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 the past 25 years.
The Clintons sold out the the Chinese. And the jury is still out on the "misleading Americans into war" and the evidence currently points to the war being the best call on the information currently available. Further absence of evidence is NOT the same as evidence of absence and we've only got a few hundred thousand square miles of desert we haven't searched yet.
My vote is that we find more evidence of either and active or temporarily on hold WMD program.
And the jury is still out on the "misleading Americans into war" and the evidence currently points to the war being the best call on the information currently available.
What jury are we going by? It seems that much of the government has admitted to extremely poor intelligence on the matter. Also, you must prove a case for war with solid evidence. You can run around invading countries because you can't prove they don't have large weapon systems until you sieve every grain of sand.
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
Still, I wish people would quit focusing so exclusively on the evils of the current administration
Conversely, I wish people would stop being so myopic about the evils of the current adminstration.
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
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
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 seen
Our government is by no means "too corrupt and opressive". I'm a hippie, old but still, and I don't find our government such. I've seen it way worse, and so have many others. So, no, it's not anywhere near justifying "by any means".
"Who defines what's sedition?"
Not you, and here's why.
"...Republicats are guilty of treason..."
"...for misleading Americans into war..."
"...selling the country to the Chinese..."
"...passing the Patriot Act..."
Someone who doesn't understand the errors in those phras
Current information indicates that Americans weren't "mislead", as that implies deceit.
Does that mean its okay to lead a country to war if...you don't have your information together....because it would be really really hard? "We'll totally have the evidence AFTER the war..."
Lets face it, the president went to war without having a solid case. If he would have asked so much as "What WMDs do they have?" there would have been no answer and we wouldn't have gone in.
Free clue: Military intelligence is always really, really hard. See, Saddam wasn't sitting there trying to make it easy for the CIA to find out exactly what Iraq did or did not have. It appears that Saddam was trying to look like he did in fact have WMD, perhaps to tweak Bush, perhaps to keep Iran from getting any ideas, perhaps just because Saddam was an idiot.
The point is, military intelligence is always incomplete. Worse, it's often overwhelmingly incomplete - it's a huge amount of information that
I find it hard to believe that the portion of our government which kills and destroys - our military - has the lowest burden of proof in the bureaucracy.
Don't dozens of countries meet the criteria Iraq did? Might be hostile, might have weapons...and then there's North Korea. We KNOW they have a nuclear program but we haven't invaded yet. So what are the standards for bringing military action?
Not to mention the negative effect the war has had. The out of control costs, spreading our military thinly, thousa
The energy spent trying to tear down the Republicrats in those manners would be better spent working with a third party such as the Libertarians [libertarianparty.org] or Constitution Party. [constitutionparty.org] You can go to jail while being a nuisance, or be free AND fix the problem.
Funny that you use the term "sedition", and then go on to express your outrage over the loss of liberty through the PATRIOT Act. If you want a classic example of an outrageously un-Constitutional law, do a little research on the Alien and Sedition Act. Far, far worse than the PATRIOT Act, and also flagrantly illegal. In fact, I'm finding a lot of similarities between how we conducted ourselves in the late 18th century and now.
Fortunately, the US population at that time had better sense than to become milit
When you say "Republicats" is that slang for Republicans or "Republicans + Democrats"? Hopefully the latter, because both parties sold us out w/PATRIOT.
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 the past 25 years.
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:1)
My vote is that we find more evidence of either and active or temporarily on hold WMD program.
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:2)
And the jury is still out on the "misleading Americans into war" and the evidence currently points to the war being the best call on the information currently available.
What jury are we going by? It seems that much of the government has admitted to extremely poor intelligence on the matter. Also, you must prove a case for war with solid evidence. You can run around invading countries because you can't prove they don't have large weapon systems until you sieve every grain of sand.
Weapons of Mass Destr
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)
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:1)
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
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: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 seen
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Who defines what's sedition?"
Not you, and here's why.
"...Republicats are guilty of treason..."
"...for misleading Americans into war..."
"...selling the country to the Chinese..."
"...passing the Patriot Act..."
Someone who doesn't understand the errors in those phras
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:2)
And claiming to be some old hippy doesn't get you any points in my book, but thanks for playing.
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:2)
"...Republicats are guilty of treason..."
Definition of Repubilicats is too vague and encompasses perfectly law-abiding Republicans.
"...for misleading Americans into war..."
Current information indicates that Americans weren't "meslead", as that implies deceit.
"...selling the country to the Chinese..."
As pointed out by another, it was the Dem's, if anybody.
"...passing the Patriot Act..."
Read the act and refer to the sections that are in contention, not just the entire act de
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:2)
Current information indicates that Americans weren't "mislead", as that implies deceit.
Does that mean its okay to lead a country to war if...you don't have your information together....because it would be really really hard? "We'll totally have the evidence AFTER the war..."
Lets face it, the president went to war without having a solid case. If he would have asked so much as "What WMDs do they have?" there would have been no answer and we wouldn't have gone in.
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:2)
The point is, military intelligence is always incomplete. Worse, it's often overwhelmingly incomplete - it's a huge amount of information that
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:1)
Don't dozens of countries meet the criteria Iraq did? Might be hostile, might have weapons...and then there's North Korea. We KNOW they have a nuclear program but we haven't invaded yet. So what are the standards for bringing military action?
Not to mention the negative effect the war has had. The out of control costs, spreading our military thinly, thousa
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:1)
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:2)
Fortunately, the US population at that time had better sense than to become milit
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:1)