Nick Against the World (62 Viewers)
- Thread starter IncuboRossonero
- Start date
I see. Civil rights are better when applied only to the fellow Americans whom we deem lacking enough suspicion to deserve them. That screams founding fathers' liberty all over it, alright. "All men are created equal. Except that shady looking guy running the 7-Eleven down the street. He gives me funny looks when I buy my Slim Jims from him. I say we bug his entire house."
I can only hope that the slippery slope of selective law enforcement is something you don't experience too much on a daily basis. But it's that "us versus them" mentality that will screw over a democracy -- or at least it's principles.
"Let's make stealing an offence where it's OK to chop off the hands of the offenders. Afterall, none of us steal anything, right? So what do we have to lose?" Until your nephew gets caught with the wrong crowd. Until fudging a grey area on your income taxes one year earns you the nickname 'stumpy'.
It's so easy to be fat, stupid, and lazy and to create laws and enforcements that you never presume you will be subjected to. The real key in a democracy is to be fair enough in knowing that, for whatever reasons, those punishments could be fairly enforced upon yourself or someone you love -- whether through the fact that none of us are without 'sin' in our lives, or that human error happens all the time and being found guilty and being guilty aren't always the same thing.
But if instead you prefer the alternative of selective rights -- that some people are more 'equal' than others -- that's your George Orwell Russian Communism right there. May as well put on your fur hat, down some vodka, and start dancing the Barinya, comrade.
That logic is like saying it's OK to take a dump in your kitchen because there's dog shit on the floor.
To be honest, I don't think political party has anything to do with it. Idiocy observes no party lines. We just need competent people in office.
I can only hope that the slippery slope of selective law enforcement is something you don't experience too much on a daily basis. But it's that "us versus them" mentality that will screw over a democracy -- or at least it's principles.
"Let's make stealing an offence where it's OK to chop off the hands of the offenders. Afterall, none of us steal anything, right? So what do we have to lose?" Until your nephew gets caught with the wrong crowd. Until fudging a grey area on your income taxes one year earns you the nickname 'stumpy'.
It's so easy to be fat, stupid, and lazy and to create laws and enforcements that you never presume you will be subjected to. The real key in a democracy is to be fair enough in knowing that, for whatever reasons, those punishments could be fairly enforced upon yourself or someone you love -- whether through the fact that none of us are without 'sin' in our lives, or that human error happens all the time and being found guilty and being guilty aren't always the same thing.
But if instead you prefer the alternative of selective rights -- that some people are more 'equal' than others -- that's your George Orwell Russian Communism right there. May as well put on your fur hat, down some vodka, and start dancing the Barinya, comrade.
That logic is like saying it's OK to take a dump in your kitchen because there's dog shit on the floor.
To be honest, I don't think political party has anything to do with it. Idiocy observes no party lines. We just need competent people in office.
swag said:
I see. Civil rights are better when applied only to the fellow Americans whom we deem lacking enough suspicion to deserve them. That screams founding fathers' liberty all over it, alright. "All men are created equal. Except that shady looking guy running the 7-Eleven down the street. He gives me funny looks when I buy my Slim Jims from him. I say we bug his entire house."
I can only hope that the slippery slope of selective law enforcement is something you don't experience too much on a daily basis. But it's that "us versus them" mentality that will screw over a democracy -- or at least it's principles.
"Let's make stealing an offence where it's OK to chop off the hands of the offenders. Afterall, none of us steal anything, right? So what do we have to lose?" Until your nephew gets caught with the wrong crowd. Until fudging a grey area on your income taxes one year earns you the nickname 'stumpy'.
It's so easy to be fat, stupid, and lazy and to create laws and enforcements that you never presume you will be subjected to. The real key in a democracy is to be fair enough in knowing that, for whatever reasons, those punishments could be fairly enforced upon yourself or someone you love -- whether through the fact that none of us are without 'sin' in our lives, or that human error happens all the time and being found guilty and being guilty aren't always the same thing.
But if instead you prefer the alternative of selective rights -- that some people are more 'equal' than others -- that's your George Orwell Russian Communism right there. May as well put on your fur hat, down some vodka, and start dancing the Barinya, comrade.
That logic is like saying it's OK to take a dump in your kitchen because there's dog shit on the floor.
To be honest, I don't think political party has anything to do with it. Idiocy observes no party lines. We just need competent people in office.
I can only hope that the slippery slope of selective law enforcement is something you don't experience too much on a daily basis. But it's that "us versus them" mentality that will screw over a democracy -- or at least it's principles.
"Let's make stealing an offence where it's OK to chop off the hands of the offenders. Afterall, none of us steal anything, right? So what do we have to lose?" Until your nephew gets caught with the wrong crowd. Until fudging a grey area on your income taxes one year earns you the nickname 'stumpy'.
It's so easy to be fat, stupid, and lazy and to create laws and enforcements that you never presume you will be subjected to. The real key in a democracy is to be fair enough in knowing that, for whatever reasons, those punishments could be fairly enforced upon yourself or someone you love -- whether through the fact that none of us are without 'sin' in our lives, or that human error happens all the time and being found guilty and being guilty aren't always the same thing.
But if instead you prefer the alternative of selective rights -- that some people are more 'equal' than others -- that's your George Orwell Russian Communism right there. May as well put on your fur hat, down some vodka, and start dancing the Barinya, comrade.
That logic is like saying it's OK to take a dump in your kitchen because there's dog shit on the floor.
To be honest, I don't think political party has anything to do with it. Idiocy observes no party lines. We just need competent people in office.
"We will use their own rights and freedoms to defeat them"
our freedom wont mean shit if we havent any country left to live in after a few suitcase nukes go off.....
and dont think that it couldnt happen....its already being planned
Actually, a few suitcase nukes would kill thousands of innocents and cause a real dent in the country, but it certainly would not eradicate it. The U.S. dropped nukes on Japan, this after firebombing their major cities over and over again, and we didn't even come close to eradicating it.
The great problem, based on recent past experience, is the response of our own government from the inside. That, at this stage, threatens to eradicate all the freedoms and liberties we've fought so hard for 230 years to put in place and protect. Our reaction to just the threat of terrorism serves to threaten our democracy, liberties, and freedoms in a way no terrorist ever could.
The great problem, based on recent past experience, is the response of our own government from the inside. That, at this stage, threatens to eradicate all the freedoms and liberties we've fought so hard for 230 years to put in place and protect. Our reaction to just the threat of terrorism serves to threaten our democracy, liberties, and freedoms in a way no terrorist ever could.
To what Vinman writes, he is correct in that the nuclear bombs of today are on a whole other level than the atomic bombs of the 1940s. So much so, in fact, that atomic bombs are considered tactical, rather than strategic, weapons now. But the argument about whether nuclear or atomic is kind of moot point here -- assuming you think the quality of weaponry that terrorists could access would bypass atomic and straight to weapons-grade Plutonium, which is highly debatable given that a dirty bomb is probably far more likely.
But to think you could topple the U.S. with a couple of suitcase nukes makes Americans out to be bigger pansies than much of the world might consider us. I would only hope you give the citizens of this country greater respect than that, Vinnie. We're not going to drop trou and surrender, waving our surrender skivvies on a stick, because of a couple of nukes.
I can only take it then that you'd rather live in a totalitarian state modeled after Soviet Russia, or even Hussein's Iraq, because that's preferrable over the risk that those pesky liberties in our constitution might afford a few terrorists. Fuck everybody over for the few, right? America is a great nation not because of its values and beliefs in equal justice and treatment under the law, it's great because we're willing to bend the rules and screw with anybody whom we might think is suspicious -- whether we're correct in our suspicions or not. Because defending a paranoid state by any means necessary is better than no state at all, right?
Talk about playing into the hands of terrorists by magnifying their deeds in letting a few terrorize an entire nation and change their freedoms in the process.
The worst part of all is that the said sacrifice of American principles and liberties for its people could be made with no real benefit at all. I'm sure you're familiar with the 9/11 Commission Report. There it's clear that the terrorist attacks could have been prevented by just rank and file people at immigration check points and airline security counters basically doing their jobs -- no major sacrifice of American civil rights required. Talk about overkill when just getting the basics right would do a wonder of good.
And as anybody in the security business knows, your security is only as good as your weakest links. A 20-foot high electric fence is useless if there's an unlocked door on the side.
But to think you could topple the U.S. with a couple of suitcase nukes makes Americans out to be bigger pansies than much of the world might consider us. I would only hope you give the citizens of this country greater respect than that, Vinnie. We're not going to drop trou and surrender, waving our surrender skivvies on a stick, because of a couple of nukes.
I can only take it then that you'd rather live in a totalitarian state modeled after Soviet Russia, or even Hussein's Iraq, because that's preferrable over the risk that those pesky liberties in our constitution might afford a few terrorists. Fuck everybody over for the few, right? America is a great nation not because of its values and beliefs in equal justice and treatment under the law, it's great because we're willing to bend the rules and screw with anybody whom we might think is suspicious -- whether we're correct in our suspicions or not. Because defending a paranoid state by any means necessary is better than no state at all, right?
Talk about playing into the hands of terrorists by magnifying their deeds in letting a few terrorize an entire nation and change their freedoms in the process.
The worst part of all is that the said sacrifice of American principles and liberties for its people could be made with no real benefit at all. I'm sure you're familiar with the 9/11 Commission Report. There it's clear that the terrorist attacks could have been prevented by just rank and file people at immigration check points and airline security counters basically doing their jobs -- no major sacrifice of American civil rights required. Talk about overkill when just getting the basics right would do a wonder of good.
And as anybody in the security business knows, your security is only as good as your weakest links. A 20-foot high electric fence is useless if there's an unlocked door on the side.
swag said:
But if instead you prefer the alternative of selective rights -- that some people are more 'equal' than others -- that's your George Orwell Russian Communism right there. May as well put on your fur hat, down some vodka, and start dancing the Barinya, comrade.
That logic is like saying it's OK to take a dump in your kitchen because there's dog shit on the floor.
That logic is like saying it's OK to take a dump in your kitchen because there's dog shit on the floor.
umpkin:
