Quote Originally Posted by GoddessHerb
Nice to see nothing but personal attacks... well I guess when you have nothing of any real value to say I guess attack is all you can do. No wonder things are the way they are.
Show me a "personal attack". You know that is against forum rules, and the poster could face consequences. I fail to see the "personal attack". Maybe you are confusing an alternative viewpoint as a personal attack. Maybe you think what I just said is a personal attack. I dunno? I don't care either.

Quote Originally Posted by GoddessHerb
H4H- No I don't have any balls but why would I need them to speak my mind?? .
I won't try to assume that he meant that figuratively, but I am betting he did. A better way to say it would be, "wow, that's really ironic that you are freely expressing your opinion in a country where such a right is protected by our founding documents, in regards to the same country being a police state."

Quote Originally Posted by GoddessHerb
IR- Must be nice to be a middle aged guy in a country run by people just like you. I wonder what that's like. Do I not have a right to live without fear of a paramilitary group besieging my home because I passively resist unjust laws? I guess since they aren't DOD soldiers it's ok? So a "fair trial" is what I have to look forward to huh. .
You have a right to live however the hell you want. If you CHOOSE to passively resist laws and the result is you "living in fear of a paramilitary group besieging your home," then so be it. It's your choice remember? If you don't like the feeling you have, then change what you are doing. Personally, I have good reason to worry about that exact thing happening to me personally, and I have first hand experience with that very thing happening. I don't live in fear. If you do, it's your choice. BTW, I am not a middle aged white man either. Go figure. It's not anyone else's fault but yours for the way you perceive the world and the way you react to it. So if "passively resisting laws" makes you fearful, then don't do it. If you choose to continue to do it, then don't blame everyone else in the world for the way you feel, try being accountable for your own choices.:thumbsup:
Quote Originally Posted by GoddessHerb
As for the freedoms lost how about freedom to petition for redress of grievances, or peaceably assembling, or habeus corpus, or unreasonable search and seizure, or life without pain and fear? (I know that last bit isn't "guaranteed" but shouldn't I have a right to it anyway?) I'm sure there are more but these are the ones that are important to me. .
As for your rights to petition for redress of grievances, or peaceably assembling, or habeus corpus, or unreasonable search and seizure, unless you know something I don't, or there have been some amendments to our Bill of Rights, they are still there. Could you maybe elaborate on how those freedoms have been lost? Remember, you are free to do most anything you want until it infringes upon the rights and freedoms of others. As far as I know those are all still applicable. Maybe I live in an alternate universe though.

Quote Originally Posted by GoddessHerb
Oh and to your paranoia comment, well it's hard not to be traumatized by all the bullshit the government and it's agencies spew. Especially when you combine it with the indifference of others. .
You do realize the "government" is not a single person, it's made up of 3 branches of power, by countless numbers of people, including the citizens that elect the officials that serve. By "spew" what do you mean? By "indifference", do you mean anyone that has an alternate point of view? To me it just sounds like you have zero tolerance for anyone that doesn't buy into your "woe is me" world view?:wtf:

Quote Originally Posted by GoddessHerb
Kush- Even if I left the US and became a citizen of another country the US would still tax me. Therefore I would be forced to subsidize a regime I do not agree with nor wish to participate in. So what do you call that? .
I would call that misinformed at best. Here is some info for you from one of those traumatizing government agencies, if you can stomach reading it.:S2:

Expatriation Tax


The expatriation tax provisions under Section 877 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) apply to US citizens who have renounced their citizenship and long-term residents (as defined in IRC 877(e)) who have ended their US resident status for federal tax purposes. In 2004, the expatriation rules changed. If you expatriated on or before June 3, 2004 one set of rules apply. In accordance with the significant changes made to IRC 877 by the American Jobs Creation Act (AJCA) of 2004, if you expatriated after June 3, 2004 another set of rules apply.
Expatriation after June 3, 2004
The American Jobs Creation Act (AJCA) of 2004 amends Section 877 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), which provides for an alternative tax regime for certain, expatriated individuals. Amended IRC 877 eliminates the tax avoidance criteria for imposition of the expatriation tax on certain types of income for 10 years following expatriation, and creates objective criteria to impose the tax on individuals with an average income tax liability of $127,000 for tax year 2005 (or higher amount for later years) for the 5 prior years or a net worth of $2,000,000 on the date of expatriation.

So by all means, now that you are informed don't let that stop you from leaving this police state while you can!:S2::S2::S2:

Of course, if you have an income tax liability of over 127,000 per year, then yeah, you are right, guess this would apply to you. Oh, or if you have a net worth of 2,000,000 for the last 5 years then yeah, they are going to make you pay your taxes. The part you didn't get before you posted that blurb, was that this law was put into place for people that solely leave the country to avoid income taxes due to their vast amount of wealth. So unless you are in this category, (and maybe you are who am I to know) you shouldn't have to worry about paying taxes to the U.S and subsidizing this police state.
So send us all a post card.:thumbsup:

Quote Originally Posted by GoddessHerb
As for the MLK quote- 1st you shouldn't have to go to jail to show the utmost respect for the law.
You don't have to go to jail to show the utmost respect for the law. That's not what he was saying. Read it again, out loud, in the context of the civil rights era. Then think about it. Then apply it.

Here is some general information about a "police state". Followed by some examples. For those that like to throw around words.

The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population, potentially by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement.[1]

Classification of a police state

The classification of a country or regime as a police state is usually contested and debated. Because of the pejorative connotation of the term, it is rare that a country will identify itself as a police state. The classification is often established by an internal whistleblower or an external critic or activist group. The use of the term is motivated as a response to the laws, policies and actions of that regime, and is often used pejoratively to describe the regime's concept of the social contract, human rights, and similar matters.
Genuine police states are fundamentally authoritarian, and are often dictatorships. However the degree of government repression varies widely among societies. Most regimes fall into some middle ground between the extremes of pure civil libertarianism and pure policestatism.
In times of national emergency or war, the balance which may usually exist between freedom and national security often tips in favour of security. This shift may lead to allegations that the nation in question has become, or is becoming, a police state.
Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no definitive objective standards to determine whether the term "police state" applies to a particular nation at any given point in time. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate objectively the truth of allegations that a nation is, or is becoming, a police state. One way to view the concept of the police state and the free state is through the medium of a balance or scale, where any law focused on removing liberty is seen as moving toward a police state, and any law which limits government oversight is seen as moving towards a free state.[2]
War is often portrayed in fiction as a perfect precursor to establishing a police state, as citizens are more dependent on their government and the police for safety than usual (see Fictional police states below).


Enlightened absolutism

Under the political model of enlightened absolutism, the ruler is the "highest servant of the state" and exercises absolute power to provide for the general welfare of the population. This model of government proposes that all the power of the state must be directed toward this end, and rejects codified, statutory constraints upon the ruler's absolute power. Thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes supported this type of absolutist government.
As the enlightened, absolute ruler is said to be charged with the public good, and implicitly infallible by right of appointment, even critical, loyal opposition to the ruler's party is a crime against the state. The concept of loyal opposition is incompatible with these politics. As public dissent is forbidden, it inevitably becomes secret, which, in turn, is countered with political repression via a secret police.
Liberal democracy, which emphasizes the rule of law, focuses on the police state's not being subject to law. Robert von Mohl, who first introduced the rule of law to German jurisprudence, contrasted the Rechtsstaat ("legal" or "constitutional" state) with the aristocratic Polizeistaat ("police state").[3]
<H3>Potential examples of police states</H3>

As previously discussed, it is not possible to objectively determine whether a nation has become or is becoming a police state. As a consequence, to draw up an exhaustive list of police states would be inherently flawed. However, there are a few highly debated examples which serve to illustrate partial characteristics of a police state's structure. These examples are listed below.
The South African apartheid system is generally considered to have been a police state despite having been nominally a democracy (albeit with the native, Black African majority population excluded from the democracy).
Nazi Germany, a dictatorship, was, at least initially, brought into being through a nominal democracy, yet exerted repressive controls over its people.
In Cuba, 22 journalists who attempted to publicise non-government authorised news remain imprisoned. Arrested in March 2003, the journalists are serving prison terms of up to 27 years. It is also reported that journalists not in prison are frequently threatened with the same fate.[4]
Paris-based Reporters Without Borders ranked North Korea last out of 168 countries in a test of press freedom.[5] It has been reported that the only TV channel in North Korea predominately eulogises the countries present leader Kim Jong Il and his father (and previous leader) Kim Il Sung. As a result, some locals in Pyongyang have been quoted as stating that their leaders are gods.[6]

So now at least you have some sort of general information, so that future posts made on the subject this can be considered, and ignorance can be ruled out.
Get some sleep, if you can! Wooohaha! We are all watching you!:lol5::lol5::lol5::lol5: