U.S. trials.
Wouldn't evidence acquired by such heinous and unconstitutional methods be thrown out by the courts? Ordinarily, yes - under the old Republic. But in America's new weather, the judiciary will no doubt "give heightened deference to the judgments of the political branches," etc. And if all else fails, a handy executive order can always "reinterpret" the Constitution to accommodate the needs of "national security."
Normal
Armed with the sweeping new powers of the "USA Patriot Act" passed late last month, the Bush administration is acting to "shift the primary mission of the FBI from solving crimes to gathering domestic intelligence," the Washington Post reports.
In other words, the feds will move from protecting the people to spying on them. The CIA has also been given authority to take part in domestic surveillance and investigation for the first time. These domestic "black ops" will be overseen by a secret court appointed by the Chief Justice - William "Top Quint" Rehnquist.
Like the Chill of Autumn
Last week, President Bush demanded that Congress pass his "economic stimulus" bill by the end of the month, the New York Times reports. The bill would give $25 billion in federal money directly to the nation's wealthiest corporations, including IBM, Genereal Mototrs and General Electric, refunding taxes they paid over the last 15 years. In all, the bill will give $112 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals and corporations over the next two years.
It won't come like a storm. It will all seem normal. Like a break in the weather, a shift in the wind
It's a load of balls. The Iranian leader wouldn't even want war, or even to build nukes. He's just concentrating on his economy. So he says the Holocaust has been used by certain political and financial men and women to further their own agenda, tell us something we don't know. I'd rather have the Iranian president than GWB.
That's a good sign, it means she has a brain and can learn.
At 4/9/06 03:25 AM, Time2k6 wrote:At 4/8/06 12:53 PM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: God is nothing. We are something. Yin. Yang. God Is. We Are. Blah blah blah blah blahdid you just google the term "is god real" and post the results here?
Not at all. Understand yourself, and you can understand God, is my message.
Is it mass genocide when we exterminate termites? Humans are just animals, no more or less special. Good and Evil are just subjective, Truth can only be objective.
God is nothing. We are something. Yin. Yang. God Is. We Are.
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience;
but spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
The illusion holds power over you when you are not
able to remember that you are a powerful spirit
that has taken on the physical experience
for the purpose of learning.
~Gary Zukav
When the mind is no longer seeking,
no longer breeding conflict
through its wants and cravings,
when it is silent with understanding,
only then can the immeasurable come into being.
~J. Krishnamurti
The only devils in this world are those running
around in our own hearts, and that is where all
our battles should be fought.
~Mahatma Gandhi
Your whole idea about yourself is borrowed--
borrowed from those who have no idea of who they are themselves.
~Osho
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly;
what is essential is invisible to the eye.
~ from The Little Prince
When you come to the edge of all the light you have known,
and are about to step out into darkness,
Faith is knowing one of two things will happen;
There will be something to stand on,
or you will be taught to fly.
Richard Bach: Jonathan Livingston Seagull
Sitting quietly, doing nothing, spring comes,
and the grass grows by itself.
Zen saying
We can do only what we think we can do. We can be only what we think we can be. We can have only what we think we can have. What we do, what we are,
what we have, all depend upon what we think - Robert Collier
You have everything you need:
A miraculous body, a phenomenal brain,
and a vast and powerful subconscious mind.
Now it's just a matter of focusing them
in the right direction
James Allen, As You Think
"The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."
Jesus Christ
Whatsoever things you desire, believe and you shall have them.
Jesus
While the body perishes the Spirit is immortal. We are here to realize we are Spirit.
Papa Ramdas
He scorns the history books as poisonous fiction, the Bible as Hebrew politics mixed up with plagiarized mid-Asian ethics, and modern civilization as a shoddy re-hash of the worst of Rome, Egypt, Babylon, and Greece; pasted and held together by matter-worship, which is another name--so he says--for modern science.
-- description of Cotswold Ommony, "Jungle Jest" by Talbot Mundy
I was part of that strange race of people aptly described as spending their lives doing things they detest to make money they don't want to buy things they don't need to impress people they dislike.
-- Emile Henry Gauvreay
Nothing's fair. Nobody is. We're all liabilities, some of us doing our best, which isn't much. This world is the only hell we'll ever know. We've got to take it and make the best of it, because we can't leave it. It isn't a case of devil take the hindmost. The devil gets the front men first as the general rule, and gets all of us sooner or later.
-- Andrew Gunning, "Old Ugly-Face" by Talbot Mundy
Standards are different for all things, so the standard set by man is by no means the only 'certain' standard. If you mistake what is relative for something certain, you have strayed far from the ultimate truth.
-- Chuang Tzu
No man is free who is not master of himself.
Epictetus
(Greek philospher)
Let him that would move the world first move himself.
- Socrates
To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe.
- Anatole France
At 4/5/06 11:26 AM, RedGlare wrote:At 4/5/06 11:00 AM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote:No because theres to possible scenario's if it was off topic why use it to justify an arguement?At 4/5/06 09:32 AM, RedGlare wrote:The economic stuff is a bit off topic so I decided not to put it in here, happy?
Covert slavery took you made the topic and you made the claims its your job to prove it not me. If your bullshit arguement is so weak that the only way you can stall is to send people of doing your errands like a MMORPG then you have failed.
1) you tried to scare people off by spouting Bureacratic nonsense.
2) your lazy and are trying to stall hoping someone will take your side with a proper case.
Either way im not happy. Im a little pleased that i cornered you but happy's a to strong a word.
"It's not the police who I'm worried about. It's the economic slavery aspect. It would be a waste to go into all the statutory laws and corporate identities and how it affects. So you can just live in your blissful ignorance or go read a book by Mary Croft and then do a search on google. Then maybe you could contact you're solicitor and ask him about this covert slavery."
I was just expressing my opinion on a much more gernal topic than the ID card subject. Because I had already made my arguement against ID cards. I was hardly trying to scare people away if I made this topic. But I guess I should be crucified for following forum rules and not going off topic.
At 4/5/06 02:58 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:
As far as I’m concerned man created god to explain what science couldn’t at the time. Seeing as ’science’ consisted of managing to light a fire.
Nature and everything in it is random, a result of billions of years of trial and error. I was raised Christian but never really took to it. The simple fact that there is more than one religion, not to mention the millions of paradox raised by the theory of god(s) is enough to make me steer clear of them.
Science can't explain the beggining of creation. They just say it happened.
My belief is that, since the universe began at a singularity, this singularity is God. And when the big bang occured, it didn't create anything new, the singularity divided itself (which caused a bang, like an a-bomb). So the entire universe is just this singularity divided. Now you have to look at time, and if time is eternal or even if it has an end, then all of us are predetermined. So, the singularity is a form of god, although I believe it to be closer to satan than God. Anyway, you have to ask the question, what created the singularity then? And we find the answer in many religions, and that is, a mother "goddes". It's basically the void of nothingness, the eternal womb which birthed the singularity. The Empty Space, would be the One true God then. The Singularity, is probably what Adam metaphorically represents. Eve came from Adam, i.e. The Singularity divided itself. And I suppose, this singularity has proclaimed itself to be the one true God, and called itself Yahweh/Allah/Adonai or whatever name he chooses to go by. Then you have to ask, why would the Singularity make us all forget, and proceed to ass rape us on a daily basis. Maybe we're not part of this Singularity. Maybe, there are other singularities that were birthed by the Great Void, but the did not divide, (hence this universe is the Singulairty that did divide, Lucifer, the fallen angel). And suppose, this Lucifer, snatched us and placed us in his own chaotic and machine like universe. And maybe all the animals and plants. Because when you look at life in general, it's amazing that it came into existence. Why does the universe need life? It's just a cold place filled with volcanic rocks and posionous gas, what, in the course of the universes life, could have promted Life? Life has no purpose. So maybe Lucifer, once he divided himself, and fell from "heaven", was cut off by mommy (the void). No more of ambrosia for you! So maybe Lucifer needed to feed, and so he sucked the life out of the void, and thus living organism were formed, to imprison this raw divine energy. Perhaps this is what the Matrix films were about.
Well, that's my theory, I'm sure I'm wrong, but it sounds better and more logical than the Catholic version.
At 4/5/06 09:32 AM, RedGlare wrote:
Covert slavery took you made the topic and you made the claims its your job to prove it not me. If your bullshit arguement is so weak that the only way you can stall is to send people of doing your errands like a MMORPG then you have failed.
The economic stuff is a bit off topic so I decided not to put it in here, happy?
Already there is legislation going through Parliament to set up state nurseries - "children's centres" - for under-fives. And a Royal College is actively campaigning to let babies born under 25 weeks die, rather than receive costly intensive care.
Both ideas are bad enough. But it is only a small step - a twist of logic of the sort this Government is adept at, and which its laws will make perfectly possible - to make state nursing compulsory, and extend infanticide to babies born with defects.
"Surely some revelation is at hand." Yeats's rough beast is moving its slow thighs, slouching towards Bethlehem to be born.
Labour isn't wicked - but it's doing just what the Nazis did
By Danny Kruger
(Filed: 27/03/2006)
Imagine we had a really bad government. I mean morally bad, wicked: a government that wanted to do something terrible, like abduct children from their families or introduce euthanasia of disabled babies. It couldn't happen, right? We wouldn't let it, would we?
This Government isn't morally bad. For all its frequent cock-ups, our ministers are well-intentioned, trying to do right by their own lights. Just now they find themselves caught out in the secular equivalent of simony, the sale of offices and indulgences for cash.
But simony is the natural vice of politics: in the cant phrase, it goes with the territory, where power and money meet. Indeed, the purchase of contracts and peerages used to be part of the normal business of politics, in times when human relationships counted for more than abstract individual merit.
We may think this is wrong, but we cannot think it is new.
The real fault of this Government is not its shady dealings, the tennis parties at Michael Levy's house where "Tony" "drops in".
The proper crime, the actual innovation in turpitude, is happening in plain view - like Poe's purloined letter, it is there before us on the mantelpiece, in the laws that Labour is passing.
Tyranny is sidling in. It is entering with face averted, under cover of a host of laws whose ostensible purpose is the reverse of their actual effect.
The Human Rights Act, for instance, was presented as a means of defending the individual against oppression by the state. Similarly, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, whose stealthy insinuation into British law the Government is conniving at, gives us all entitlements to social and economic "protection".
But these charters comprise sweeping generalisations whose confusion gives judges the power to create legal precedents ex nihilo; and though they may occasionally be used to frustrate the Government's wishes, their effect is to swell the remit and responsibilities of the state.
The old principles of equity and tort law, by which private individuals could accommodate their interests to each other in a natural and rational manner, is giving way to a system of arbitrary and artificial power.
The same inverted logic applies to the ID card scheme. The Home Office minister Andy Burnham, in a letter to the Observer yesterday, asserted that the cards are there "as a protection", to stop "identity theft".
Never mind that the system will use cheap chip-and-pin technology, which has already shown itself vulnerable to fraud. Ministers evidently believe our identities can be protected only if they are owned by ministers themselves.
For ID cards will not belong to us, but to the state: the Home Secretary will be able to revoke any individual's card at any moment, by the touch of a Whitehall button, rendering him or her a non-person, cut off from all the transactions in which freedom consists.
It is not exaggeration to say that the National Identity Register will give the government both knowledge of, and control over, your life. A photo of your face, your fingerprints and a scan of the back of your eye will be recorded, as well as 49 separate pieces of information, including your residence and your religion.
Every outpost of the state, and every outlet that operates under licence from the state (including shops selling cigarettes and alcohol), will have access to the register.
You will be required to acquire and carry a card proving your identity. The scheme will be compulsory, by the sly device of making us get one when we renew our passports: people will be banned from travelling abroad unless they register.
But even within Britain, it will soon be impossible to live a normal life without an ID card. Labour's horrible inversion of logic means that if something can be done, it will be done.
Shops and restaurants selling cigarettes and alcohol will find themselves required to demand ID to prove they have not sold to minors, and to log the sale. Banks will jump at the chance to tap into our doings, compiling exhaustive records of our spending habits that they will then sell on to other companies.
The alternatives will soon be submission to this corporate Leviathan, or setting up a barter economy on a Hebridean island.
And then there is the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is presented as a means of repealing red tape and therefore restricting the reach of the state.
But the Bill, quite simply, gives any minister of the Crown the power to "make provision amending, repealing or replacing any legislation", meaning "any public general Act", or indeed "any rule of law".
It cannot be used to impose taxation or create criminal offences bearing a prison term of more than two years, and there is also a cursory requirement for debate in committee.
But given that the Bill has been nodded through by pliant MPs - even the Conservatives let it by without a murmur, imposing only a one-line whip on the second reading - we cannot place much trust in the vigilance of our politicians.
For the final twist of the Bill's logic is that it will apply to itself: ministers may use its powers to remove its own limitations, and enable the government to make or repeal any law whatever.
The Regulatory Reform Bill is an Enabling Act, identical in spirit to the one the Nazis passed in 1933. On that occasion, Hitler promised that "the government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...
The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is a limited one." Our Government says much the same about the legislation it is passing today.
But our concern should not be with today or tomorrow, but with the day after tomorrow, when different, nastier politicians might be in power, and the habits of decency and common sense have been even further eroded.
We have already seen how officious policemen have used legislation designed to deal with terrorists to arrest protesters armed with nothing more lethal than placards.
Perhaps I was wrong when I said our Government isn't morally bad - that it wouldn't abduct children or enforce euthanasia of disabled babies.
At 4/2/06 04:18 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:At 4/2/06 03:47 PM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: The Parliament of Northern Ireland and its government were abolished in 1973, and STV was restored for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. So only a few years after the trouble started, we got the changes in place, so that boycott worked.Then what are you bitching about? If it worked then go and fucking demand another referendum that'll be fair and get Northern Ireland back. If you do that and stop bitching you'd get my respect because bitching about it acheives fuck all. You obviously feel strongly about it then fucking do something about it.
We can't, because the main Unionist party refuses to negotiate or even be in the same room as the main Republican party. If we don't talk, there's no democracy. Britain had to pass over power to London. And so unelected officials run our country, therefore, it's a dictatorship.
And as for that link, whislt its an interesting read its a very common fact that the RUC was shitty, hence why it doesn't exist anymore. As for the British Military, 10 quid says it was the Black and Tans which were the biggest fuck ups that the British Government sent anywhere.
RUC and the new police force PSNI are the exact same. A name and uniform change are only for show.
The Army and police are quite capable of acting independently of the Government. And even if the Government did authorise the actions so what? Weren't the IRA killing Army officials? Weren't they assasinating our people as well? You make it sound as though the IRA and the republicans were saints. It was effectivley a war, you kill our guys, we kill yours. Whislt I don't approve of it thats how the world works sadly. And eye for an eye and all that bollocks.
Well, it's one thing to kill Army officials, another to assist drug-dealing gangsters in murdering civillian catholics. Ever heard of the Shankill Butchers. Not even Pat Finucane? If there were any riots going on, the police sided with the unionists and attack nationalists.
Here's some videos you could watch to educate yourself.
http://en.arcoiris.t..ewdownload&cid=7
As for people not being charged, I admit that is a bit fishy as well as the arms but can you really blame the British Government for doign crap like that? They couldn't declare war on you because its not possible to wage a war on terrorists( a fact that Dubya Bush hasn't grasped yet). They couldn't sit by an do nothing and it was probablbly the only idea they had at the time. Now when you consider that the Government has changed a number of tiems since then so who exactly are you angry at?
The government who should never have done it in the first place, who should never have invaded ireland, and who continue to cover up acts of collusion and civil rights offences.
Most of Britain couldn't care one way or the other about who owns Northern Ireland so we aren't protesting about it being taken away from us. The governments changed enough tiems so that any one even related to any of the problems caused by black and tans etc isn't in power anymore. So who are you trying to make a point to? The British Government would quite happily give you N.I if you and your northern neighbours got on. Maybe instead of bitching about how tyranical and dictatorlike Britain is and how we are opressing you and your people, and holding people accountable for actions they took no part in and you started to actually say, tried to make peace with your neigbours you might get what you want.
They're not our neighbours, they're invaders, and we want them out, simple. France wanted the Nazi's out, but no, let's get on with them.
So anyone that uses ballistics is a terrorists. Meaning every nation on the Earth.Misinterpretation of what i meant and you bloody well know it.
Anyone who blows up buildings with the inent of killing innocent people on purpose is a terrorist. I don't give a shit whose side your on, if you are blowing up something that is killing innocent people on purpose you are a terrorist.
Happy now? Or would you care to misinterpret me some more?
The IRA doesn't intentionally seek to kill innocents. They're all political or military attacks.
Now, the Unionist paramilitaries are a tottally different matter, they just picked catholics off the streets and killed them, some even got skinned alive and got vinegar thrown on them and had limbs cut off before they were killed.
I'm not bullshitting, I don't need to. The facts are all there for you to look at on the internet, history books, documentaries.
At 4/2/06 06:27 PM, RedGlare wrote:At 4/2/06 03:51 PM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote:Do you even know what a police state is? A police state is were they can kick down your door cart you off to a prison and subject you to heavy sack beatings because they can.At 4/2/06 03:23 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:Yep, police state
It starts at ID cards, where does it lead?It leads to a position where everything will be exactly the same as it is now except the government, police, and MI5's jobs will be a lot easier and probably safer.
They can't do that this card just cuts out red tape from all these over agencies and makes it easier to track you down if you commit a crime. The only way they can use these cards for a police state is if
A) the government makes it legal which requires it to be passed by the Commons and the Lords.
B) A military coup or revolution in which case the cards would become tools of circumstance.
And about people not aloud to work etc. Then they should just get the damn card it isn't a big deal.
It's not the police who I'm worried about. It's the economic slavery aspect. It would be a waste to go into all the statutory laws and corporate identities and how it affects. So you can just live in your blissful ignorance or go read a book by Mary Croft and then do a search on google. Then maybe you could contact you're solicitor and ask him about this covert slavery.
At 4/2/06 04:30 PM, Freemind wrote:
Out of curiousity, where did you get the idea for your name?
In [G] Ireland many years ago or [D] so the legend [G] says
Saint [D] Patrick roamed the hills and glens to [C] drive the snakes [G] away,
But now we have another another saint that’s [D] bad news for the [G] crown
His [D] name is “One Shot Paddy” and it’s [C] Brits that [D] he will [G] hound!
[chorus]
The brits are getting worried they’ve all gone underground
If ‘One Shot Paddy’ sees them they know they’re going down
So the next time that you see the Brits with their faces full of fright
Look out for ‘One Shot Paddy’ and his friend called Eamon Wright!
Through the hills of South Armagh this gallant hero roams
He’ll wander through the countryside he likes to call his home,
And when he finds a target he will quietly take his aim,
It is then that you will hear the crack and the Brits know who’s to blame!
So if you’re home at night and the newsflash it is red,
Your man from South Armagh’s at work – another soldier dead,
And when it comes to celebrate Saint Patrick’s day cheer,
Remember ‘One Shot Paddy’ and the gallant IRA!
Eamon Wright.
I’ll sing a song of An Irish Man they hunted high and low
Through Crossmaglen with a 1000 men but he vanished like the snow
Eamon Wright he called him, for Eamon was his game
Wherever the British went, he got them just the same
This man came from Ulster they could never pin him down,
Was he born in Derry or in Belfast town
But the boys from South Armagh said he’s from bandit land
He’s here to defend South Armagh from the tyrant’s hand
He brought his gun to Andytown and Ballymurphy too
To Shantallow and the Bogside, to fight for me and you
The army said they saw him on a roof in Creggan Heights
But in the dark he took his mark and vanished out of sight
The Brits said he worked alone, a terrorist by trade
A solitary gunman from the South Armagh Brigade
But it soon became apparent when they tried to hold our land
There is more than a 1000 Eamon Wrights
In the Óglaigh na hÉireann command
Every Irish man's a one shot paddy.
Had a spliff today, and thinking about it, it's a bit of a waste, especially for young people. But for over-60's retired people, they should be allowed to live their last days in blissful stonage. They're going senile anyway.
Hollywood and the Music Industry is a joke, total disregard for money.
It's just treating children as animals, non-human. It's doing exactly the opposite of what it claims to be doing. Educate(Indoctrinate) via punishment and discipline. Because we all know children can't be reasoned with to learn themselves.
If the people involved are fighting for a country, party or political agenda. Then they are just doing what they believe is right and good for humanity, so in a way they are trying to help us all in a round about way. If they just hijack an oil rig and demand money or a private island or any other private interest then I would call them terrorist.
No human being can tell what is right or wrong, that's beyond our comprehension. So a politically motivated "terrorist" group should be called freedom fighters.
However, religious "terrorists" are just that, theirs is a vendetta of judgement. "Do not judge lest ye be judged". Islamic terrorists judge the West as evil, so it is right to judge them as terrorists.
Freedom fighters only want to protect themselves, their families, their culture.
no. If it were, then Coalition troops in Iraq qould be terrorists.
Tony Blair is preparing the biggest assault on the powers of the House of Lords for more than 50 years after a series of bruising battles with peers over Labour reforms.
The Government plans to change the law to prevent the Upper Chamber blocking legislation that has been passed by the Commons.
Lord Falconer
Lord Falconer: The loans row has damaged all the parties
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, said the powers of the Lords should be curtailed as part of a wider package of reforms that could include the creation of a mainly-elected Upper Chamber.
"The right position for the Lords is that it should scrutinise, it should amend legislation to give the Commons the opportunity to think again but. . . then it should give way.
"I want there to be clarity about the circumstances in which the Lords gives way. In real terms the political decisions on the big issues need to be made by the Commons."
The move - which would significantly alter the balance of power between the Commons and the Lords - will put the Government on collision course with peers.
Until now, the Upper Chamber has abided by the Salisbury Convention that it does not block legislation if it has been included in the ruling party's manifesto.
The new measure would prevent the Lords rejecting any proposed laws - such as ID cards, anti-terrorism proposals or schools reform - the Government deemed important.
The proposal is designed to reassure MPs, who fear that a reformed Lords will threaten the supremacy of the Commons.
Lord Falconer said a "hybrid house" - including both elected and appointed peers - was the most likely way forward and so the relationship between the Commons and the Lords had to be clarified. "If you have a significant elected element, legitimacy will be claimed by the Lords.
"MPs want primacy of the Commons and they want there to be clarity about what the Lords can and cannot do."
He added: "We would be incredibly unwise to introduce anything that simply promoted conflict between the two Houses when there was no real means of resolving it, it would gravely weaken the effectiveness of our constitutional arrangements."
Ministers also want to impose a 60-day limit on the amount of time peers can spend on a Bill.
"That would stop the Lords threatening the whole legislative programme because they take a different view to the Commons on something like hunting," Lord Falconer said.
The Government intends to give MPs a vote on the composition of the Lords this year. The proposed legislation will deal with the powers of the Upper Chamber as well.
Lord Falconer is holding talks with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to try to reach a consensus.
But Whitehall sources said the Government would be willing to use the Parliament Act to force through proposals if no agreement can be reached.
Lord Strathclyde, the Opposition leader in the Lords, said the Tories would resist any attempt to emasculate the Upper Chamber.
"Why would anybody want to be elected to a body that's nothing more than a rubber stamp for Mr Blair's controlled House of Commons?" he said.
"This whole process should be about strengthening Parliament not weakening it."
Mr Blair wants to complete Lords reform before standing down as Prime Minister.
Lord Falconer admitted that the "cash for peerages" row had damaged all parties.
"Because of those confidence issues, there need to be changes in the way the parties are financed and there needs to be Lords reform," he said.
At 4/2/06 03:55 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:At 4/2/06 03:51 PM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: Yep, police stateNot really, its a police state if they can randomly take you off the streets for no apparent reason and as far as I'm aware the Government hasn't managed to pass a law like that yet.
Well then you're not aware because they can.
At 4/2/06 03:23 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:
It starts at ID cards, where does it lead?It leads to a position where everything will be exactly the same as it is now except the government, police, and MI5's jobs will be a lot easier and probably safer.
Yep, police state
So it's a fact, Porn is the holy grail.
Gerrymandering (usually pronounced with a soft G, [¤[yimændZ]) is a controversial form of redistricting in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for an electoral advantage. Gerrymandering may be used to advantage or disadvantage particular constituents, such as members of a racial, linguistic, religious or class group, often in the favor of ruling incumbents or a specific political party.
A particularly famous case of gerrymandering occurred in Northern Ireland, where the Ulster Unionist Party government created electoral boundaries for the Londonderry County Borough Council which, coupled with continuing non-universal voting rights based on economic and property status across Northern Ireland, ensured the election of a unionist council in a city where nationalists were in the overwhelming majority. Coupled with a policy that gave council houses to unionists at the expense of nationalists all over Northern Ireland (in one famous case, giving a council house to a single Protestant woman employed by the UUP rather than a large Catholic family who were at the head of the list), this policy of gerrymandering produced the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. The refusal of the government to consider equal rights in local government and an end to gerrymandered discrimination led indirectly to the tumultuous time known as The Troubles.
The Parliament of Northern Ireland and its government were abolished in 1973, and STV was restored for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. So only a few years after the trouble started, we got the changes in place, so that boycott worked.
The British Government has colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries in the murder of many Irish nationals. And is responsible for the cover-up of these actions.Got some proof have we?Or is this jsut wild accusations coming out of your arse?
In the north of Ireland citizens are compelled under emergency legislation and at the point of British guns to provide details about themselves. The details relating to nationalists and republicans are computerised, filed and passed on to loyalist paramilitaries.
Thousands of such files have been handed over to loyalist murder gangs by serving members of the British army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Not a single member of the RUV the primary source for security and intelligence documents was charged as a result of the official inquiry into such collusion the Stevens Inquiry. Such files continue to be leaked to this day.
The man responsible for a period of several years, for collating the information thus provided and targeting individuals for assassination by loyalist murder gangs was British military intelligence agent Brian Nelson. Nelson was a member of the British Army and given a leading role in loyalist assassinations of nationalist and republicans and others who were considered to be enemies of British rule in Ireland.
He was assisted in his deadly work by British Military intelligence who weeded out his files so as to make them more selective, provided him with addresses of targets and a car to conduct his surveillance activities.
He was directed in the supply of modern arms from South Africa to loyalist groups in an increased loyalist assassination campaign at a period in which killings by the RUC and British army were coincidentally reduced.
Nelson played a very important role in all of this. He is undoubtedly culpable. But the major culpability rests with his controllers and with those in political authority at the highest levels of the British political, military and legal system who moved decisively and effectively to reduce the effect of their responsibility by concealing the facts.
The political and moral enormity of what is involved is surpassed by the toll in human lives and suffering inflicted. The precise overall number of fatalities resulting from collusion between British forces and the loyalist murder gangs over a period of 25 years is unknown. But what is for certain is this. In the six years before the arrival of the South African weapons, from January 1982 to December 1987 loyalist murder gangs killed 71 people. In the six years following, from January 1988 to 1 September 1994, loyalists killed 229 people. See RFJ Collusion Document.
http://www.relatives..ion/introduction.htm
And it depends on how people fight for their independence as to whether or not they are terrorists or not. If they blow thigns up then, yeah they are terrorists.
A person is only a terrorist if they blow thigns up. Therefore the IRA= Terrorists in the exact same way as Unionists that blow things up = Terrorists.
So anyone that uses ballistics is a terrorists. Meaning every nation on the Earth.
Have you been living under a rock?
At 4/2/06 03:21 PM, Practical wrote:
It's all about opinions and upbringings really.
Not really, our sole purpose in life is to have sex, everything else is just an illusion of self importance put about by people who can't come to terms with their own mortality and fear of the truth.
Because the British Government was responsible for the ballot rigging, the British Government chose not to support the Irish people, that's why the PIRA came into existence in the first place. No one was listening so they had to fight for their freedoms.
The British Government has colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries in the murder of many Irish nationals. And is responsible for the cover-up of these actions.
That's how you're ignorant, you believe the British Government is a protector of freedom and democracy.
The British invaded Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Each country has the right to freedom from tyrannical dictators. Of course if you do fight for freedom you're called a terrorist.
