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
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.
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: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