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
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 phrases isn't in any position to determine sedition.
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
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: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 phrases isn't in any position to determine sedition.
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