rockaction
Footballguy
I get a sense for the fissures, too. It befuddles me that we'd throw this away. Over so little.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
FBI accused of leaking private data to NYT after Project Veritas raid (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Insein
- Start date
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Perfect example of about 440 people who need to take a breath and step away from the internet for a bit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Herb
Footballguy
Can you elaborate? That was an interesting article, but I still don't buy this. Tensions are high, bad actors are very successfully stoking the fires of outrage and identity politics.
But if the #### really starts going down, you actually gonna be okay with being violent toward your neighbor just because they voted differently than you? For all the bluster I see from every corner, for all the tough talk and faux peacocking, I just can't imagine this gaining traction among the rank and file populace.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Not really. RT is actually Russian propaganda. Certainly you are smart enough to know that.
Insein
Footballguy
We're still going on the Russian propaganda but not acknowledging that Veritas lawyer filed a cease and desist. Also the NYT had priveleged information the day after the raid and ran stories with it. So if it came from the space Pope, it wouldn't matter because these things happened.
massraider
Footballguy
If there's a Civil War, James freaking O'Keefe isn't going to be the reason it starts.
Some git who regularly retweets donkeys like Cernovich and Posobiec tweets some unsubstantiated accusation, and we have already moved on to, gosh, the FBI is really political now....
So silly. Get a bunker
Some git who regularly retweets donkeys like Cernovich and Posobiec tweets some unsubstantiated accusation, and we have already moved on to, gosh, the FBI is really political now....
So silly. Get a bunker
dozer
Footballguy
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
I’m open to this entire story being real. And I’ll gladly read every source on this story.
But it’s beyond absurd that anyone takes RT seriously, defends it as a credible news source, and then acts incredulous when others suggest it is a propaganda arm of Putin. How hard is it to say “yeah, RT is almost pure propaganda, but a stopped clock can still be right twice a day?”
Insein
Footballguy
I agree. But I have posted other links since then. I can change the opening link if that makes people feel better.
Insein
Footballguy
No because you and many others agreed with him and have for most of the year. Unless you're backing off on the whole insurection comments he made.
Back to the point at hand though.
the moops
Footballguy
I agree with him when he stated "The offenders should not be called protesters, rather "a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists,"
That amounts to a few thousand people, a far cry from the 165 million you claimed he was talking about.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Nah, all good, I’m just reading the thread for the first time, from the beginning. I could have (and probably should have) read the whole thing before commenting on anything.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I was told it was a few dozen people, at most maybe 100 or so, and no one supported them.
Not half the country is going to start a civil war because they're facing charges?
dozer
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I understand that. IMO people who think that need to step away from the internet and actually talk to more humans IRL (especially ones who don't vote like they do)
the moops
Footballguy
Couple things
1) that poll was conducted less than a month after the capitol attack. I would guess it would be different now
2) the poll asked "will the US have another civil war?" It doesn't mention a timeline, so if asked, I may have even responded yes - for while I don't think we are on the brink, I think it could very well happen at some point
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Ok. Now I’ve read the whole thread. Where are the links that prove anything happened here? I see some suggestions and accusations by a guy (who happens to be a discredited POS) who is embarrassed because he got raided. But all I see are accusations, not proof.
Perhaps the outrage machine should wait for more facts before overthrowing the government and starting a civil war?
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Smart? Smart? Lol. Smart left the room a long time ago. How could the possibly look any sillier than the “release the Kraken “ lady?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Perfect example of what we are talking about in relation to the internet. Insein seems to think that Biden saying that 1000 people are domestic terrorists is the issue - not him claiming that Biden called 1/2 the country that (and not backing off of that statement).
Insein
Footballguy
Calling Trump Supporters domestic terrorists. There's at least 74m people that voted for him. Hardly a stretch. Especially considering some of you still think Russian affected 2016.
rockaction
Footballguy
This is sort of making no sense. I'm sorry, it just isn't quite adding up.
Mile High
Footballguy
Hopefully cooler heads prevail and we just get a divorce and go our separate ways, instead of blowing up everyone's house and killing our women and children.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
He called the people at the capital that, not all Trump supporters, unless you care to correct us on that and show us wtf you are talking about.
quick-hands
Footballguy
Throw it away? I say if the left wants want to leave, the red states stay the United States. Red get the documents, keep the declaration of independence the constitution and the military.
sho nuff
Footballguy
He didn't do this though. If he did…please quote it rather than continuing to make this unsubstantiated claim.
Nobody said there was evidence. It’s highly suspicious. If the FBI investigated PV for potential illegal activity in obtaining the diary then they should investigate The NY Times for potential illegal activity in obtaining the leaked attorney correspondence.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
FBI raid on Project Veritas founder’s home sparks questions about press freedom
The Biden administration’s effort to establish itself as a committed champion of press freedom is facing new doubts because of the Justice Department’s aggressive legal tactics against a conservative provocateur known for his hidden-camera video stings.
A predawn FBI raid last weekend against Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe and similar raids on some of his associates are prompting alarm from some First Amendment advocates, who contend that prosecutors appear to have run roughshod over Justice Department media policies and a federal law protecting journalists.
Adding to the drama surrounding the brewing court showdown: It stems from a politically sensitive investigation into the alleged theft of the diary of President Joe Biden’s daughter Ashley.
That document made it into the hands of O’Keefe’s organization, Project Veritas, which never published anything on the subject and eventually turned the document over to police.
An ensuing federal investigation resulted in the FBI raid on O’Keefe’s home in Westchester County, N.Y., at 6 a.m. last Saturday to seize his cell phones pursuant to a court order. O’Keefe says he stood handcuffed in his underwear in a hallway as almost a dozen agents — one carrying a battering ram — searched for the phones.
The politically fraught episode is shaping up as an early test of the vows from Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland to show greater respect for the media and to back away from the confrontational, often hostile approach favored by former President Donald Trump and his administration.
“This is just beyond belief,” said University of Minnesota law professor Jane Kirtley, a former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “I’m not a big fan of Project Veritas, but this is just over the top. I hope they get a serious reprimand from the court because I think this is just wrong.”
O'Keefe’s lawyers complained to a federal judge this week that the raid unfairly denied him the legal protections afforded to journalists.
"The Department of Justice’s use of a search warrant to seize a reporter’s notes and work product violates decades of established Supreme Court precedent," O’Keefe lawyer Paul Calli wrote to prosecutors.
O’Keefe’s lawyers are demanding that the court appoint a special master to supervise the review of the information on his phones, which they contend contains sensitive details about confidential sources, as well as privileged communication with Project Veritas’ attorneys.
Such a process is uncommon, but has been used in recent years to sift through information seized in federal investigations into two of Trump’s personal attorneys, Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani.
On Thursday, Manhattan-based U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres issued a one-page order giving prosecutors one day to confirm they have "paused [their] extraction and review of the contents" of O’Keefe's cell phones. Torres — an appointee of President Barack Obama — has not yet ruled on O’Keefe’s request for a special master, who is typically a retired judge.
Project Veritas was facing a jury trial in Washington next month in the suit brought by Democracy Partners, a Democratic consulting firm it infiltrated, but on Thursday, a judge postponed the trial due to the raids and the unfolding legal fight over them.
At the center of the gathering legal storm is a pivotal question: Is O’Keefe a journalist in the eyes of the law?
O’Keefe’s attorneys insist that despite his evident political bent and his unorthodox — sometimes deceptive — tactics, he qualifies as a journalist under a federal statute and Justice Department regulations aimed at sharply restricting the use of search warrants and similar steps against members of the media.
Prosecutors insist they’ve complied with those requirements, but have thus far been cagey about whether or not they’re treating O’Keefe as a member of the press.
“The Government hereby confirms that it has complied with all applicable regulations and policies regarding potential members of the news media in the course of this investigation, including with respect to the search warrant at issue,” prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan wrote Monday in a letter to O’Keefe’s lawyers obtained by POLITICO.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Garland was asked who qualifies as a journalist under Justice Department policies. “It’s very difficult to make that kind of definition,” he said.
O’Keefe is certainly not a typical journalist. Indeed, several of his outfit’s major hidden-camera exposés have been directed at employees of major news organizations such as CNN and NPR, seeking to paint them as left-wing activists. (At least one such attempt was foiled in 2017 when Washington Post reporters suspected they were being set up and effectively turned the tables on O’Keefe’s operatives.)
While many of O’Keefe’s tactics are unsavory, they are far from unknown in the mainstream press. Hidden-camera stings and undercover reporting have fallen out of fashion at most traditional news organizations, but they were once a staple of network television news magazines.
In the 1970s, the Chicago Sun-Times bought a rundown bar and rigged it out with hidden cameras, successfully capturing city inspectors demanding bribes. NBC’s popular and controversial series, “To Catch a Predator,” revolves around hidden-camera stings.
O’Keefe’s rather overt political agenda is also in line with a long American tradition of advocacy journalism. And many conservatives view mainstream news outlets as pervasively liberal in their worldview even as most claim to be neutral in their reporting.
Some of O’Keefe’s practices do seem highly unusual. A poorly redacted pleading filed in the civil suit Project Veritas was set to face trial on next month indicates that O’Keefe encouraged a colleague to tell potential donors they could provide “input” on the timing of release of Project Veritas’ work, raising the specter that O’Keefe was essentially operating under the direct control of political benefactors.
“Real news organizations — whether Fox News, the New York Times or any other recognized media outlet — do not go to their donors, or advertisers, and ask for their ‘input’ on when stories should be run,” attorneys for Democracy Partners said in the court filing.
Kirtley, the Minnesota law professor, warned against denying legal protections to Project Veritas based on its political outlook or its tactics. She also noted that Trump repeatedly accused mainstream media outlets of both unethical practices and of having a political ax to grind.
“Trump’s been saying that about the New York Times for seven years,” she said. “It’s very dangerous to try to categorize people doing journalistic-type work, even if they’re not doing it the way I would do it or the way the mainstream media would do it or the way ethical journalists would do it,” Kirtley said.
Another First Amendment advocate, Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, also said the raids on Project Veritas were worrying.
“I don't personally like Project Veritas at all, but imagine this was a liberal org under Trump. Not a good precedent,” he wrote on Twitter.
However, legal experts cautioned that even if Project Veritas and O’Keefe qualify as journalists under the law or Justice Department policy, that did not give them license to violate the law.
“If they’ve got evidence that [Project Veritas] has broken the law, then we’re in a completely different world here,” Kirtley said.
Precisely how the Biden daughter’s diary came into the organization’s possession is unclear, but there have been no public indications thus far that — if the diary was stolen — the conservative group planned the theft or helped carry it out.
Court papers provided to the Project Veritas founder when his phones were seized last weekend indicate that his devices were taken as part of an investigation that prosecutors are conducting into potential conspiracy to traffic stolen goods across state lines, as well as accessory-after-the-fact and misprision of a felony.
Precisely what the government told U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave to get the warrant used to seize O’Keefe’s phones is unclear and remains under seal.
But the bare-bones outline of the investigation contained in the warrant has fueled the concerns of First Amendment advocates because the Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that media outlets cannot be held liable for publishing information that may have been obtained illegally, as long as they themselves obtained the material legally.
Project Veritas’ lawyer, Calli, acknowledged in an interview on Fox News’ “Hannity” last week that O’Keefe’s group “agreed to pay money for the right to publish” the purported Biden diary. Calli said lawyers for the sources assured Project Veritas that the diary had been obtained lawfully, but the group’s only information on how it was obtained came from the sources.
Calli told the court in a letter earlier this week that the sources told Project Veritas they obtained the diary after Ashley Biden abandoned it at a home in Delray Beach, Fla.
Lawyers tracking the case say the publicly available facts suggest two possibilities: the Justice Department deemed O’Keefe did not qualify as a journalist under DOJ guidelines and federal law known as the Privacy Protection Act, or concluded that he was a member of the media, but that Project Veritas’ personnel may still have committed a crime.
Some language in the warrant suggests prosecutors are examining whether a bidding process for the diary violated laws against fencing stolen items.
However, Calli insists that even if the FBI suspects O’Keefe or others of crimes, Justice Department policy required prosecutors to negotiate for Project Veritas’ materials rather than seizing them.
“The principles that informed this guidance are no less applicable where the news-gathering activities focus on the President’s daughter,” Calli wrote in the motion seeking a special master.
Emails obtained by POLITICO show prosecutors declined to tell Calli whether the Project Veritas searches were approved by a Justice Department committee that oversees investigations impacting the news media.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan declined to comment on the office’s handling of the inquiry. A Justice Department spokesperson also declined comment.
Over the past six months, Biden and Garland have introduced extraordinarily protective policies toward the press, protections so robust that some national security professionals have raised concerns. However, the fight with Project Veritas raises questions about how broadly the new administration intends to apply those robust protections.
“This is really a test in this administration of whether they’re going to put their money where their mouth is,” Kirtley said. “If they’re trying to be seen as great champions of press freedom, this is a pretty bad way to start.”
The Biden administration’s effort to establish itself as a committed champion of press freedom is facing new doubts because of the Justice Department’s aggressive legal tactics against a conservative provocateur known for his hidden-camera video stings.
A predawn FBI raid last weekend against Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe and similar raids on some of his associates are prompting alarm from some First Amendment advocates, who contend that prosecutors appear to have run roughshod over Justice Department media policies and a federal law protecting journalists.
Adding to the drama surrounding the brewing court showdown: It stems from a politically sensitive investigation into the alleged theft of the diary of President Joe Biden’s daughter Ashley.
That document made it into the hands of O’Keefe’s organization, Project Veritas, which never published anything on the subject and eventually turned the document over to police.
An ensuing federal investigation resulted in the FBI raid on O’Keefe’s home in Westchester County, N.Y., at 6 a.m. last Saturday to seize his cell phones pursuant to a court order. O’Keefe says he stood handcuffed in his underwear in a hallway as almost a dozen agents — one carrying a battering ram — searched for the phones.
The politically fraught episode is shaping up as an early test of the vows from Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland to show greater respect for the media and to back away from the confrontational, often hostile approach favored by former President Donald Trump and his administration.
“This is just beyond belief,” said University of Minnesota law professor Jane Kirtley, a former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “I’m not a big fan of Project Veritas, but this is just over the top. I hope they get a serious reprimand from the court because I think this is just wrong.”
O'Keefe’s lawyers complained to a federal judge this week that the raid unfairly denied him the legal protections afforded to journalists.
"The Department of Justice’s use of a search warrant to seize a reporter’s notes and work product violates decades of established Supreme Court precedent," O’Keefe lawyer Paul Calli wrote to prosecutors.
O’Keefe’s lawyers are demanding that the court appoint a special master to supervise the review of the information on his phones, which they contend contains sensitive details about confidential sources, as well as privileged communication with Project Veritas’ attorneys.
Such a process is uncommon, but has been used in recent years to sift through information seized in federal investigations into two of Trump’s personal attorneys, Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani.
On Thursday, Manhattan-based U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres issued a one-page order giving prosecutors one day to confirm they have "paused [their] extraction and review of the contents" of O’Keefe's cell phones. Torres — an appointee of President Barack Obama — has not yet ruled on O’Keefe’s request for a special master, who is typically a retired judge.
Project Veritas was facing a jury trial in Washington next month in the suit brought by Democracy Partners, a Democratic consulting firm it infiltrated, but on Thursday, a judge postponed the trial due to the raids and the unfolding legal fight over them.
At the center of the gathering legal storm is a pivotal question: Is O’Keefe a journalist in the eyes of the law?
O’Keefe’s attorneys insist that despite his evident political bent and his unorthodox — sometimes deceptive — tactics, he qualifies as a journalist under a federal statute and Justice Department regulations aimed at sharply restricting the use of search warrants and similar steps against members of the media.
Prosecutors insist they’ve complied with those requirements, but have thus far been cagey about whether or not they’re treating O’Keefe as a member of the press.
“The Government hereby confirms that it has complied with all applicable regulations and policies regarding potential members of the news media in the course of this investigation, including with respect to the search warrant at issue,” prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan wrote Monday in a letter to O’Keefe’s lawyers obtained by POLITICO.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Garland was asked who qualifies as a journalist under Justice Department policies. “It’s very difficult to make that kind of definition,” he said.
O’Keefe is certainly not a typical journalist. Indeed, several of his outfit’s major hidden-camera exposés have been directed at employees of major news organizations such as CNN and NPR, seeking to paint them as left-wing activists. (At least one such attempt was foiled in 2017 when Washington Post reporters suspected they were being set up and effectively turned the tables on O’Keefe’s operatives.)
While many of O’Keefe’s tactics are unsavory, they are far from unknown in the mainstream press. Hidden-camera stings and undercover reporting have fallen out of fashion at most traditional news organizations, but they were once a staple of network television news magazines.
In the 1970s, the Chicago Sun-Times bought a rundown bar and rigged it out with hidden cameras, successfully capturing city inspectors demanding bribes. NBC’s popular and controversial series, “To Catch a Predator,” revolves around hidden-camera stings.
O’Keefe’s rather overt political agenda is also in line with a long American tradition of advocacy journalism. And many conservatives view mainstream news outlets as pervasively liberal in their worldview even as most claim to be neutral in their reporting.
Some of O’Keefe’s practices do seem highly unusual. A poorly redacted pleading filed in the civil suit Project Veritas was set to face trial on next month indicates that O’Keefe encouraged a colleague to tell potential donors they could provide “input” on the timing of release of Project Veritas’ work, raising the specter that O’Keefe was essentially operating under the direct control of political benefactors.
“Real news organizations — whether Fox News, the New York Times or any other recognized media outlet — do not go to their donors, or advertisers, and ask for their ‘input’ on when stories should be run,” attorneys for Democracy Partners said in the court filing.
Kirtley, the Minnesota law professor, warned against denying legal protections to Project Veritas based on its political outlook or its tactics. She also noted that Trump repeatedly accused mainstream media outlets of both unethical practices and of having a political ax to grind.
“Trump’s been saying that about the New York Times for seven years,” she said. “It’s very dangerous to try to categorize people doing journalistic-type work, even if they’re not doing it the way I would do it or the way the mainstream media would do it or the way ethical journalists would do it,” Kirtley said.
Another First Amendment advocate, Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, also said the raids on Project Veritas were worrying.
“I don't personally like Project Veritas at all, but imagine this was a liberal org under Trump. Not a good precedent,” he wrote on Twitter.
However, legal experts cautioned that even if Project Veritas and O’Keefe qualify as journalists under the law or Justice Department policy, that did not give them license to violate the law.
“If they’ve got evidence that [Project Veritas] has broken the law, then we’re in a completely different world here,” Kirtley said.
Precisely how the Biden daughter’s diary came into the organization’s possession is unclear, but there have been no public indications thus far that — if the diary was stolen — the conservative group planned the theft or helped carry it out.
Court papers provided to the Project Veritas founder when his phones were seized last weekend indicate that his devices were taken as part of an investigation that prosecutors are conducting into potential conspiracy to traffic stolen goods across state lines, as well as accessory-after-the-fact and misprision of a felony.
Precisely what the government told U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave to get the warrant used to seize O’Keefe’s phones is unclear and remains under seal.
But the bare-bones outline of the investigation contained in the warrant has fueled the concerns of First Amendment advocates because the Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that media outlets cannot be held liable for publishing information that may have been obtained illegally, as long as they themselves obtained the material legally.
Project Veritas’ lawyer, Calli, acknowledged in an interview on Fox News’ “Hannity” last week that O’Keefe’s group “agreed to pay money for the right to publish” the purported Biden diary. Calli said lawyers for the sources assured Project Veritas that the diary had been obtained lawfully, but the group’s only information on how it was obtained came from the sources.
Calli told the court in a letter earlier this week that the sources told Project Veritas they obtained the diary after Ashley Biden abandoned it at a home in Delray Beach, Fla.
Lawyers tracking the case say the publicly available facts suggest two possibilities: the Justice Department deemed O’Keefe did not qualify as a journalist under DOJ guidelines and federal law known as the Privacy Protection Act, or concluded that he was a member of the media, but that Project Veritas’ personnel may still have committed a crime.
Some language in the warrant suggests prosecutors are examining whether a bidding process for the diary violated laws against fencing stolen items.
However, Calli insists that even if the FBI suspects O’Keefe or others of crimes, Justice Department policy required prosecutors to negotiate for Project Veritas’ materials rather than seizing them.
“The principles that informed this guidance are no less applicable where the news-gathering activities focus on the President’s daughter,” Calli wrote in the motion seeking a special master.
Emails obtained by POLITICO show prosecutors declined to tell Calli whether the Project Veritas searches were approved by a Justice Department committee that oversees investigations impacting the news media.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan declined to comment on the office’s handling of the inquiry. A Justice Department spokesperson also declined comment.
Over the past six months, Biden and Garland have introduced extraordinarily protective policies toward the press, protections so robust that some national security professionals have raised concerns. However, the fight with Project Veritas raises questions about how broadly the new administration intends to apply those robust protections.
“This is really a test in this administration of whether they’re going to put their money where their mouth is,” Kirtley said. “If they’re trying to be seen as great champions of press freedom, this is a pretty bad way to start.”
Last edited by a moderator:
the moops
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
That’s a lot of words. You can always just like the article. No need to post everything.
Personally I prefer the content of the article to be posted. It’s one less step for the person and sometimes sites are restricted for various people. What’s the harm in scrolling past it?
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
Yes, but fwiw, you're not setting the bar very highthe moops said:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Wow. People are that far gone. Interesting. Trusting a Russian propaganda channel over their own intelligence sources, imagine if a President did that. Oh wait….
Actually it’s just the opposite. It’s much easier for me to just link it. Sounds to me like you just don’t like seeing things that challenge your narrow worldview.
dkp993
Footballguy
Still is, just at the forum that shall go unnamed. He’s also got a new name there.
It’s all pure fear mongering and falling victim to it imo. While we certainly are divided, we always have been. I don’t see an issue today large enough, like slavery was, to ever get the ball rolling on a war. Besides it would mean extremely large groups of Americans would need to turn off the TV’s or log off their SM accounts long enough to fight. We know that simply isn’t happening, it’s way easier to just fight via meme’s.
dkp993
Footballguy
See this hyperbole is part of the problem. People absolutely are able to do exactly what you describe above, by the 10’s of millions. Just because some have gotten banned or treated unfairly does not mean every single one has.
dkp993
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
I’d love to see a separate topic on this. I agree that most Americans are far too lazy and content to get off the couch and fight. I don’t think a CW2 would go down like that. I think it would most likely resemble what happened in Northern Ireland with targeted terrorist attacks. That’s why I mentioned that we might already be in it - Steve Scalise, Jan. 6th, etc. Clausewitz - War is the continuation of politics through other means, and usually occurs when all other means have been exhausted. When people feel that the Washington bureaucracy, FBI, MSM and Big Tech are all hopelessly biased and are targeting political opponents, then people start looking toward other means. History has shown that all it takes is one person - a Gavrilo Princip. I’m not advocating for it - I’m warning against it.
dkp993
Footballguy
Sure. And I’m not saying there isn’t an argument there that has logic. Anything could happen. I just think at this point all this talk is just playing into our basis fears. Every generation has had it challenges and things to be afraid of. Honestly in comparison we’ve had it easier then the last few generations. Our Grandparents had world wars and the Great Depression. Our parents had the very real threat of nuclear annihilation and a sometimes violent civil rights movement. While I’m not discounting what we’ve been through all the civil war talk just reeks to me of manufactured fear to dramatize the importance of our times.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
I’m glad to acknowledge those things.
And I’m a fan of the 4th amendment. Also a fan of limited government power. I don’t want us to live in a police state.
Similar threads
