Reason 982342938 we can't trust our government

kingjoshi · Mar 30, 2006

Because people do stupid things. For example, refugees seeking asylum are being denied because they paid ransom to have their family members freed. That's considered providing "material support" for terrorists. And that's not all, if you're gang-raped and the perpetrators stay at your house, you've proved shelter and "material support" to the terrorists. Sorry, the US doesn't accept terrorist sympathizers like you.

EDIT: trust in the sense of following the law in spirit. For example, people were saying the Government wouldn't prosecute Clergymen for aiding illegal immigrants, even though if the House bill became law, the clergymen would be felons. Basically, the authorities could use this law whenever they wanted to scare/blackmail specific people. And government shouldn't be trusted with such power.

Sidhe · Mar 30, 2006

Can anyone really trust there government anyway, I'm sure if I was aware of half the crap the secret service and civil servents got up to I would be horified. US governement is untrustworthy, politicians are not to be trusted? Since when

Red Stranger · Mar 30, 2006

We need to look at the whole story before we criticise anyone. We feel sympathy for the girl that got "raped," but how do we know that she's telling the truth? She couldn't been sent as a spy, so we have to do a background check first. As with the guy, if you don't like the situation, why not stay around and fight it. It's selfish to just leave your people to suffer while you escape to a better place and leech off us. People need to take charge instead having that self pitying attitude.

kingjoshi · Mar 30, 2006

Red Stranger said:
We need to look at the whole story before we criticise anyone. We feel sympathy for the girl that got "raped," but how do we know that she's telling the truth? She couldn't been sent as a spy, so we have to do a background check first.

The government does multiple interviews. Everyone is very aware of the fact that people would lie to come to the US. But the reason wasn't they didn't believe their story. The reason was because they provided "material support" for terrorists.

Red Stranger said:
As with the guy, if you don't like the situation, why not stay around and fight it. It's selfish to just leave your people to suffer while you escape to a better place and leech off us. People need to take charge instead having that self pitying attitude.

Spoken like a true person who doesn't have to make such sacrifices. God forbid people value their own lives.

Red Stranger · Mar 30, 2006

kingjoshi said:
Spoken like a true person who doesn't have to make such sacrifices. God forbid people value their own lives.

I don't have to make such a sacrifice because I live in a good country in a good time. But if I did, I would. I wouldn't just leave my family behind to take food from people of another country.

kingjoshi · Mar 30, 2006

Red Stranger said:
I don't have to make such a sacrifice because I live in a good country in a good time. But if I did, I would. I wouldn't just leave my family behind to take food from people of another country.

First, you ignored the other point.

Second, anyone can say such a thing when they don't have to live it (or die for it!).

Your family members are dying left and right and you stick around for what? What family members? They're dead. If you have any other family members, you drag them along with you and try to save each other. We're not talking about Gandhi or MLK protesting against the (mostly) civilized government with non-violent protests. We talking about people that would kill you without a second thought on the first hint to non-obedience. I don't know if you're grasping how fundamentally different that is.

Red Stranger · Mar 30, 2006

kingjoshi said:
First, you ignored the other point.

If she was a spy, then it's accurate to deny her for giving "material support"

Second, anyone can say such a thing when they don't have to live it (or die for it!).

Your family members are dying left and right and you stick around for what? What family members? They're dead. If you have any other family members, you drag them along with you and try to save each other. We're not talking about Gandhi or MLK protesting against the (mostly) civilized government with non-violent protests. We talking about people that would kill you without a second thought on the first hint to non-obedience. I don't know if you're grasping how fundamentally different that is.

Other than the family, there are people in the community. It's selfish to just leave them behind.

kingjoshi · Mar 30, 2006

Red Stranger said:
If she was a spy, then it's accurate to deny her for giving "material support"

Where did you pull that from? They don't reject her case because they think she's a spy. If they did, they would bring her in custody. They reject her because they're using very literal language that flies directly against the spirit of the laws (both for refugees and terrorism).

Red Stranger said:
Other than the family, there are people in the community. It's selfish to just leave them behind.

Why don't you go save those people? It's easy to talk about family, community, nation, etc when you don't have to make the sacrifices. It'll always be one level below anything YOU have to do.

carlosMM · Mar 30, 2006

Red Stranger said:
We need to look at the whole story before we criticise anyone. We feel sympathy for the girl that got "raped," but how do we know that she's telling the truth? She couldn't been sent as a spy, so we have to do a background check first. As with the guy, if you don't like the situation, why not stay around and fight it. It's selfish to just leave your people to suffer while you escape to a better place and leech off us. People need to take charge instead having that self pitying attitude.

This is 'Seit null Uhr fünfundvierzig wird zurückgeschossen' logic. You should be ashamed of yourself.

HawkeyeGS · Mar 30, 2006

Red Stranger said:
We need to look at the whole story before we criticise anyone. We feel sympathy for the girl that got "raped," but how do we know that she's telling the truth? She couldn't been sent as a spy, so we have to do a background check first. As with the guy, if you don't like the situation, why not stay around and fight it. It's selfish to just leave your people to suffer while you escape to a better place and leech off us. People need to take charge instead having that self pitying attitude.

I'm glad the whole 'innocent till proven guilty' messgae is riging so strongly around the world :rolleyes:

Heretic_Cata · Mar 30, 2006

What is reason nr. 982342937 ?

kingjoshi · Mar 30, 2006

Heretic_Cata said:
What is reason nr. 982342937 ?

If I told you, the government would kill me. But I've already said too much.

Phlegmak · Mar 30, 2006

Reason 982342938 we can't trust our government

It's surprising to me that this forum focuses so much on the government. Corporations also don't have your best interests in mind. In fact, I would say that corporations are far far more dangerous than the government.

Phlegmak · Mar 30, 2006

Red Stranger said:
We need to look at the whole story before we criticise anyone. We feel sympathy for the girl that got "raped," but how do we know that she's telling the truth? She couldn't been sent as a spy, so we have to do a background check first. As with the guy, if you don't like the situation, why not stay around and fight it. It's selfish to just leave your people to suffer while you escape to a better place and leech off us. People need to take charge instead having that self pitying attitude.

I've only been on Civ Fanatics for a short time. Every once in a while, I come across one of your posts. I'm left with the thought:

Do you believe what you write?

EdwardTking · Mar 30, 2006

People here are critical of:

Red Stranger said:
As with the guy, if you don't like the situation, why not stay around and fight it.

but the age/sex profile of people claiming political asylum
is very often heavily loaded towards single men of fighting age.

e.g. Somali refugees coming to England in the 1990s.

There is no great evidence to suggest that single men of fighting
age suffer more persecution than married couples, women or the old;
so why are the claimants so disproportionally single men of fighting age?

There are a number of theories:

(a) they are economic migrants pretending to be refugees
(b) single men of fighting age are more likely to abandon family
(c) they are better able to extort the money to pay to be smuggled in
(d) they are actually criminals on the run.

History_Buff · Mar 30, 2006

Phlegmak said:
It's surprising to me that this forum focuses so much on the government. Corporations also don't have your best interests in mind. In fact, I would say that corporations are far far more dangerous than the government.

Yeah, but that's the whole idea behind a corporation. If I don't like what they're selling, I don't have to buy it. However, even if I vote against the person leading my country, I still pay taxes

It's far more reasonable to just have a government restrict the rights of corporations. It's also a lot easier. Recall that not even Adam Smith was in favour of the government not placing restrictions on players in the economy.

kingjoshi · Mar 30, 2006

Phlegmak said:
It's surprising to me that this forum focuses so much on the government. Corporations also don't have your best interests in mind. In fact, I would say that corporations are far far more dangerous than the government.

I've always hated corporations more. The very idea of a legal entity without the same responsibilities as people is very troubling. And I don't trust one versus the other any more or less (government versus corporataion).

However, the power the government can have truly trivializes any power a corporation can have. The government is the one with armies and the ability to imprison people. The government can outright buy a corporation at any price it deems fit and say it's just compensation. The corporation is partly to be feared because of the influence it can have on government. Therefore, it's obvious which one is to be more feared.

Conversely, the government has the power to help, protect and serve much better then any corporation. And that's why we need to be vigilent to make sure it does its duty. We make up the government. We don't make up most corporations.

blackheart · Mar 30, 2006

Red Stranger said:
It's selfish to just leave your people to suffer while you escape to a better place and leech off us. People need to take charge instead having that self pitying attitude.

People don't have a self-pitying attitude when they're trying to dodge bullets and machetes.

Shaihulud · Mar 31, 2006

Number one reason: "Because the government is controlled by politicians" that is enough reason not to trust it.

willemvanoranje · Mar 31, 2006

Phlegmak said:
It's surprising to me that this forum focuses so much on the government. Corporations also don't have your best interests in mind. In fact, I would say that corporations are far far more dangerous than the government.

I'd like to second History Buff here.. and add that nowadays in some states the two worlds have become too close to being one. Anyone remember Eisenhower?

Reason 982342938 we can't trust our government

King

Deity

Emperor

King

Emperor

King

Emperor

King

Deity

Prince

We're gonna live forever

King

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

King

unenlightened

Deity

Curitibano

Similar threads