This is fairly tasteless
-
Of course Jefferson capitalized "Creator" for a reason because he knew the difference - one I recommend, you research.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Because he, like nearly everyone back then, believed in the invisible man in the sky. Times change.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
With the help of a cooperative Congress...
True, the Dems have been overly cooperative.
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson My comedy.
Yeah, they've been doormats. It's really pathetic... I'm embarrassed to admit that I voted for three of them.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Well, I'm serious... If Perry or Bachmann actually gets elected*, I fear for the future of this country... And being an atheist, I don't want to be here when they decide that the US is going to become a Christian nation. Besides, I've been to Toronto... Looks like a pretty nice place, and it's only an eight hour drive from here. Granted, I can't foresee everything, so when November 2012 rolls around, leaving may no longer be feasible for me. * Note: I'm referring to those specific people, not a GOP candidate in general... Romney, for example, wouldn't be my first choice for President, but I don't think he'd be all that bad... Perry or Bachmann could be VP if they want... We're used to having jokes and fools in that position.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I'm doing all I can to insure that here in South Carolina - a state Perry is depending on - the truth is known about this poseur. You could do with a little knowledge yourself. Perry's new-found role as a fundamentalist came about only because he discovered that it was a great way of getting elected in a state where fundamental Christianity is a belief practiced by many. Everything about his political career suggests that Perry is a chameleon, saying and "believing" what he thinks will get him elected. He remains a good friend to Al Gore, a man whose campaign for the Presidential nomination he managed, he favored amnesty as long as he was running for office in Texas, and he supported Clinton's attempt to create Hillarycare. In other words, he's a whore who will say and do anything that he thinks will get him elected. Right now he's talking right because he thinks that's how he can get the nomination. He'll move to the center if he gets it, in an attempt to force Obama to the left. As to the idea that somehow Perry, or Bachmann would be able to unilaterally repeal the First Amendment, I urge you to rethink your view of how the U.S. Constitution works. Not even Obama who sometimes seems to act as if he believed that a president reigns not serves, would attempt to monkey with the First Amendment. Isn't nice that you live in a country where, if you decide to give up your citizenship, the only thing that is said is, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave?"
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Because he, like nearly everyone back then, believed in the invisible man in the sky. Times change.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Slacker007 wrote:
My country still associates Freedom with God.
You mean as in "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"? That's a deliberate choice made by Jefferson - who was not enamored of religion in the slightest. Rights granted by governments are, by definition, rights that can be taken away. God's authority is a trump card and His granting of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has been played as a trump card more than once. For instance, to end slavery. Of course, there are lots of folks who insist that all rights come from, and can be repealed by, the government. Here in the States, they are usually those who claim that democracy means that 50%+1 can pass any law, and do anything they wished. I've heard that argument made on the left and on the right, usually by folks who think there's just too damn much freedom (to bear arms or speak your mind, depending on who is arguing for fundamental change). Presumably these folks are perfectly okay with the idea that their life, liberty and property would be totally at the mercy of Barack Obama and John Boehner. :rolleyes:
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
You mean as in "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"?
That's a deliberate choice made by Jefferson - who was not enamored of religion in the slightest. Rights granted by governments are, by definition, rights that can be taken away.And behold, the power of hand waving. Now, if we want to start with the 'where was god when's I suggest we start reconciling this claim with slavery and it's practice through a significant portion of the nation's history. When all men were supposedly endowed with these inalienable rights. Not that I really want to start that argument, just to detail why it annoys the hell out of me. The, unfortunate, reality of it is the government is responsible for upholding those rights, and does a crap job of it time to time even still. But even still, there's a reason our government is designed the way it is, and there's a reason that the 'WILL OF THE PEOPLE!' has been tossed assigned by the supreme court on a number of occasions when democracy said it was just fine to revoke and/or stomp on someone's rights. A Creator who's mentioned once in a document shouldn't be taking credit for what is assigned to various other agencies by further documents, particularly when it's hardly detailed who that creator is.
-
I'm doing all I can to insure that here in South Carolina - a state Perry is depending on - the truth is known about this poseur. You could do with a little knowledge yourself. Perry's new-found role as a fundamentalist came about only because he discovered that it was a great way of getting elected in a state where fundamental Christianity is a belief practiced by many. Everything about his political career suggests that Perry is a chameleon, saying and "believing" what he thinks will get him elected. He remains a good friend to Al Gore, a man whose campaign for the Presidential nomination he managed, he favored amnesty as long as he was running for office in Texas, and he supported Clinton's attempt to create Hillarycare. In other words, he's a whore who will say and do anything that he thinks will get him elected. Right now he's talking right because he thinks that's how he can get the nomination. He'll move to the center if he gets it, in an attempt to force Obama to the left. As to the idea that somehow Perry, or Bachmann would be able to unilaterally repeal the First Amendment, I urge you to rethink your view of how the U.S. Constitution works. Not even Obama who sometimes seems to act as if he believed that a president reigns not serves, would attempt to monkey with the First Amendment. Isn't nice that you live in a country where, if you decide to give up your citizenship, the only thing that is said is, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave?"
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
As to the idea that somehow Perry, or Bachmann would be able to unilaterally repeal the First Amendment, I urge you to rethink your view of how the U.S. Constitution works. Not even Obama who sometimes seems to act as if he believed that a president reigns not serves, would attempt to monkey with the First Amendment.
I don't see them making actual changes to the first amendment, but I could see it being weakened. It's already being gradually weakened by things like anti-hate speech laws and "free speech zones" for protests.
Oakman wrote:
Isn't nice that you live in a country where, if you decide to give up your citizenship, the only thing that is said is, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave?"
Yeah, well, I'd hate to leave (And even if I do end up crossing the border, it'll be as an expat unless things REALLY go bad), but there are limits to the amount of stupidity I can tolerate on a daily basis.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Oakman wrote:
You mean as in "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"?
That's a deliberate choice made by Jefferson - who was not enamored of religion in the slightest. Rights granted by governments are, by definition, rights that can be taken away.And behold, the power of hand waving. Now, if we want to start with the 'where was god when's I suggest we start reconciling this claim with slavery and it's practice through a significant portion of the nation's history. When all men were supposedly endowed with these inalienable rights. Not that I really want to start that argument, just to detail why it annoys the hell out of me. The, unfortunate, reality of it is the government is responsible for upholding those rights, and does a crap job of it time to time even still. But even still, there's a reason our government is designed the way it is, and there's a reason that the 'WILL OF THE PEOPLE!' has been tossed assigned by the supreme court on a number of occasions when democracy said it was just fine to revoke and/or stomp on someone's rights. A Creator who's mentioned once in a document shouldn't be taking credit for what is assigned to various other agencies by further documents, particularly when it's hardly detailed who that creator is.
Distind wrote:
And behold, the power of hand waving.
You mean by reading the rest of your post? I tried, but it was hard to stay awake. You finally lost me, on
Distind wrote:
has been tossed assigned by the supreme court on a number of occasions when democracy said it was just fine to revoke and/or stomp on someone's rights
Was that supposed to be English??? I don't mind an occasional spelling error or typo in the slightest, but what you wrote makes no sense.
Distind wrote:
The, unfortunate, reality of it is the government is responsible for upholding those rights
Actually, in this country the government is forbidden to interfere with those rights. If you don't understand the distinction, you need to do some research.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Eric_V wrote:
but do young kids have to be aware of it?
Have to be? No. Is the book being forced into these kids' hands? Are parents required to show it to their kids by some governmental authority? If so, this is a fundamental wrong and should be stamped out. If, on the other hand, if it a simply another book that is available because the U.S. has a free press and free speech is guaranteed by the law of the land, then I fail to see what concern it is to anyone. From what I could gather, the book tells the truth. It calls the Islamists who perpetrated 9/11 (and killed friends and co-workers of mine) hijackers and terrorists. It shows the United State exacting a very high price for 9/11. Parents who want their kids to understand what happened can give their kids the book. Parents who want to forgive and forget, or who simply believe their children are not old enough to be exposed to those truths, will keep the book away from their kids, and let them remain ignorant. Stupidity is a condition: ignorance is a choice and one that some people make, over and over again, but nonetheless, which is always correctable.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
Stupidity is a condition: ignorance is a choice and one that some people make, over and over again, but nonetheless, which is always correctable.
Which brings us right back to the fact this this a coloring book. Now, of all things to explain to a child 9/11 is going to be one of the more difficult, as any instance of 'Yes there are people who want to kill you for often ill defined reasons' sits poorly with... pretty much everyone, let alone children. I was a teen when it happened, and honestly watched in utter disbelief as it did. Having gone through that I have to question, who with two functioning brain cells would present this portion of history to children through a god damn coloring book? I'm thinking they may have a condition, and a history of bad choices.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I had hoped to move to the US one day.
The problem with foreigners wanting to move to the U.S. is that they discover that we don't do things the way they did in their home country and expect us to change.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
The problem with foreigners wanting to move to the U.S. is that they discover that we don't do things the way they did in their home country and expect us to change.
That's not a problem I have. I'm lucky enough to have lived in various countries at one stage or another, so I'm used to different cultures.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Oakman wrote:
As to the idea that somehow Perry, or Bachmann would be able to unilaterally repeal the First Amendment, I urge you to rethink your view of how the U.S. Constitution works. Not even Obama who sometimes seems to act as if he believed that a president reigns not serves, would attempt to monkey with the First Amendment.
I don't see them making actual changes to the first amendment, but I could see it being weakened. It's already being gradually weakened by things like anti-hate speech laws and "free speech zones" for protests.
Oakman wrote:
Isn't nice that you live in a country where, if you decide to give up your citizenship, the only thing that is said is, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave?"
Yeah, well, I'd hate to leave (And even if I do end up crossing the border, it'll be as an expat unless things REALLY go bad), but there are limits to the amount of stupidity I can tolerate on a daily basis.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's already being gradually weakened by things like anti-hate speech laws and "free speech zones" for protests.
But the United States is the only country in the world that has declared that hate speech laws are incompatible with free speech. Hate speech regulations have been passed by colleges, and other organizations - and there is a law that says that Employers can be prosecuted by tolerating hate speech in the work place, but no law outlawing hate speech -- until you get to Canada where they will feel absolutely free to tell you what you cannot say. Europe is just as bad. (However it is only a rumor that they take away your tongue for a second offense. ;) ) It is certainly true that both political parties have set up "free speech zones," arguing that while the First Amendment guarantees me the right to say my mind, it does not preclude your right not to listen. Right now, the police seem to be enforcing the property rights argument that a speech or convention has the right to determine that some areas of the land it has the use of are off limits to those who would disrupt its proceedings.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
but there are limits to the amount of stupidity I can tolerate on a daily basis.
I have lots of Canadian friends and acquaintances. From what they tell me, stupidity exists in large quantities north of the border, too. For instance, they have instituted the tort reform so beloved by Republicans. Since most injuries, even major ones, are capped at a relatively low level most people simply accept whatever the insurance company offers, which is, I imagine, never more than the minimum.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Oakman wrote:
Stupidity is a condition: ignorance is a choice and one that some people make, over and over again, but nonetheless, which is always correctable.
Which brings us right back to the fact this this a coloring book. Now, of all things to explain to a child 9/11 is going to be one of the more difficult, as any instance of 'Yes there are people who want to kill you for often ill defined reasons' sits poorly with... pretty much everyone, let alone children. I was a teen when it happened, and honestly watched in utter disbelief as it did. Having gone through that I have to question, who with two functioning brain cells would present this portion of history to children through a god damn coloring book? I'm thinking they may have a condition, and a history of bad choices.
Again, I ask if this book is being forced on any family against its will. If so, we need to fight it. If not, we need to remember that this country guarantees free speech. If it is being distributed by a school or other governmental agency, it needs to stop.
Distind wrote:
who with two functioning brain cells would present this portion of history to children through a god damn coloring book?
People who don't think they need your permission to publish?
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's already being gradually weakened by things like anti-hate speech laws and "free speech zones" for protests.
But the United States is the only country in the world that has declared that hate speech laws are incompatible with free speech. Hate speech regulations have been passed by colleges, and other organizations - and there is a law that says that Employers can be prosecuted by tolerating hate speech in the work place, but no law outlawing hate speech -- until you get to Canada where they will feel absolutely free to tell you what you cannot say. Europe is just as bad. (However it is only a rumor that they take away your tongue for a second offense. ;) ) It is certainly true that both political parties have set up "free speech zones," arguing that while the First Amendment guarantees me the right to say my mind, it does not preclude your right not to listen. Right now, the police seem to be enforcing the property rights argument that a speech or convention has the right to determine that some areas of the land it has the use of are off limits to those who would disrupt its proceedings.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
but there are limits to the amount of stupidity I can tolerate on a daily basis.
I have lots of Canadian friends and acquaintances. From what they tell me, stupidity exists in large quantities north of the border, too. For instance, they have instituted the tort reform so beloved by Republicans. Since most injuries, even major ones, are capped at a relatively low level most people simply accept whatever the insurance company offers, which is, I imagine, never more than the minimum.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
But the United States is the only country in the world that has declared that hate speech laws are incompatible with free speech
And yet, states keep trying to implement them. We're governed by an army of lawyers... They're good at working their way around inconvenient documents like the Bill of Rights. Put the right (wrong) people in office, and get enough lawyers working on a "solution" to this whole "rights" thing, and bad things can happen. Exactly how they'd do it, I don't know... I'm a programmer, not a politician.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Of course Jefferson capitalized "Creator" for a reason because he knew the difference - one I recommend, you research.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Clever Bloke[^] wrote:
The original version Jefferson wrote did not contain the word Creator. A copy that John Adams wrote in his own hand did not contain the word creator At some point after Jefferson wrote the original draft and before it was submitted to Congress it was changed to the wording with regards to creator that we know today
So it was a trick, Jefferson didn't [originally] write "Creator".
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness [...]
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Oakman wrote:
But the United States is the only country in the world that has declared that hate speech laws are incompatible with free speech
And yet, states keep trying to implement them. We're governed by an army of lawyers... They're good at working their way around inconvenient documents like the Bill of Rights. Put the right (wrong) people in office, and get enough lawyers working on a "solution" to this whole "rights" thing, and bad things can happen. Exactly how they'd do it, I don't know... I'm a programmer, not a politician.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Put the right (wrong) people in office, and get enough lawyers working on a "solution" to this whole "rights" thing, and bad things can happen.
My reading of history suggests that they always do. Whether it was Greece, or Rome, or France or England, or Russia, republics always turn into democracies and democracies always turn into dictatorships.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Clever Bloke[^] wrote:
The original version Jefferson wrote did not contain the word Creator. A copy that John Adams wrote in his own hand did not contain the word creator At some point after Jefferson wrote the original draft and before it was submitted to Congress it was changed to the wording with regards to creator that we know today
So it was a trick, Jefferson didn't [originally] write "Creator".
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness [...]
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
Even the webpage you site admits that the original version as written by Jefferson no longer exists. However, many people have said that the original version claimed that the rights were life, liberty and property. But the point is that no-one knows. What we do know is that when it was signed on July 2nd 1776, the document referenced a Supreme Being twice.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
So it was a trick,
How do you figure that? There are other phrases that were added and subtracted. Was each and every one a "trick?"
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Even the webpage you site admits that the original version as written by Jefferson no longer exists. However, many people have said that the original version claimed that the rights were life, liberty and property. But the point is that no-one knows. What we do know is that when it was signed on July 2nd 1776, the document referenced a Supreme Being twice.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
So it was a trick,
How do you figure that? There are other phrases that were added and subtracted. Was each and every one a "trick?"
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
The trick was by you, that is 'why did Jefferson choose "Creator"' which my [limited] research says he didn't.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
I'm doing all I can to insure that here in South Carolina - a state Perry is depending on - the truth is known about this poseur. You could do with a little knowledge yourself. Perry's new-found role as a fundamentalist came about only because he discovered that it was a great way of getting elected in a state where fundamental Christianity is a belief practiced by many. Everything about his political career suggests that Perry is a chameleon, saying and "believing" what he thinks will get him elected. He remains a good friend to Al Gore, a man whose campaign for the Presidential nomination he managed, he favored amnesty as long as he was running for office in Texas, and he supported Clinton's attempt to create Hillarycare. In other words, he's a whore who will say and do anything that he thinks will get him elected. Right now he's talking right because he thinks that's how he can get the nomination. He'll move to the center if he gets it, in an attempt to force Obama to the left. As to the idea that somehow Perry, or Bachmann would be able to unilaterally repeal the First Amendment, I urge you to rethink your view of how the U.S. Constitution works. Not even Obama who sometimes seems to act as if he believed that a president reigns not serves, would attempt to monkey with the First Amendment. Isn't nice that you live in a country where, if you decide to give up your citizenship, the only thing that is said is, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave?"
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
I'm doing all I can to insure that here in South Carolina - a state Perry is depending on - the truth is known about this poseur. You could do with a little knowledge yourself. Perry's new-found role as a fundamentalist came about only because he discovered that it was a great way of getting elected in a state where fundamental Christianity is a belief practiced by many. Everything about his political career suggests that Perry is a chameleon, saying and "believing" what he thinks will get him elected.
Basically, Bill Clinton. Not that there's anything wrong with that. What gets me is all the anti-Perrys who complain he "doesn't have a plan" for SS, or Education, or whatever. Well, yeah, he does. Get the Fed the hell out of the business. That's a plan I can get behind. But it won't happen, regardless of whether he means.
Just like that old Carly Simon song... "You're so funny, You probably think this joke is about you" My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's already being gradually weakened by things like anti-hate speech laws and "free speech zones" for protests.
But the United States is the only country in the world that has declared that hate speech laws are incompatible with free speech. Hate speech regulations have been passed by colleges, and other organizations - and there is a law that says that Employers can be prosecuted by tolerating hate speech in the work place, but no law outlawing hate speech -- until you get to Canada where they will feel absolutely free to tell you what you cannot say. Europe is just as bad. (However it is only a rumor that they take away your tongue for a second offense. ;) ) It is certainly true that both political parties have set up "free speech zones," arguing that while the First Amendment guarantees me the right to say my mind, it does not preclude your right not to listen. Right now, the police seem to be enforcing the property rights argument that a speech or convention has the right to determine that some areas of the land it has the use of are off limits to those who would disrupt its proceedings.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
but there are limits to the amount of stupidity I can tolerate on a daily basis.
I have lots of Canadian friends and acquaintances. From what they tell me, stupidity exists in large quantities north of the border, too. For instance, they have instituted the tort reform so beloved by Republicans. Since most injuries, even major ones, are capped at a relatively low level most people simply accept whatever the insurance company offers, which is, I imagine, never more than the minimum.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
I have lots of Canadian friends and acquaintances. From what they tell me, stupidity exists in large quantities north of the border, too.
You know these guys?! http://youtu.be/yZCI39NWZ5g[^]
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson My comedy.
-
The trick was by you, that is 'why did Jefferson choose "Creator"' which my [limited] research says he didn't.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
A. Jefferson is the acknowledged author of the document. B. He was present throughout the period of time between his presentation of his original (which is actually a misnomer, since it had already been worked over by both John Adams and Ben Franklin) and the signing of the document. C. He acquiesced to each and every change. D. He signed the document. If there is a trick here, it is your willingness to offer a single, anonymous, source found by Googling, as a credible revision of history.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Oakman wrote:
But the United States is the only country in the world that has declared that hate speech laws are incompatible with free speech
And yet, states keep trying to implement them. We're governed by an army of lawyers... They're good at working their way around inconvenient documents like the Bill of Rights. Put the right (wrong) people in office, and get enough lawyers working on a "solution" to this whole "rights" thing, and bad things can happen. Exactly how they'd do it, I don't know... I'm a programmer, not a politician.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I have to agree with the oakman's point here. Feeling the 1st Amendment is under threat, and then leaving the U.S. because of it, seems odd. There are a few other Amendments that I find important, and would never leave the U.S. just because they were under threat, to go to a country where there are no such Amendments. Hypothetical: "Oh man, my right to own guns in under threat, I'll move to country with more gun control."
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson My comedy.
