Quotes for the day
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
leading critical voice against the criminal regime now running the United States; a regime which is in fact a dangerous monster out of control.
Sedetion. The man should be arrested. "You get that which you tolerate"
Your misspelling obfuscates your meaning, Stan. Are you accusing Chomsky of sedition, or requesting sedation for yourself?
-
Now I bet if the government was raising taxes you'd be the first to call it "a dangerous monster out of control".
Wjousts wrote:
Now I bet if the government was raising taxes you'd be the first to call it "a dangerous monster out of control".
And I would be rigth! But I would also expect the IRS to violate my 4th amendment rights as it so frequently does to others. But that itsn't sedition, it is just dissent. Similar attacks on the commander in chief are in a completely differnt category. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Wjousts wrote:
Now I bet if the government was raising taxes you'd be the first to call it "a dangerous monster out of control".
And I would be rigth! But I would also expect the IRS to violate my 4th amendment rights as it so frequently does to others. But that itsn't sedition, it is just dissent. Similar attacks on the commander in chief are in a completely differnt category. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Wjousts wrote:
Now I bet if the government was raising taxes you'd be the first to call it "a dangerous monster out of control".
And I would be rigth! But I would also expect the IRS to violate my 4th amendment rights as it so frequently does to others. But that itsn't sedition, it is just dissent. Similar attacks on the commander in chief are in a completely differnt category. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
In free democratic societies it is not considered sedition to stage peaceful protest or to call for or attempt regime change through democratic means. If it were considered to be sedition, then there would be no legal means through which people could effect change in their government when either the electoral system fails or when the electoral system is not sufficient by itself to address the matter at hand - and therefore, it would no longer be a truly democratic system.
No there is always revolution to change a government, sometimes from within other times as a result of outside forces. Besides there are times when it is not the government which fails but the people who put the idiots in to run it, in the first place who need to be culled from the herd and the process of goverment reestablished. Cheers A Silver bullet, A Gold Bullet, and A Lead Bullet, which is for you?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Similar attacks on the commander in chief are in a completely differnt category.
So if George Bush said he wanted to raise taxes then you'd keep quiet?
I would support him, but I wouldn't vote for him. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Similar attacks on the commander in chief are in a completely differnt category.
Are you saying he should have special protection against criticism?
J. Dunlap wrote:
Are you saying he should have special protection against criticism?
Yes. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
No there is always revolution to change a government, sometimes from within other times as a result of outside forces. Besides there are times when it is not the government which fails but the people who put the idiots in to run it, in the first place who need to be culled from the herd and the process of goverment reestablished. Cheers A Silver bullet, A Gold Bullet, and A Lead Bullet, which is for you?
JCParker wrote:
No there is always revolution to change a government, sometimes from within other times as a result of outside forces. Besides there are times when it is not the government which fails but the people who put the idiots in to run it, in the first place who need to be culled from the herd and the process of goverment reestablished.
Thats what I've been waiting to hear! "You get that which you tolerate"
-
JCParker wrote:
No there is always revolution to change a government, sometimes from within other times as a result of outside forces. Besides there are times when it is not the government which fails but the people who put the idiots in to run it, in the first place who need to be culled from the herd and the process of goverment reestablished.
Thats what I've been waiting to hear! "You get that which you tolerate"
Once the majority of your democratic citizenry has reach the entitlement mentality, your system is doomed to failure through democratic means. I've seen better runs in my shorts! - Patches O'Houlihan
-
J. Dunlap wrote:
Are you saying he should have special protection against criticism?
Yes. "You get that which you tolerate"
Perhaps a new cabinet position of "Criticism Czar". He could head up the "War on Criticism".
-
Plus Chomsky makes a damn fine dollar off his form of pacifism.
“Profanity is the attempt of a lazy and feeble mind to express itself forcefully”
Jerry Hammond wrote:
Chomsky makes a damn fine dollar off his form of pacifism
Pacifism == Capitalism?
-
No there is always revolution to change a government, sometimes from within other times as a result of outside forces. Besides there are times when it is not the government which fails but the people who put the idiots in to run it, in the first place who need to be culled from the herd and the process of goverment reestablished. Cheers A Silver bullet, A Gold Bullet, and A Lead Bullet, which is for you?
JCParker wrote:
No there is always revolution to change a government, sometimes from within other times as a result of outside forces.
That is not a legal means - it is not within the law. Any free democratic society will provide its citizens with legal means with which to effect change in the governmental structure. Revolution causes chaos and a host of problems. Violent revolution causes much destruction and suffering. Why should it have to come to that?
JCParker wrote:
Besides there are times when it is not the government which fails but the people who put the idiots in to run it, in the first place who need to be culled from the herd and the process of goverment reestablished.
Are you saying that it's acceptable or even good for people to slaughter the people who they deem to be idiots and then replace the government by force, when they think things have gone too far? :confused:
-
J. Dunlap wrote:
Are you saying he should have special protection against criticism?
Yes. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
<sarcasm> Poor thing - he probably needs it! Hearing all them facts told by his constituents is really making him squirm! </sarcasm> I have to conclude, Stan, that freedom of speech is not something that you believe in. :sigh:
J. Dunlap wrote:
I have to conclude, Stan, that freedom of speech is not something that you believe in.
I neither suicidal nor religious about it if thats what you mean. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
JCParker wrote:
No there is always revolution to change a government, sometimes from within other times as a result of outside forces.
That is not a legal means - it is not within the law. Any free democratic society will provide its citizens with legal means with which to effect change in the governmental structure. Revolution causes chaos and a host of problems. Violent revolution causes much destruction and suffering. Why should it have to come to that?
JCParker wrote:
Besides there are times when it is not the government which fails but the people who put the idiots in to run it, in the first place who need to be culled from the herd and the process of goverment reestablished.
Are you saying that it's acceptable or even good for people to slaughter the people who they deem to be idiots and then replace the government by force, when they think things have gone too far? :confused:
Because if the criticisms of Bush are valid, than they are idicative of a systemic failure of our very system of government. How can such problems be fixed democratically? Elect who ever you like, the problems will remain. That is what all of the Bush critics can't quite seem to comprehend. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Because if the criticisms of Bush are valid, than they are idicative of a systemic failure of our very system of government. How can such problems be fixed democratically? Elect who ever you like, the problems will remain. That is what all of the Bush critics can't quite seem to comprehend. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because if the criticisms of Bush are valid, than they are idicative of a systemic failure of our very system of government.
The system meaning its ideal form or its current form?
Stan Shannon wrote:
How can such problems be fixed democratically?
Public pressure, popular initiatives, exposing the wrongdoing and raising public awareness of the issues, class-action suits, and things like those. Should that fail, or in cases such as when the immediacy of the situation demands it (for example, when soldiers are called to fight in an illegal war, and they refuse), then yes, non-violent civil disobedience may be necessary.
-
JCParker wrote:
No there is always revolution to change a government, sometimes from within other times as a result of outside forces.
That is not a legal means - it is not within the law. Any free democratic society will provide its citizens with legal means with which to effect change in the governmental structure. Revolution causes chaos and a host of problems. Violent revolution causes much destruction and suffering. Why should it have to come to that?
JCParker wrote:
Besides there are times when it is not the government which fails but the people who put the idiots in to run it, in the first place who need to be culled from the herd and the process of goverment reestablished.
Are you saying that it's acceptable or even good for people to slaughter the people who they deem to be idiots and then replace the government by force, when they think things have gone too far? :confused:
J. Dunlap wrote:
JCParker wrote: No there is always revolution to change a government, sometimes from within other times as a result of outside forces. That is not a legal means - it is not within the law. Any free democratic society will provide its citizens with legal means with which to effect change in the governmental structure. Revolution causes chaos and a host of problems. Violent revolution causes much destruction and suffering. Why should it have to come to that?
The United States of America was founded by revolution. In this case the Declaration of Independence. In Great Brittan it was the Magna Charta. In most societies this has happens when the exiting government no longer keeps faith with the people it governs, or when it collapses under the weight of it’s own ineptitude thus forcing change.
J. Dunlap wrote:
JCParker wrote: Besides there are times when it is not the government which fails but the people who put the idiots in to run it, in the first place who need to be culled from the herd and the process of goverment reestablished. Are you saying that it's acceptable or even good for people to slaughter the people who they deem to be idiots and then replace the government by force, when they think things have gone too far?
I do not advocate the senseless slaughter or random killing of innocent people. Acts such as this are one of the reasons the United States is at war today. I do not agree with the killing of people just because they do not worship God in the same way I do, nor do I condone someone strapping a bomb on their body and walking into a public place and exploding it to create terror or simply because they think they are destroying another culture opposed to their beliefs. I am also opposed to other things, some of which are prevalent in United States society, however I have no moral issues with killing someone who is attempting to kill me, of waging war against parties and their supporters who wage war against myself, my family, my way of life, or my country.
-
I would support him, but I wouldn't vote for him. "You get that which you tolerate"
Interesting, so I wonder what would cause you to stop supporting the president? * What if the CIA intercepted a communication to suspected terrorist sleeper cell know only as "Stan" so the president proposed that everybody named Stan be rounded up and imprisioned (for national security reasons you understand)? Would you still support the president? * What if the president name was Hillary Clinton? Why do I think you probably find the second scenario more worrying that the first?
-
Interesting, so I wonder what would cause you to stop supporting the president? * What if the CIA intercepted a communication to suspected terrorist sleeper cell know only as "Stan" so the president proposed that everybody named Stan be rounded up and imprisioned (for national security reasons you understand)? Would you still support the president? * What if the president name was Hillary Clinton? Why do I think you probably find the second scenario more worrying that the first?
-
J. Dunlap wrote:
I have to conclude, Stan, that freedom of speech is not something that you believe in.
I neither suicidal nor religious about it if thats what you mean. "You get that which you tolerate"
Nobody ever listens to you, I presume. ;P
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.