Dutchsinse spells it out ... give it a listen.

[sunnyrap]

I think I know what you are referring to and couldn't agree more, but you can easily tar everyone with the same brush. If you don't like what others create, you could design an intentional community that suits your own tastes and personality, if you cannot find one to suit, but I personally believe it is now going to take a community to survive-thrive, not just individual efforts. In any case, as you yourself state, it is necessary to be proactive in creating what WE want instead of by default, doing what others want.

In the case of the local community I'm looking into, after some initial communication with them, it is nothing like a 'commune' at all--more like a planned community with well thought out amenities designed for current times. They have you fill out a questionaire and tell them what YOU want in the community and what you don't want. I thought it was pretty intelligently approached, which is why I responded. There are some good, aware people out there working towards new solutions, not just trotting out old paradigm former failures.

Posted by blufire (here)
sunnyrap . . . . I love to hear about these things that are popping up all over. I also looked into this type of “intentional community”. But I feel as many wonderful; positive attributes these communities have there are just as many drawbacks and negatives.

• First being I think they appeal to a very small segment of people . . .even here on PA I think few are interested in this type of community. It has too much of a communal or “60’s hippie” feel to it.
• These communities are incredibly expensive to build. I check back with communities I inquired about a couple years ago and they are all gone.
• It seems to me right now we have two or three options. (1) the intentional communities (2) staying in homes and cities your in now and living a soul sucking lifestyle until there is no other option but to change (3) selling everything you have and donating a kidney and maybe selling a child to be able to get in one of the futuristic communities being formed in places like Ecuador, Africa and others.

And no offense to Ian Stein or George Green or the guys in Arkansas and others but I really do not want to completely change my personality or uniqueness or way of life and thinking to be a part of those groups.

Let’s brainstorm and be smarter and create. . . . .

Posted by sunnyrap (here)
In my neck of the woods in Texas, there are multiple groups forming cooperative 'eco-villages' that focus on 'green' building, community gardens, pooling of tools, talents and resources and positive support of all members. I've contacted one that really appeals to me and am looking at joining it and moving to it. I would bet anything there are groups like this in nearly every state and/or major population center.

The best way to get rid of crab grass in a yard is not to try and cut it, pull it out or poison it, but to plant a healthy, verdant variety of grass that naturally chokes it out, if you get my point.

[JohnBlues]

A veto by Obama may not be a good thing after a closer look, from what I'm reading it appears that the Administration are not against the the detaining of "terrorists" with un-due process per se, but rather which agency/group makes the decision. A fellow Avalonian, mountain_jim (with thanks!), in another thread quoted a blog from Glenn Greenwald, which I will paste a snippet of here (emphasis added by me!)

Just to underscore what is — and is not — motivating the Obama administration’s objections to this bill, Sen. Levin has disclosed, as Dave Kopel documents, that “it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power,” on the ground it would unduly restrict the decision-making of Executive Branch officials. In other words, Obama officials wanted the flexibility to militarily detain even U.S. citizens if they were so inclined, and are angry that this bill purports to limit their actions.

That, manifestly, is what is driving their objections here: not a defense of due process, but a demand that Congress not interfere with their war.

Another writer @ Infowars - Dr Paul Roberts, appears to be saying the same thing in his article:

However, on further reflection I conclude that the Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens.The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war.
...
Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas.

[Jonathon]

Posted by Calz_Avaretard (here)

Posted by Jonathon (here)
Did anyone else catch the Dec 24 2011 thing at the end of the video?.....

I think we have been through enough "exact date predictions" to expect anything from 5K years ago to be that precise.

I give full credence and open mindedness to the "time window" for such possibilities.

Hi Calz - it's not the date I'm interested in specifically. It's whether or not it was deliberately changed, by whom, and for what reason?

[Calz]

Posted by Jonathon (here)

Posted by Calz_Avaretard (here)

Posted by Jonathon (here)
Did anyone else catch the Dec 24 2011 thing at the end of the video?.....

I think we have been through enough "exact date predictions" to expect anything from 5K years ago to be that precise.

I give full credence and open mindedness to the "time window" for such possibilities.

Hi Calz - it's not the date I'm interested in specifically. It's whether or not it was deliberately changed, by whom, and for what reason?

Okay.

Of that I have no idea. Of course the other well publicized date not being Dec 2012 was the Oct 28 2011. Since there were a lot of people on board there with a lot of anticipation that is kind of what I was referring to.

Cal

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by JohnBlues (here)
A veto by Obama may not be a good thing after a closer look, from what I'm reading it appears that the Administration are not against the the detaining of "terrorists" with un-due process per se, but rather which agency/group makes the decision. A fellow Avalonian, mountain_jim (with thanks!), in another thread quoted a blog from Glenn Greenwald, which I will paste a snippet of here (emphasis added by me!)

Just to underscore what is — and is not — motivating the Obama administration’s objections to this bill, Sen. Levin has disclosed, as Dave Kopel documents, that “it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power,” on the ground it would unduly restrict the decision-making of Executive Branch officials. In other words, Obama officials wanted the flexibility to militarily detain even U.S. citizens if they were so inclined, and are angry that this bill purports to limit their actions.

That, manifestly, is what is driving their objections here: not a defense of due process, but a demand that Congress not interfere with their war.

Another writer @ Infowars - Dr Paul Roberts, appears to be saying the same thing in his article:

However, on further reflection I conclude that the Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens.The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war.
...
Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas.

Thanks for posting this.

Very important to know.

Infighting for control over the useless eaters ... how heart warming

[JohnBlues]

yep, the bill should have never passed in the first place.. *sigh*

[Black Panther]

New video about FEMA Camps and the s.1867 from Dutchsinse:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Hxs0sJ8f1WQ