One of the articles speaks about a guy who spoke at Defconf and promoted giving those attending the Republicats convention a hard time.
What surprised me is that the journalist did not have any problems with having the guy thrown out simply because the guy's speech was controversial. They justified censorship by stating that they had to stop him for his protection. Since when does a person in America have to abdicate his own personal responsibility and be protected for his own speech?
Who defines what's sedition? Do you remember an old document that argues that when a government has become too corrupt and opressive, its citizens might be justified in overthrowing it by any means necessary?
As far as I am concerned, the Republicats are guilty of treason themselves for misleading Americans into war, selling the country to the Chinese by borrowing hugely from them and passing the Patriot Act, which represents the biggest erosion in civil liberties that we have seen in t
I was going to mod you down as flamebait, but then I reconsidered, mainly because you seem to be one of the few people that understand the Declaration of Independence: the government is the servant of the people, not the other way 'round.
Still, I wish people would quit focusing so exclusively on the evils of the current administration, and acting like John Kerry would be so much better. It's exactly the kind of thinking that got us W four years ago. Remember? Clinton was corrupt to the core, Gore was see
Maybe much of the country thought Clinton was corrupt - and what was it over? A blow job! Is this comparable to failing to justify war?
Also, don't forget how close that vote was. Gore won the popular vote. We're a divided country, "we" didn't really choose one way or the other.
The problem with 3rd party politics is that if you choose the party that best suits you, you may lose to a united enemy. If nader voters had voted gore, bush would have lost. Do you really want another 4 years of Bush? Maybe you don't think Kerry is better, but we've seen what Bush will do, lets give someone else a chance.
Yes, I've seen what Bush has done, and I don't like almost all of it. And I don't think Kerry would be better; in fact, based on his senate voting record, I'm pretty sure he would be worse. I agree with your sentiment "let's give someone else a chance." Yes, indeed, how about a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist?
During the debate over the McCain-Feingold 1st Amendment Muzzling Act, one supporter said, "we've got to get the money out of politics." To which I respond: the only way to get the money out of po
I agree with your sentiment "let's give someone else a chance." Yes, indeed, how about a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist?
If you can show me a candidate that has a chance at winning, I'll vote for him. Otherwise, at best its like not voting, at worst, its like voting for your enemy. (Because you haven't voted for an opponent with a chance of winning.)
I don't see how people can accuse Kerry as being as misguided as Bush, but I'll let go of that for now. We've seen how corrupt Bush is - do we want to
No, it wasn't just about a blow job. It was about selling the country to the Chinese (remember Lippo), about a guy whou could argue about what the definition of "is" is rather than just tell the truth (to a Congressional inquiry, no less), about renting out the Lincoln bedroom for campaign contributions, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a number of other gems.
Lippo group was Charlie Tree's deal IIRC. There was also Jon Wong hauling in the bags of cash and Algore doing fundraisers at Bhudist temples *ahem*. There was the move of export controls from the DoD to the DoC effectively selling the Chineese our technology. There were missle strikes at key strategic targes such as an aspirin factory in the Sudan that just happened to coincide with major embarrasing press coverage of scandals. The whole thing with the BJ was not just about lying to a Grand Jury and ni
If Nader voters had voted for Bush, he would have won. If they had stayed at home, he would also have won. If some of them had voted for Bush and some for Gore, it would depend on how many is "some". If they had been from the future, they might have been able to win the election through super-duper-super-secret-super-science, and Nader's nuclear war would have destroyed the country and we'd be living in nuclear winter, huddling around our Athlons for warmth.
About one of the articles posted... (Score:1, Interesting)
What surprised me is that the journalist did not have any problems with having the guy thrown out simply because the guy's speech was controversial. They justified censorship by stating that they had to stop him for his protection. Since when does a person in America have to abdicate his own personal responsibility and be protected for his own speech?
As far as I can tell f
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:0)
Constitution much?
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Who defines what's sedition? Do you remember an old document that argues that when a government has become too corrupt and opressive, its citizens might be justified in overthrowing it by any means necessary?
As far as I am concerned, the Republicats are guilty of treason themselves for misleading Americans into war, selling the country to the Chinese by borrowing hugely from them and passing the Patriot Act, which represents the biggest erosion in civil liberties that we have seen in t
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:2)
Still, I wish people would quit focusing so exclusively on the evils of the current administration, and acting like John Kerry would be so much better. It's exactly the kind of thinking that got us W four years ago. Remember? Clinton was corrupt to the core, Gore was see
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, don't forget how close that vote was. Gore won the popular vote. We're a divided country, "we" didn't really choose one way or the other.
The problem with 3rd party politics is that if you choose the party that best suits you, you may lose to a united enemy. If nader voters had voted gore, bush would have lost. Do you really want another 4 years of Bush? Maybe you don't think Kerry is better, but we've seen what Bush will do, lets give someone else a chance.
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:2, Interesting)
During the debate over the McCain-Feingold 1st Amendment Muzzling Act, one supporter said, "we've got to get the money out of politics." To which I respond: the only way to get the money out of po
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:2)
I agree with your sentiment "let's give someone else a chance." Yes, indeed, how about a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist?
If you can show me a candidate that has a chance at winning, I'll vote for him. Otherwise, at best its like not voting, at worst, its like voting for your enemy. (Because you haven't voted for an opponent with a chance of winning.)
I don't see how people can accuse Kerry as being as misguided as Bush, but I'll let go of that for now. We've seen how corrupt Bush is - do we want to
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:2)
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:1)
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:0)
Actually, the attention Nader drew toward libe