-->
@janesix
I didn't have you down as a Hard Right Conservative.....You really are a mixed bag.
Free Speech
Posts
Total:
86
-->
@zedvictor4
I am only sort of. I really am a mixed bag. I have some very conservative views, like I am against abortion and for closed borders. But I also have some liberal views, such as rights for gays and transgender people, which only came about after having gay and transgender children. I am learning.
-->
@janesix
Right and left extremes are one and the same really.
I would suggest that you are like me...A core citizen that desires social stability, rather than extreme chaos.
And every four or five years we are still free to tick a box......Which is a good.
-->
@dustryder
But defamatory labelling of people is a personal attack,
Yes, and a personal attack is an ad hominem attack.
WHICH IS AN OPINION.
Just like saying "biden is an idiot" is an OPINION.
Just like saying "trump is an idiot" is an OPINION.
Just like saying "all christians are idiots" is an OPINION.
Just like saying "all muslims are idiots" is an OPINION.
-->
@zedvictor4
Every person has a mix of views.
No two christians believe exactly the same things.
No two muslims believe exactly the same things.
No two "conservatives" believe exactly the same things.
No two "liberals" believe exactly the same things.
-->
@FLRW
...nsciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will con...
I am 100% in favor of making ALL LYING ILLEGAL.
Are you 100% in favor of making ALL LYING ILLEGAL?
-->
@dustryder
I'm not sure how that's relevant to this case. In this particular instance of protest, there were bombs, assault, murder, destruction of property, theft, trespassing and death threats. You had congressmen, capitol hill staffers and policemen quivering behind seats.I do find it curious that you would not label this as terrorism. Why not?
Would you call the HONG KONG "PROTESTERS" "TERRORISTS"?
-->
@3RU7AL
You could certainly label the ones who were using unjustifiable intimidation and violence tactics against civilians, sure.
-->
@dustryder
You could certainly label the ones who were using unjustifiable intimidation and violence tactics against civilians, sure.
Do you see any danger whatsoever in jumping from "criminal" to "terrorist"?
Why is it not perfectly adequate to call these people "criminals"?
-->
@3RU7AL
If they meet the bar for terrorism, then I'm happy to call them terrorists. You could call them criminals, however criminals is a fairly generic term that doesn't really convey what type of offenses have been committed.
So I guess my question to you is, do they, or at least some of the protesters meet the bar for domestic terrorism?
-->
@dustryder
So I guess my question to you is, do they, or at least some of the protesters meet the bar for domestic terrorism?
The legal bar is a moving target.
The logical bar is something completely different.
DO YOU BELIEVE PEOPLE ACCUSED OF CRIMES SHOULD BE GUARANTEED CIVIL RIGHTS?
-->
@3RU7AL
DO YOU BELIEVE PEOPLE ACCUSED OF CRIMES SHOULD BE GUARANTEED CIVIL RIGHTS?
Yes, including terrorists.
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, I am 100% in favor of making ALL LYING ILLEGAL. But there has to a stipulation that the facts are verifiable.
-->
@3RU7AL
I notice the overuse of the word belief.
It's one of those words that supposedly says a lot, but establishes precisely, very little...... A bit like "love".
I think what you meant to say was, people variously interpret information......And I would wholly agree.
-->
@Theweakeredge
DO YOU BELIEVE PEOPLE ACCUSED OF CRIMES SHOULD BE GUARANTEED CIVIL RIGHTS?Yes, including terrorists.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "CRIMINAL" AND A "TERRORIST" IS THAT A "TERRORIST" HAS NO CIVIL RIGHTS.
THE WORD "TERRORIST" IS USED TO BRAINWASH PEOPLE INTO DISMANTLING OUR CIVIL RIGHTS.
-->
@zedvictor4
It was a euphemism.
What is the more offensive version of Eckhart's quote?
-->
@3RU7AL
A "TERRORIST" HAS NO CIVIL RIGHTS.
in the U.S., since when?
-->
@fauxlaw
Sorry....I've lost the thread.
Would you explain the significance of Meister Eckhart here?
-->
@zedvictor4
The implication of Eckhart's statement is that regardless of subject, truth can only be established when the soul is cleared of all the junk it has acquired, else the risk of contaminating the truth with leftover corruption. He once also said: "A man should be empty of self and all things; and secondly, that he should be reconstructed in the simple good that God is; and thirdly, that he should consider the great aristocracy which God has set up in the soul, such that by means of it man may wonderfully attain to God; and fourthly, of the purity of the divine nature." The "erasure" is "be empty of self and all things," then follow that by acquisition of "the purity of divine nature," i.e., the truth.
-->
@fauxlaw
Sounds like Buddhist philosophy.
-->
@fauxlaw
The mysterious "urgent" and "secret" nature of anything even remotely related to "terrorism" makes it nearly impossible for anyone accused of it, whether guilty or NOT GUILTY to be treated with any sort of basic human dignity.
In recent years, however, the measures adopted by States to counterterrorism have themselves often posed serious challenges to humanrights and the rule of law.
In some cases, people merely suspected of terrorism have been stripped of their citizenship.
Some States have engaged in torture and otherill-treatment to counter terrorism, while the legal and practical safeguardsavailable to prevent torture, such as regular and independent monitoringof detention centres, have often been disregarded.
Other States havereturned persons suspected of engaging in terrorist activities to countrieswhere they face a real risk of torture or other serious human rights abuse,thereby violating the international legal obligation of non-refoulement.
The independence of the judiciary has been undermined, in some places,while the use of exceptional courts to try civilians has had an impact onthe effectiveness of regular court systems.
Repressive measures have beenused to stifle the voices of human rights defenders, journalists, minorities,indigenous groups and civil society.
Resources normally allocated to socialprogrammes and development assistance have been diverted to thesecurity sector, affecting the economic, social and cultural rights of many.
These practices, particularly when taken together, have a corrosiveeffect on the rule of law, good governance and human rights. [LINK]
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, it does. And since Buddhism was founded 6 centuries before Christ, it only demonstrates that true principles are true wherever and whenever they exist because truth works for everybody if they try it.
-->
@3RU7AL
Did I say that government will not violate a person's rights? No. But that does not change the fact that terrorists have rights. That the government may deny them, notwithstanding, terrorists have the right to seek a redress of their grievances.
-->
@fauxlaw
terrorists have the right to seek a redress of their grievances
Which they are unable to exercise while they are being held indefinitely in secret prisons.
A right that can be taken away is called a "privilege".
-->
@3RU7AL
And I disagree with the practice, thus, terrorist should get civil rights. A terrorist is a criminal, just a criminal who engaged in crime of a higher degree and specific sort - I don't think that rids of us moral obligation.
-->
@3RU7AL
Tell me, when. does a "terrorist" become an enemy combatant, held on foreign soil in a "secret prison." Do all foreigners on all foreign soils have any other right than due process when on American soil? No. And if not? No, and not even due process.
-->
@fauxlaw
Tell me, when. does a "terrorist" become an enemy combatant, held on foreign soil in a "secret prison." Do all foreigners on all foreign soils have any other right than due process when on American soil? No. And if not? No, and not even due process.
So, you're not a big fan of "human rights"?
-->
@Theweakeredge
And I disagree with the practice, thus, terrorist should get civil rights. A terrorist is a criminal, just a criminal who engaged in crime of a higher degree and specific sort - I don't think that rids of us moral obligation.
I think the word "terrorist" itself is a problem.
I'm certain the Red Coats considered the American Revolutionaries "terrorists".
-->
@fauxlaw
This case concerns the unlawful detention of a U.S. citizen without charges or trial and issues as to whether such detention by military officials violates due process of law, violates the doctrine mandating the supremacy of civilian authority over the military and violates a congressional enactment prohibiting the detention of U.S. citizens unless authorized by Congress.
-->
@3RU7AL
Like I said, she me a gov't that follows its own rules unerringly. Go ahead and complain. I'm sure they'll listen. I've stopped.