Miscellaneous Chatter on anything Government related: Coverups, Conspiracies, Corruption, etc

[PaulaJedi]

I re-read this thread and I see no evidence of anyone retaliating. Justinian, it is sometimes hard to detect emotion in text, but nobody was angry at all. We just happen to disagree. You are of course free to express your opinion in a non-attacking manner as well. If we all agreed, message boards would be boring.

 

[Justinian]

Uggghhh.. Perhaps I'm not getting the right message across with what I'm typing. It happens.
@ Sam: yes, I was typing about #2 definition. agressively active without physical confrontation.
@Khaos: yes it was a typo, but no I'm not an advocate for censorship, I'm just an advocate for not thinking about things one sided all the time.
@ Paula: Thanks for clarifying. I am sorry if I took your replies wrong, but your words were seemingly angry when I was reading them.
@Octavius: I agree it has to be this way, but some of the replies.. well, read my reply to Paula.

Perhaps let me put this into an example:
-Pedophiles like child pornography. Yet child pornography is illegal to have. This is a form of censorship. If what all of you are saying is true, then child pornography should be allowed to be had by everyone without being illegal. I'm sorry, but I'm okay with that being censored. You cannot say you want free flow of all information and then block something because you think it is morally wrong. Because that's how the governments think, that gets censorship started in the first place.
-My bank account information is blocked by the Privacy Act. Without a form of censorship that would not exist and the bank managers would be able to freely email my information around the web, opening me up to have my account hacked.
- I'll give you a personal one that really hits home for me: Facebook postings; (for right or wrong) One base I was at in Baghdad was hit hard one night and a lot of people died because somebody posted to Facebook details that their whole unit was at the airport waiting to leave. A lot of people died that night because one person couldn't keep their mouth shut for 2 hours until they got on the plane. Did they shoot there a lot? yes. But that particular night they knew there was a large concentration of troops gathered and used it to their advantage. I understand it's war. But they were all under orders to not post locations or times. This person thought they were the exception because the have the right as an American of the Freedom of Speech, but they died for it that night along with a lot of other people. Then they posted videos on the internet laughing about it while they drove around our base firing the rockets in that were killing everyone.
-Another free flow of information at the end of the last one there. Posting videos of killing people. You'd have to allow that.

-There is no such thing as being truly free. There is no country in the world where it's citizens are free to do as they so choose. We have more freedoms in this country than 95% of the world. The countries that have more freedoms than us, do so because they are basically in anarchy. And that is not a state I'd like to live in. There is a good way and a bad way to effect change.
-My point being the above. You cannot call some information grey areas, you cannot say exceptions.
You cannot say free flow of information, then go back and say that there are exceptions, because then we go right back to square one.

 

[PaulaJedi]

Justin! No!!!! I'm not mad in the least. I promise!! It's just how I type. It's really hard to tell emotion in messages. Maybe I need to put more smilie faces and such. It's just how I come across when I write. Forgive me. I am all about PEACE.

I have to reply to the rest of your post later, though. Gotta run, but all is good here, ok?

 

[Octavusprime]

Justin. I do not think that child porn or killings should be allowed to air either. But I also don't want corporations and governments to be allowed to cover up illegal activities. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions. The truth hurts but it sets us free. We must be allowed access to information so that we the people can decide if something is morally right and just.

 

[Samstwitch]

Justinian, My guess is that you are in the military. Am I correct? If that is the case, then perhaps that is why you have a difficult time seeing our points of view. If you're in the Military, then you are sworn to obey your superiors. And if that is the case, you do not want to believe those you are sworn to (the head figures and government they work for) are corrupt. I'm just guessing here. Are you in the military?

 

[Justinian]

No I never said that I don't think things are corrupt. I agree that things are 100%. I think the point is being overlooked. The point is that I refuse to trade the Devil I know, for the Devil I don't know.

But yes, in order to make it so that the government and big corporations have to be open with us, then nothing will ever be sacredly secret.

Child porn ads will be popping up in our homes. Hackers will steal your identity and broadcast it on the local news.

So yes, I see your points. I understand 100% that the ideal scenario in life would be for 100% transparency on all information and to allow it all to be free, but I tihnk that all of you are missing the point that this 100% release of information is more bad than good. Just stop for 10 minutes before anyone replies and think of the bad things that will come of this.

So no, I'm not a puppet of anyone. I'm not suffering from Stockholm syndrome from working for my Uncle Sam for so long. I'm a pessimist. I look for the bad in all things before the good. And if, at the end, the bad outweighs the good, then I know it's wrong. And this is one of those situations where I feel the bad outweighs the good.

The Chinese are the oldest civilization on Earth. Yet they harbor more secrets than any other country on Earth. Yet, we only ever hear of hackers attacking American or Japanese corporations. Now if my math is correct here, I'd say that... either our country has allowed us just enough freedoms to allow for us to "bite the hand that feeds", or one of America's enemies is influencing the correct few people just enough to sow dissent so that all we are doing is hurting ourselves.

EVEN if our government was replaced and all politicians were told to leave and a new Constitution was put in place, I would never want 100% transparency on all information.

Now however, if you want to increase a little more flow of information freely while harboring other information... then I'll come to your side. But this group right there in that statement says that they want 100% transparency, and that I will never agree with because of child porn, because of my safety, because of the safety of the thousands of my brothers and sisters that are guaranteed to die if that ever came to pass.

 

[Samstwitch]

...my company guy told us all to avoid those wiki leaks pages until this was all sorted out...

On another thread, you said the above, that "my company guy told us to avoid those wiki leaks pages". I know that military personnel were told not to read anything on Wikileaks, and perhaps other government employees were given similar instructions. Your statement led me to think that you are somehow employed by a government agency or the military. Can you explain or elaborate on this matter? I'm trying to discover where you're coming from, your point of view.

What kind of company (that's not affiliated with the government) would tell employees not to read Wikileaks?

P.S. The thread that I borrowed your quote from is at the following link. Did you see the video I posted with Bradley Manning's statement and the video of the massacre that he was exposing? You never replied. UPDATE: Bradley Manning Sentenced to 35 Years for Revealing Secrets | Paranormalis

 

[PaulaJedi]

They aren't JUST about censorship, fyi.

 

[Justinian]

@Sam: I was in the military years ago. Then I started working for a company that does contract work for the government.
I also now own my own business that has nothing to do with the government. So I see things from a corporate aspect as well. Matter of fact, I can give you a real life incident that just happened to me. A local reporter called me last week to talk about a previous employee. I had never heard of this man, but being a generally friendly person, I said I'd dig through the previous owners files to see if he had ever worked for them. In fact he did. But being a pessimist, I asked why she wanted this information. So she told me that this man was wanted in connection with a local murder.

Now here's the real catch. This man didn't commit the murder, his brother did. but because they shared the same last name and for whatever other reasons, the police wanted to investigate him. Well, he works for my competitor. So when it was found out that this man that had no involvement in this murder, worked for my competitor, their business the last two weeks has been very slow, almost nonexistent. I should be happy, but I'm not because that could have been my business. As a small business owner it is very hard to survive, and then you have freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of all kinds of other crap that isn't censored, and now these people are probably going to go into bankruptcy and sell their business all because of something that they didn't do. Now how is that for open flow of information.

My opinion has nothing to do with my prior involvement and feeling some sort of loyalty to anyone. If that clears things up. My opinion revolves around the fact that I'm tired of being the guy that plays by the rules and always being kicked when I'm down, yet these people that don't play by the rules are always getting ahead in life. Bradley Manning will be spending a lot of time in Prison, while Julian Assange is/was getting 5star treatment in the embassy of whatever country it was taht was protecting him. How fair is that, that Manning did all the legwork yet gets shit on by the guy he was helping? I don't support what he did, don't get me wrong, I'm not changing my stance, but if that's what your so called, "revealing the truth" gets you... to be locked up while others cower behind an iron curtain, then count me out. because thats just the same as working for the President again, and I would have to be on my last leg to work for this asshole again.

 

[Samstwitch]

...my company guy told us all to avoid those wiki leaks pages until this was all sorted out...

Thanks for that explanation.

I asked solely because of the statement you made above. If anyone that I worked for ever told me not to read Wikileaks or any other type of information leaked by a Whistleblower, that's the first thing I would do...read Wikileaks.

Bradley Manning
Julian Assange
Edward Snowden

They're all seeking asylum for revealing truths. They are in different situations, but because some have it easier than others, that shouldn't reflect on their cause or their person.

Nelson Mandela and many other good people spent decades in prison for their beliefs.