Oregonian legislator: Life imprisonment for protestors

[Ladewig]

Story from the Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/104851067375062.xml?oregonian?lcpl)

An Oregonian state senator has introduced a bill to "create the crime of terrorism" and apply it to people who intentionally cause injury while disrupting commerce or traffic. If convicted, they would face imprisonment for life.

Well, it looks as if we have found someone further to the right than Jedi Knight.


State Senate site showing the bill (http://www.leg.state.or.us/03reg/measures/sb0700.dir/sb0742.intro.html)

The bill is being revised before being brought to a vote, but the current revision does not even require the intentional causing of injury.

[iain]

SECTION 1.
(1) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any
act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt:
(a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the State of Oregon;
(b) Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of Oregon; or
(c) The educational or governmental institutions of the State of Oregon or its inhabitants.

(2) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person
conspires to do any of the activities described in subsection (1)
of this section.
Recently in London there were protests against the new Congestion Charging laws, where protestors held up traffic and caused substantial traffic jams. If I'm reading this right, that's life in prison if it was Oregon.

Presumably with Saddam soon to be out of the picture, Oregon sees a gap to be filled.

[Kthulhu]

Do you get a free lobotomy with your state senate seat in Oregon? DAMN, this stupid over-legislation trend to whip up some popular support with your voters is irritating. Oh wait, he's a police detective as well. Nice way to disspell those feelings that policemen are just fascist dickheads on a power trip there, John.

~The Thing That Should Not Be

NOTE: I do not think that the police are fascist dickheads. Just making light of a not uncommon stereotype.

[Skeptic]

C'mon, people. This is not a serious suggestion--it's merely someone who is showing he is pissed at protestors. Since he is a legitlator, he does it by suggesting a stupid law (which doesn't have a snowball chance in hell of being enacted, or if it is, of withstanding constitutional challanges).

It's a bit like the old story about a British MP who once suggested the House of Commons pass a law making it a capital offense to publish non-fiction books without an index.

[Kthulhu]

Methinks Skeptic makes the fatal mistake of underestimating the capacity for sheer stupidity our duly elected officials are capable of.

~The Thing That Should Not Be

Originally posted by Skeptic
C'mon, people. This is not a serious suggestion--it's merely someone who is showing he is pissed at protestors. Since he is a legitlator, he does it by suggesting a stupid law (which doesn't have a snowball chance in hell of being enacted, or if it is, of withstanding constitutional challanges).



Ridiculous, over-the-top right wing hyperbole is fine if you're Jedi or Rik and want to strut your macho in an online forum. This is not acceptable behavior for a legislator.

Don't rush to think of a liberal counterexample - just admit the guy's a nutcase who shouldn't be in office.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Story from the Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/104851067375062.xml?oregonian?lcpl)

An Oregonian state senator has introduced a bill to "create the crime of terrorism" and apply it to people who intentionally cause injury while disrupting commerce or traffic. If convicted, they would face imprisonment for life.

Well, it looks as if we have found someone further to the right than Jedi Knight.


State Senate site showing the bill (http://www.leg.state.or.us/03reg/measures/sb0700.dir/sb0742.intro.html)

The bill is being revised before being brought to a vote, but the current revision does not even require the intentional causing of injury.

I am in the center politically.

What that politician in Oregon is doing is reacting to the leftist extremism in this country. It is about time. Leftist cultural terror has to be stopped. We don't tolerate it from Al Qaeda so why are we tolerating it from our own citizens?

JK

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am in the center politically.

JK

Of course you're not. I wonder why you say such things. They tend to invalidate the points you sometimes make.

So you support this legislation, yes or no?

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am in the center politically.

JK

Hey, he openly admits that he is left to something!
Or should that be left over ?

:D

Zee

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am in the center politically.

What that politician in Oregon is doing is reacting to the leftist extremism in this country. It is about time. Leftist cultural terror has to be stopped. We don't tolerate it from Al Qaeda so why are we tolerating it from our own citizens?

JK

Leftist my ()*&(*&.

Once again, you show just how similar to Saddamn you are, JK.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ladewig
[BThe bill is being revised before being brought to a vote, but the current revision does not even require the intentional causing of injury. [/B]

More interestingly, anyone enforcing the bill as presently written will be committing the crime itself.

Ooops. I wonder if they really meant that?

[Lemastre]

Aside from the Constitutional problems with such a law, we don't need more ways to add to the overcrowding in our courts and prisons. I'm not easily surprised by what people do, but state legislators manage to do it more than any other group. Some of them have no idea what this country is supposed to be about. If they do, they seem unable to write laws that comprehend it, which is even worse.

[Agammamon]

I was just going to mention that. Isn't disrupting the free and orderly assembly of citizens exactly what this bill prohibits.
And it can be applied further. Does the guy in front of you in the hallway walk too slow? He's a terrorist because he's preventing you from assembling freely.

[Tmy]

So if a mob of U of O students spills into the streets in order to celebrate a Pac 10 champoinship, they should be thrown in jail for life??? If they rush to tear down the goalposts they should be shot because they are terrorists????


There seems to be a hate void in this war. You cant hate Iraqi's caue we are out to free them. Hating Saddam is juts not enough. Hating France only takes you so far. HMMMMM who to target with our frustration. I know! The anti-war protestors!!!!

[Agammamon]

And it's no like we need this law to prevent property damage or injuries from protests as laws against this already exist.

While I think the legislator is going too far, I do think that the organizers of a protest should be held accountable if they deliberately impede traffic, as they did last week, and someone loses life or property as a result. If an emergency vehicle can't get to the scene, the organizers should be jailed. For how long is debatable.

The protestors who blocked the traffic here in Portland, OR went so far as to go out onto the interstate and stopped that traffic during peak traffic. They did the same thing inside the city. It would have been impossible for an emergency vehicle to make it to a fire or medical emergency.

This was a well organized plan. They organized traffic blockages all over the country simultaneously. This is deliberate and malicious, and should be punished severely.

[jj]

Originally posted by LukeT
While I think the legislator is going too far, I do think that the organizers of a protest should be held accountable if they deliberately impede traffic, as they did last week, and someone loses life or property as a result. If an emergency vehicle can't get to the scene, the organizers should be jailed. For how long is debatable.

And, of course, the laws to do this are already on the books, and can be enforced today if need be.

This new "law" is an attempt, in my mind a criminally traitorous act, of attempted extortion.

It is exactly the kind of atmosphere that Saddamn creates in his own (shrinking) country. It is exactly what Saddamn, Joe Stalin, or another dictator would do. Proposing such a law in the USA is at least bordering on purely traitorous activity.

[Skeptic]

Don't rush to think of a liberal counterexample

Here's one, all the same: In NY, on April 1st it's going to be illegal to smoke in restaurants AND in bars. Which of course will lead to the creation of "smoke-easies", with legal booze and illegal cigarettes, or simply make everybody go to NJ for a meal.

Just as stupid, IMHO--with the difference that it actually passed...

just admit the guy's a nutcase who shouldn't be in office.

I doubt it--never attribute to evil what can be explained by basic stupidity. Of course, that presumes the suggestion is earnestly believed and not merely an attention-getting device. In THAT case, I'd say he's pretty smart: he got what he wanted, didn't he?

[Tmy]

I have no problems wh busting people who break the law. But lets face it, alot of this outrage is triggered because people do not like the protestors message and not so much their actions.

[jj]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Don't rush to think of a liberal counterexample

Here's one, all the same: In NY, on April 1st it's going to be illegal to smoke in restaurants AND in bars. Which of course will lead to the creation of "smoke-easies", with legal booze and illegal cigarettes, or simply make everybody go to NJ for a meal.

Just as stupid, IMHO--with the difference that it actually passed...

just admit the guy's a nutcase who shouldn't be in office.

I doubt it--never attribute to evil what can be explained by basic stupidity. Of course, that presumes the suggestion is earnestly believed and not merely an attention-getting device. In THAT case, I'd say he's pretty smart: he got what he wanted, didn't he?

The antismoking laws have gone too far in some ways, it ought to be possible to create isolated rooms for smokers. In shared rooms, "no smoking" strikes me as a reasonable compromise, given the years of enforced second-hand smoking anyone over 30 has had to deal with.

As to stupid, yes, I think the guy IS stupid. People enforcing the law will be in many cases hindering a lawful assembly, and thereby violating the law themselves. Unless that was an intentional attack on police, that IS pretty stupid. If it was an intentional attack on police, that's pretty stupid, too. If it was intended as irony, give it to the press, not the legislature.

I can't wait to see how A.N.S.W.E.R. plays this on their web site. Maybe the word "fascist" will be tossed out? Call me psychic....

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Don't rush to think of a liberal counterexample

Here's one, all the same: In NY, on April 1st it's going to be illegal to smoke in restaurants AND in bars. Which of course will lead to the creation of "smoke-easies", with legal booze and illegal cigarettes, or simply make everybody go to NJ for a meal.

Just as stupid, IMHO--with the difference that it actually passed...


Is there a constitutional amendment giving you freedom of smokes??


I live in a city wh a smoking ban....Its great.

[jj]

Originally posted by LukeT
I can't wait to see how A.N.S.W.E.R. plays this on their web site. Maybe the word "fascist" will be tossed out? Call me psychic....

I hope not, this is totalitarian, not fascist.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am in the center politically.

What that politician in Oregon is doing is reacting to the leftist extremism in this country. It is about time. Leftist cultural terror has to be stopped. We don't tolerate it from Al Qaeda so why are we tolerating it from our own citizens?

JK

Such a thing would be paranormal!

[Advocate]

At the risk of sounding "more to the right than JK", I have to say I agree with the principle of the legislation if not its exact wording. These "demonstrators" who actively and intentionally attempt to shut down a city the way some of them have done are not merely practicing free speech and should be severely punished for their actions. It is one thing to gather and protest, it is another to actively try to stop commerce. The second is an act of sabotage against the people of that city and I would say that a politically motivated act of sabotage is a form of terrorism. The effect that they are creating is one of the same goals of an enemy military.

OTOH, life in prison seems a bit harsh, particularly if no one dies (though there is always the possibility that this disruption may cause deaths), and the phrase "that is intended, by at least one of its participants" bothers me because it allows a person to commit terrorism by accident. If I was in the Oregon legislature (difficult because I am not in Oregon) I would try to make intent a requirement for the charge and to lighten the penalty (but still keep it a felony). I think the bill as it stands is an overreaction, but as I said, I believe the basic premise is sound. We as a society can't permit people to shut down our vital societal functions just to make a point.

[Tmy]

Someone already said this but, arent there laws already in place? Insiting a riot? Disordely conduct and so on.

Couldnt this Oregon law be used to throw anti-abortion activists in jail for life? Theyre behaviour is comparable. They physically and purposely disrupt commerece. How woudl JK feel about that.

[hgc]

Advocate:

We as a society can't permit people to shut down our vital societal functions just to make a point.
And we don't.

A few cases of people blocking traffic does not amount to shutting down societal functions. If people break the windows at McDonald's, we have laws on the books that punish them appropriately.

This is another case of an elected official displaying a complete ignorance/disregard for the words and spirit of the constitution -- in this case the stricture against cruel and unusual punishment. No amount of hyperbole about cultural terrorism will change the fact that this guy wants to put people away for life for blocking traffic in the course of expressing political opinions that he finds odious. Sick.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Advocate
At the risk of sounding "more to the right than JK", I have to say I agree with the principle of the legislation if not its exact wording. These "demonstrators" who actively and intentionally attempt to shut down a city the way some of them have done are not merely practicing free speech

Are they violent? If not, then there is no case.

It's not the right to free speech. It is the right to peacefully assemble.

The constitution does not allow the state to remove that right on busy streets.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am in the center politically.

What that politician in Oregon is doing is reacting to the leftist extremism in this country. It is about time. Leftist cultural terror has to be stopped. We don't tolerate it from Al Qaeda so why are we tolerating it from our own citizens?

JK This law seems to be perfect for stopping the leftist cultural terror from those who demonstrates outside abortion clinics, trying to prevent people from entering.

I'm glad you support that! :p

[Tmy]

That evil terrorist Rosa Parks shouldve been thrown in jail for life! Someone taking the bus to the hospital couldve been killed by the delay!

:p

[hgc]

Don't get a flat tire on the expressway.

If because of your blockage of traffic, someone gets injured in a pileup, and you intentionally drove around on bald tires, you're going up the river for life.

Terrorist.

[jj]

Originally posted by hgc
Don't get a flat tire on the expressway.

If because of your blockage of traffic, someone gets injured in a pileup, and you intentionally drove around on bald tires, you're going up the river for life.

Terrorist.

No, it does say "conspires" if I recall correctly.

What would a large group of individuals, using radios and carrying weapons, who were ordered to clear some people demonstrating off a sidewalk be?

Originally posted by hgc
Don't get a flat tire on the expressway.

If because of your blockage of traffic, someone gets injured in a pileup, and you intentionally drove around on bald tires, you're going up the river for life.

Terrorist.

There is plenty of room in the city parks to peacefully assemble. And they are widely visible. You can't possibly believe the protestors didn't block traffic deliberately. This was not a case of accident or negligence. And this was a nationwide occurence all at the same time.

I am not going so far as to call it an act of terrorism. I suppose that label is going to be chic for some time. But it is definitely a criminal act that is not protected by the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination.

When they leave the sidewalk and move into traffic, they are no longer "peaceful." It is no longer a "peaceful assembly."

[jj]

Originally posted by LukeT


There is plenty of room in the city parks to peacefully assemble. And they are widely visible. You can't possibly believe the protestors didn't block traffic deliberately. This was not a case of accident or negligence. And this was a nationwide occurence all at the same time.

I am not going so far as to call it an act of terrorism. I suppose that label is going to be chic for some time. But it is definitely a criminal act that is not protected by the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination.

When they leave the sidewalk and move into traffic, they are no longer "peaceful." It is no longer a "peaceful assembly."

But there are laws against blocking traffic, endangering the public welfare, impeding emergency vehicles, etc, already.

I agree they should be used.

Why create a new law that is obviously and intentionally written to outlaw political speech by a minority?

Why, especially, create such a law that in its present form would in fact endanger police who responded to a *lawful* assembly with prosecution under that very same law?

[headscratcher4]

We don't tolerate it from Al Qaeda so why are we tolerating it from our own citizens?

Because they are our citizens and we are still a nation that aspires to provide and protect freedom.

[Advocate]

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." does not mean the right to congregate anywhere they like and interfere with any public function they like. Otherwise why not assemble on the floor of the House and Senate to prevent any vote from occurring? Governments put restrictions on where people may assemble all the time and it has not been ruled unconstitutional. Often this is done for public safety reasons. As has been stated before, public safety also requires that emergency vehicles be allowed to move along the highways. These people are not just assembling, they are purposely disrupting the flow of commerce and even endangering lives.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Advocate
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." does not mean the right to congregate anywhere they like and interfere with any public function they like. Otherwise why not assemble on the floor of the House and Senate to prevent any vote from occurring? Governments put restrictions on where people may assemble all the time and it has not been ruled unconstitutional. Often this is done for public safety reasons. As has been stated before, public safety also requires that emergency vehicles be allowed to move along the highways. These people are not just assembling, they are purposely disrupting the flow of commerce and even endangering lives.

True, and in every jurisdiction, they are already subject to many laws protecting property, safety, personnel, etc. They can, and are, often prosecuted as criminals. Citizens should complain that their states/localities are not doing enough to enforce laws on the books. More laws are not the solution. THey will not protect either freedom or liberty any more than it is protected.

[treborf]

The joke is, this Republican legislator almost certainly supports toughening laws against frivolous lawsuits.

Look in the mirror, Senator Minnis. Aren't there more important things you could be doing?

[headscratcher4]

In addition, I wonder what he will feel if they apply it to anti-abortion protestors.

Indeed, the left has no right to feel outraged here, they too would like laws like this for acts like abortion protestors...

see, it gets complicated quickly...and the consequences will last a lot longer than this war....

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tmy
Someone already said this but, arent there laws already in place? Insiting a riot? Disordely conduct and so on.

Couldnt this Oregon law be used to throw anti-abortion activists in jail for life? Theyre behaviour is comparable. They physically and purposely disrupt commerece. How woudl JK feel about that.

Anti-abortion protestors protest non-violently in groups of two and three in front of abortion clinics. They do not advocate revolutionary action against the government to overthrow it, like the leftist radical cultural terrorists are.

They are also not attempting to shut down entire cities, causing people to starve from not being able to go to work.

The abortion protestors want to see abortion stopped but they love their country and would not be treasonous like the subversive left.

JK

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Are they violent? If not, then there is no case.

It's not the right to free speech. It is the right to peacefully assemble.

The constitution does not allow the state to remove that right on busy streets. The right to peacefully assemble on busy streets? Yes, the Constitution does allow states to remove that right.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Anti-abortion protestors protest non-violently in groups of two and three in front of abortion clinics. They do not advocate revolutionary action against the government to overthrow it, like the leftist radical cultural terrorists are.

They are also not attempting to shut down entire cities, causing people to starve from not being able to go to work.

The abortion protestors want to see abortion stopped but they love their country and would not be treasonous like the subversive left.

JK



Oh so now were are goingto develope a #'s requirement. Truth is the tatics you complian about are the same used by antiabortion types. Although I have yet to see any anti-war protesters gunning people down. Ironically they both are driven by a moral call to save lives.

You know in my parts I have yet to see a protest blacking traffic. Theyve been meeting at the park or on street corners, holding up signs. A lot like what you would see on voting day.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is there a constitutional amendment giving you freedom of smokes??[channeling Shanek]
Try the 10th Amendment.
[/channeling Shanek]

The old boy must be taking a nap. I can't believe he hasn't already jumped on this one.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
The right to peacefully assemble on busy streets? Yes, the Constitution does allow states to remove that right.

Absolutely. I completely agree. The subversionist left, hilariously, believes that if government makes a foreign policy that they do not agree with that they can subvert the national security of the country by referendum.

That is what these mass leftist communist subversive protests are. They are Marxist, anti-capitalist attacks on the United States government. They are not "protests" in the traditional meaning of the word and really carry only one agenda--the destruction of the United States so that it can be remade into a Stalinist Red perversionist socialist state.

When angry mobs form, and that is what the leftist protests are, to stop commerce at the city level, that is subversion. One of the main promises of our country by our government is the right to prosperity and happiness.

When subversive leftists stop commerce, they are attacking the country. That makes them open to direct combat action by capitalists, although none has yet to be seen because Americans are a tolerant people. Americans look at the leftists like the stupid useful Stalinist idiots that they are, but not a hair on the head of a single leftist subversive has yet to be harmed.

I think the government is understanding the subversive activity of these groups now and the lawmaker from Oregon is one of them. Protesting is fine--it is a guaranteed right.

Overthrowing the US government is dangerous subversion and government has the right to send troops in to put steel toe boots down on the necks of the protestors when this occurs.

Our country is a capitalist country, not a perversionist Stalinist state. Since that is what the radical leftist Stalinites want, my recommendation is life in prison like the Oregonian lawmaker or expulsion from the continental United States....or perhaps eventually there could be war and direct combat action against the leftist communists sponsoring these attacks against the country. It is a possibility, but I do not know if the government really has the will to use all the resources at its disposal to liquidate this new threat to our country.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tmy




Oh so now were are goingto develope a #'s requirement. Truth is the tatics you complian about are the same used by antiabortion types. Although I have yet to see any anti-war protesters gunning people down. Ironically they both are driven by a moral call to save lives.

You know in my parts I have yet to see a protest blacking traffic. Theyve been meeting at the park or on street corners, holding up signs. A lot like what you would see on voting day.

No, I don't have a problem with people peacefully demonstrating. I have a problem with subversion that seeks to overthrow the US government and destroy the country I love.

JK

[Bjorn]

Jedi

When angry mobs form, and that is what the leftist protests are ..... Hehe.

Authorities today charged a fugitive anti-abortion activist with murder in the sniper killing of Buffalo-area abortion provider Dr. Barnett Slepian.

The state of New York has issued an arrest warrant for James C. Kopp, 44, of St. Albans, Vt. He also faces a federal charge of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/slepian990505.html

Seems to me the war-protestors are a lot more peaceful than this ... :p

But of course, if you want a new law only for those you disagree with, it confirms your general views.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
In addition, I wonder what he will feel if they apply it to anti-abortion protestors.

Indeed, the left has no right to feel outraged here, they too would like laws like this for acts like abortion protestors...

see, it gets complicated quickly...and the consequences will last a lot longer than this war....

There are already severe penalties in place for blocking access to an abortion provider. Perhaps the best approach might be to amend this existing law to apply to preventing other sorts of public access. It does seem to me like something is wrong when it carries a serious penalty to block access to one business but seems to be perfectly OK (or at least carries very minimal penalties) to block access to multiple businesses.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Jedi

Hehe.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/slepian990505.html

Seems to me the war-protestors are a lot more peaceful than this ... :p

But of course, if you want a new law only for those you disagree with, it confirms your general views.

I can't deny that there are radicals within all groups that have strong beliefs about issues. Some of the abortion doctor killings were done by radicals from what I have read. Some other articles I have read claim that leftists killed their own abortion doctors also so that they could get the government to go against those that are against abortion at the organized level. Abortion is a problem our country is going to have to come to grips with because there is no consensus on abortion in the United States.

That said, show me one date/time/location where anti-abortion protestors tried to overthrow the government of the United States or even tried to stop general commerce in a US city. It has never happened, but if it has I am sure that you will let me know.

That is the difference here--anti-abortion folks love their country and simply disagree with the abortion policy.

Radical Stalinist Red leftists in San Francisco and elsewhere want to overthrow the US government so they can destroy the entire country.

It doesn't get much clearer than that, so you can easily see with little assistance why abortion protestors have absolutely no comparison to the dangerous terrorist left.

JK

[LW]

Originally posted by Bjorn
But of course, if you want a new law only for those you disagree with, it confirms your general views.
This brings to my mind one of the great ironical moments of legislature: in late 20's Finnish fascists ("Lapua Movement") campaigned hard and finally managed to get "anti-communist" laws passed that gave the government power to disband organizations that "acted to subvert the legal government". The irony came in 1932 when the Lapua Movement itself was disbanded using the very same laws.

[Ladewig]

Jedi Knight
Since that is what the radical leftist Stalinites want, my recommendation is life in prison like the Oregonian lawmaker or expulsion from the continental United States

Bravo, bravo. I love the subtly-concealed slam against Hawaii and Alaska. Well played.

As for the others favoring such a law, I would suggest rewriting the law so as not to include laborers picketing a construction site because they have not been paid, two people passing out religious tracts in front of an abortion center, and vegans wearing blood-stained cow costumes in front of McDonald's. The current bill would make all these people felons.

I personally think the law is ri-godamnned-diculous, if I may quote John Wayne. But we are talking about a state legislature that passed a resolution urging the state's senators to vote for a missle defense shield.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

That said, show me one date/time/location where anti-abortion protestors tried to overthrow the government of the United States or even tried to stop general commerce in a US city. It has never happened, but if it has I am sure that you will let me know.

They have routinely attempted to physically prevent people from entering medical clinics, even for things unrelated to abortion. If we are free of prior restraint in this country, then they are traitors, and are removing a civil liberty by force.


That is the difference here--anti-abortion folks love their country and simply disagree with the abortion policy.

And other than your word, do we have an proof that these alleged people do not love their country?


Radical Stalinist Red leftists in San Francisco and elsewhere want to overthrow the US government so they can destroy the entire country.
Would you please learn the difference between an idiot communist and an idiot anarchist? The people you've gone stark raving mad about are anarchists. That makes them approximately the opposite of either a stalinist or a red.

It doesn't get much clearer than that, so you can easily see with little assistance why abortion protestors have absolutely no comparison to the dangerous terrorist left.

JK
You have yet to show us the existance of a "dangerous terrorist left" by most people's definitions. Are anarchists leftists, or are they something elseists?

What's more, I've personally witnessed (from afar) people attempt to prevent two 20-year-old women from entering an abortion clinic by lining up across the door, holding hands, and singing "A Mighty Fortress". The people in question, in Morristown, NJ, were invited to go away by the local constabulary, and did not co-operate, instead lying down in the street.

How are these people (they are blocking a street, they are preventing others from going about, in this case, routine medical treatment) different from the idiots in Portland?

Do tell.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by jj
How are these people (they are blocking a street, they are preventing others from going about, in this case, routine medical treatment) different from the idiots in Portland?

Do tell. Some idiots agree with Jedi, some do not? :p

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Ladewig
As for the others favoring such a law, I would suggest rewriting the law so as not to include laborers picketing a construction site because they have not been paid, two people passing out religious tracts in front of an abortion center, and vegans wearing blood-stained cow costumes in front of McDonald's. The current bill would make all these people felons.

I need to clarify my own position here. I do NOT support criminalizing protest, free speech, assembly, or anything of the sort. As long as the laborers are not blocking anyone from the construction site, the pro-lifers are not blocking anyone from the abortion center, and the vegans are not blocking anyone from the McDonalds, then I fully support their right to protest. (I think it could be a problem if the vegans are using real blood due to the health risk, but that's another story.) The minute they block access to one of these facilities, however, I believe their actions should be considered criminal. In the case of the abortion center it already is. I understand that the bill as it stands currently goes further than this and I do agree it needs to be amended before being passed. However, I think the IDEA that there should be serious consequences for purposefully blocking public roads, impeding commerce, and possibly preventing emergency vehicles from reaching their destinations, is a sound one.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Absolutely. I completely agree. The subversionist left, hilariously, believes that if government makes a foreign policy that they do not agree with that they can subvert the national security of the country by referendum.You don't agree with me if you think dangerous, disruptive protests are a threat to national security. They clearly are not. They are, however, a threat to safety and order, and as such, the time, place, and manner of the expression can be regulated by the government, even thought the content of the expression can not.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj

You have yet to show us the existance of a "dangerous terrorist left" by most people's definitions. Are anarchists leftists, or are they something elseists?

Do tell.

I don't "do tell", I teach. "Do tell" is something you might hear from a 10 year-old, so before I continue I hope that you are at least a college student so I am not wasting my time explaining some facts to you.

Since you are obviously clueless about the current domestic political conditions in the United States, I suppose I can link an article to help you get your thinking straightened out.

Anyway, here is a good article on the subversionist left you can read if you have the courage to. This picture goes with the article so look at it first:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/Homepage/MedeaBenjaminCops.gif

Then read the article that goes with it. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6878)

After you are done with this assignment, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. I enjoy breaking leftist denial.

JK

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
You don't agree with me if you think dangerous, disruptive protests are a threat to national security. They clearly are not. They are, however, a threat to safety and order, and as such, the time, place, and manner of the expression can be regulated by the government, even thought the content of the expression can not.

I disagree. Dangerous, disruptive protests COULD be a threat to national security. They aren't now only because our production capacity is not an issue as it was during WWII. But they could be a threat to national security and are certainly a threat to safety and public order.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I don't "do tell", I teach. "Do tell" is something you might hear from a 10 year-old, so before I continue I hope that you are at least a college student so I am not wasting my time explaining some facts to you.


Really? DO tell. You're attacking a bunch of idiot anarchists, calling them a bunch of stalinist reds.

First, figure out who you're attacking, ok?

When you figure out the difference between an anarchist (idiot or not) and a stalinist red (idiot or not), please report back, and we'll grade you.

Finally, don't even suggest I'm a "leftist" or that I'm in 'leftist denial'. My politics haven't changed a whole lot since the 1960's, and in those days I was regarded as a rightwing fanatic (for supporting Goldwater, one of the last honest men we had running for president).

Your accusations, given my background and history, are simple, malicious insults.

[jj]

Originally posted by Advocate


I disagree. Dangerous, disruptive protests COULD be a threat to national security. They aren't now only because our production capacity is not an issue as it was during WWII. But they could be a threat to national security and are certainly a threat to safety and public order.

Indeed, and they are already illegal and can be dealt with by using the existing legal framework.

This proposed law is nothing but a willful attempt to criminalize political speech under the guise of calling it "terrorism". The law is obviously ill-formed (since it would make the policemen stopping a riot as guilty as those having the riot), unconstutional, and its very suggestion arises from either from stunning ignorance or traitorous intent.

[headscratcher4]

I disagree. Dangerous, disruptive protests COULD be a threat to national security.

As has been pointed out, this kind of protest is already illegal -- everywhere. People engaged in this kind of protest -- regardless of cause -- are already subject to numerous laws. Enforcement is another question.

As to the topic at the heart of this thread...this is just political grandstanding by a phoney patriot. If you buy the argument of the NRA -- we don't need more gun laws, only better enforcement -- than you should certainly buy that argument with respect to protestors -- we don't need new, anti-violence laws directed at protestors only enforcement of existing laws...which, BTW, I leave to local discresion regarding how best to protect property and other rights in the course of a protest.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj
Your accusations, given my background and history, are simple, malicious insults.

Well you haven't impressed me, pal. You have a hard time distinguishing the ideologies of groups. I tried to help you out but you appear to be suffering from pandemic leftist denial.

Let me guess--you didn't even read the article I linked for you, right? As I said--leftist denial.

JK

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well you haven't impressed me, pal. You have a hard time distinguishing the ideologies of groups. I tried to help you out but you appear to be suffering from pandemic leftist denial.

Let me guess--you didn't even read the article I linked for you, right? As I said--leftist denial.

JK

I rest my case.

Even people quite far to the right think you're completely over the top, and you consider anyone who disagrees with you a leftist, no matter how absurd the accusation is.

Talk about denial.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Let me guess--you didn't even read the article I linked for you, right? As I said--leftist denial.

JK

Oh, I read it. Did you BELIEVE it?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am in the center politically.

What that politician in Oregon is doing is reacting to the leftist extremism in this country. It is about time. Leftist cultural terror has to be stopped. We don't tolerate it from Al Qaeda so why are we tolerating it from our own citizens?

JK

Laws already exist that can be used to charge people who commit crimes during protests. New laws are not required.

If we enact draconian laws to stifle and/or prevent protests by "leftists", the same laws will apply to "rightists". Once the door is open for abuse by law enforcement, abusive law enforcers will not discriminate.

Beware the traps you set...you might find yourself in one.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000


Laws already exist that can be used to charge people who commit crimes during protests. New laws are not required.

If we enact draconian laws to stifle and/or prevent protests by "leftists", the same laws will apply to "rightists". Once the door is open for abuse by law enforcement, abusive law enforcers will not discriminate.

Beware the traps you set...you might find yourself in one.

Those laws are already used against "rightists". Remember WACO?

That is the whole point to this conversation--nothing is being done about the terrorist left.

JK

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Story from the Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/104851067375062.xml?oregonian?lcpl)

An Oregonian state senator has introduced a bill to "create the crime of terrorism" and apply it to people who intentionally cause injury while disrupting commerce or traffic. If convicted, they would face imprisonment for life.

Well, it looks as if we have found someone further to the right than Jedi Knight.


State Senate site showing the bill (http://www.leg.state.or.us/03reg/measures/sb0700.dir/sb0742.intro.html)

The bill is being revised before being brought to a vote, but the current revision does not even require the intentional causing of injury.

Oregon? Oregon?? Oregon!!!
Shoot your Rep. [Read the BOR to him/her before you shoot him]
TYVM

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by LukeT
They organized traffic blockages all over the country simultaneously. This is deliberate and malicious, and should be punished severely.

How severely?

choose 1 or more of the following:

shooting squad?
guiotine?
flogging?
solitary confinement in a dark cell with no latrine?
gas chamber?
lethal injection?
forced to watch hour after hour of American Idol while there eyes are taped open and head is in a vice?


Punish Punish Punish!

Blood Blood Blood! Before they deliver us to hell in a handbasket!

PPG

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Those laws are already used against "rightists". Remember WACO?

That is the whole point to this conversation--nothing is being done about the terrorist left.

JK

Those people in WACO were not representative of the right. They may have been any or all of the following though: delusional, apocalyptic, desperate, messianic, obsessive compulsive, and addicted. People with these tedancies can be right or left.

The left is terrorist now? The English language is obscure at times, having borrowed so many terms from different languages but this requires quite a liberal use of the term. Your liberal use of terms and liberal interpretation of terms and liberal application of terms...

whoa....

could it be you are a closet liberal JK?;)

[jj]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


Those people in WACO were not representative of the right. They may have been any or all of the following though: delusional, apocalyptic, desperate, messianic, obsessive compulsive, and addicted. People with these tedancies can be right or left.


Indeed, I'd tend to file the Waco people, the Montana affair, Jonestown, the "comet people" and so on under some kind of psychopathic label (somebody who knows the exact terms better than I might know which one) rather than under a political label.

[headscratcher4]

The laws that the federal government was attempting to enforce at WACO -- a brilliantly bad operation, BTW -- are different than those that might apply to demonstrators clogging streets or breaking storefront windows in protest.

WACO was, rightly or wrongly, premised on violations of federal fire arms laws and expressions of concern over child welfare.

Protestors blocking streets, breaking windows would, generally be subject to local laws agains vandalism, interfering with police officers in the exersize of their duty, disturction of property, and various other criminal acts or civil torts.

In short...it is Apples and Oranges. the comparison is inexact and inept, and therefore, ultimately, meaningless.

The more apt comparision is whether KKK protestors are treated more or less differently than anti-war activists engaged in property crimes or civil disturbances.

Further, as noted, there are tons of laws -- mostly local and state -- providing avenues for law enforcement to effectively deal with protestors who take the exercize of free speech to a more active, engaged and violative level.

Indeed, the one thing that makes sense here, is a state legislator seeking to change state law on how these crimes shoud be handled...at least he has the right legal process in mind.

JK wants, it seems, to federalize his response to these protests. To preserve freedom, he is essentially arguing for greater FEDERAL goernment interference not only in the content but enforcement of state and local law.

If the people of the city of San Fransico are sick and tierd of the protestors blocking streets, and the city and state government do not respond, they have the ability to vote for a different, more effective governor or mayor. That is how it should be.

In the end, complain that the laws are not being enforced, that is a legitimate concern. However, the suggestion that there aren't enough laws on the books or that we need something stronger from the federal government is foolish, without a showing that a serious harm is being done to national security by these protests. So far as I can see, national security remains intact and people playing dead in the streets of NYC are just an annoyance -- and, as stated, there are many, many laws on the books that provide local authorities with the powers to deal with annoyances.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by jj


Really? DO tell. You're attacking a bunch of idiot anarchists, calling them a bunch of stalinist reds.

First, figure out who you're attacking, ok?

When you figure out the difference between an anarchist (idiot or not) and a stalinist red (idiot or not), please report back, and we'll grade you.

Finally, don't even suggest I'm a "leftist" or that I'm in 'leftist denial'. My politics haven't changed a whole lot since the 1960's, and in those days I was regarded as a rightwing fanatic (for supporting Goldwater, one of the last honest men we had running for president).

Your accusations, given my background and history, are simple, malicious insults.

I don't believe there is a practical difference between the anarchists and communists. If there is in definition, it has no practical value. They are now pretty much one and the same in their tactics and objectives.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by jj


Indeed, I'd tend to file the Waco people, the Montana affair, Jonestown, the "comet people" and so on under some kind of psychopathic label (somebody who knows the exact terms better than I might know which one) rather than under a political label.

I also question placing the Branch Dividians on the right. There may have been some elements of similarity (they were supposedly religious, felt the need to protect themselves with firearms, and refused to knuckle under to government pressure) with the right, but I've seen no analysis of their views that would be considered conservative or right. On the other hand, their enemy, the Reno Justice Department, were indeed the stormtroops of the left, and Davidians' Constitutional rights appear to have been violated in spades. That surely generated sympathy from conservatives.

The Montana people may have thought themselves "on the right", but the right would not recognize them as brothers.

The Jonestown people were definitely leftist, having philosphy, funding, recruiting, and political support from the left. No doubt about them being a leftist outfit.

[jj]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


I don't believe there is a practical difference between the anarchists and communists. If there is in definition, it has no practical value. They are now pretty much one and the same in their tactics and objectives.

Yeah, right. One wants no government at all. The other one wants a highly intrusive central government that controls all aspects of life.

Other than that, there's not much difference. Right? :D

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by jj


Yeah, right. One wants no government at all. The other one wants a highly intrusive central government that controls all aspects of life.

Other than that, there's not much difference. Right? :D

You claim the anarchists want no government at all. Such an existance has never happened and never will. That may be their CLAIM, but in reality they are simply another far leftist outfit which wants to damage the US and capitalism. Have you ever heard of an anarchist demonstration in a communist country? They are not anarchists by dictionary definition. They are just another flavor of red.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


You claim the anarchists want no government at all. Such an existance has never happened and never will. That may be their CLAIM, but in reality they are simply another far leftist outfit which wants to damage the US and capitalism. Have you ever heard of an anarchist demonstration in a communist country? They are not anarchists by dictionary definition. They are just another flavor of red.

You don't hear about ANY demonstration in a communist country. At least not one that ends well :(

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Megalodon


You don't hear about ANY demonstration in a communist country. At least not one that ends well :(

Humorous but not correct. There have been demonstrations in communist countries. They are most often those for causes espoused by the government. Occasionally they are for anti-government causes, but those are relatively rare if we go by media coverage. So why aren't there demonstrations for anarchist causes in communist countries? If they are so diametrically opposed to communism, then they would demonstrate there too. They don't. That's because anarchists are SPONSORED by the communists.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


Humorous but not correct. There have been demonstrations in communist countries. They are most often those for causes espoused by the government. Occasionally they are for anti-government causes, but those are relatively rare if we go by media coverage. So why aren't there demonstrations for anarchist causes in communist countries? If they are so diametrically opposed to communism, then they would demonstrate there too. They don't. That's because anarchists are SPONSORED by the communists.

Actually, anarchists are generally killed by communists. Calling someone an anarchist (and thus a counter-revolutionary) was one of the terms that Stalin used to go after his perceived opponents (both Communist and non-Communist).

Also, during the Russian Revolution, once the Bolshevicks established themselves in power, they went very quickly after anarchists (who, of course, had supported the revolution), killing as many as they could lay their hands on.

Anarachists seek no government. Communists, at least the ones who have been "successful" in the 20th century, seek a consolidation of power into the hands of the party as the vangaurd for the working people.

Anarchists, while just as revolutionary, would reject the whole notion that you would have a "party" or that there must be party "dicsipline."

Indeed, many anarchist web sites sepcifically condemn Communists and the communist party. Communists are, by necessity, very beaurocratic. Anarchists dismiss the need for that kind of institution. Further, most party communists are only interested in "local" control of politics, government, resources to the extent that it provides a base for building their mass movement.

Anarchists reject the "mass" movement, believing that the only legitimate form of government is small, localized, concsensus politics, etc.

Anarchists are actually more akin to libertarians (without the captialism) than they are to communists.

Do a little historical research on the Communist party, they wipe eem out whenever they can.

[LW]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
So why aren't there demonstrations for anarchist causes in communist countries?
Well, I don't know the answer for other communistic countries, but for Soviet Union the answer was that Lenin and Trotsky had them shot in early 20s.

(Edited to add: see Kronstadt revolution and Makhnovitsina for examples)

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Actually, anarchists are generally killed by communists. Calling someone an anarchist (and thus a counter-revolutionary) was one of the terms that Stalin used to go after his perceived opponents (both Communist and non-Communist).

Also, during the Russian Revolution, once the Bolshevicks established themselves in power, they went very quickly after anarchists (who, of course, had supported the revolution), killing as many as they could lay their hands on.

Anarachists seek no government. Communists, at least the ones who have been "successful" in the 20th century, seek a consolidation of power into the hands of the party as the vangaurd for the working people.

Anarchists, while just as revolutionary, would reject the whole notion that you would have a "party" or that there must be party "dicsipline."

Indeed, many anarchist web sites sepcifically condemn Communists and the communist party. Communists are, by necessity, very beaurocratic. Anarchists dismiss the need for that kind of institution. Further, most party communists are only interested in "local" control of politics, government, resources to the extent that it provides a base for building their mass movement.

Anarchists reject the "mass" movement, believing that the only legitimate form of government is small, localized, concsensus politics, etc.

Anarchists are actually more akin to libertarians (without the captialism) than they are to communists.

Do a little historical research on the Communist party, they wipe eem out whenever they can.

No, the communists in the Soviet Union (and everywhere else) considered every other party or group to be the enemy. That included Mensheviks and other communists.

If anarchists were what they say they are (but are not) they would be libertarians or close to it. In fact they are nothing of the sort. They are reds of another flavor.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by LW

Well, I don't know the answer for other communistic countries, but for Soviet Union the answer was that Lenin and Trotsky had them shot in early 20s.

(Edited to add: see Kronstadt revolution and Makhnovitsina for examples)


As per my other post, the Soviets (Bolsheviks) had all rival groups killed, as well as any groups they thought could become rivals. They also killed the democratic socialists, whose government they overthrew.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


As per my other post, the Soviets (Bolsheviks) had all rival groups killed, as well as any groups they thought could become rivals. They also killed the democratic socialists, whose government they overthrew.

The also killed all the scholars, teachers, poets, writers, scientists--anyone with an education.

They were evil communists of the left.

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

Have you ever heard of an anarchist demonstration in a communist country? They are not anarchists by dictionary definition. They are just another flavor of red.

They get shot or sent to jail in communist countries. Is that how you want our country to behave? Like a communist country?

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The also killed all the scholars, teachers, poets, writers, scientists--anyone with an education.

They were evil communists of the left.

JK

What about the people here who kill Obstetricians? The ones who argue that "Creation Science" should be shoved down innocent kids' throats in classrooms, and who abuse the legal system extensively to enforce their religious beliefs on innocent kids? How about the people who want to limit medical research in the USA, trying to remove us from world leadership via that means, because of their regressive religious beliefs? How about those who want to enforce prayer on all children because of their profoundly dishonest assertion that "this is a Christian nation"? Just like the real world implimentation of communists, the present USA rightwing are historical revionists of a very repugnant, dishonest kind, who show by their actions that their alleged principles (things like truth, honesty, justice, etc) are entirely relative, and that their end, of enforcing their beliefs on everyone here, justifies the means. In my opinion, they are IN PRACTICE nearly identical to the real-world implementation of Communism.

The "right" in the USA is every bit as anti-intellectual as the communists. Quite frankly, they share a great deal of common ground. To wit:

1) They want to tell everybody how they must act. on penalty of law.
2) They want to suppress all dissent, either via legal or violent means. Anyone who disagrees is obviously either dishonest, ill-intentioned, stupid, or all of the above.
3) They are opposed to science, technology, and medical advances, except as it serves their political cause.
4) They routinely abuse, attack, and vilify people who disagree with them.
5) They routinely label anyone who dares to disagree with them in any fashion as the "other side".
6) They are outlandishly, insanely paranoid.

You, Jedi, in my opinion, don't stray far from the actual BEHAVIOR that communists have demonstrated in practice.

Is that what you intend to convey?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


They get shot or sent to jail in communist countries. Is that how you want our country to behave? Like a communist country?

So you are against the communists who are marching in US streets against the war that seek to turn the US into a perversionist commie country?

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


So you are against the communists who are marching in US streets against the war that seek to turn the US into a perversionist commie country?

JK

Hello.... Exactly what is your point? In my view, you and the communists you talk about, IN TERMS OF EFFECT ON THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY, are angstroms apart.

The acts you call for are identical to the actual actions of actual, implemented communism.

HOW do you justify that, Jedi, HOW do you justify that?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


What about the people here who kill Obstetricians? The ones who argue that "Creation Science" should be shoved down innocent kids' throats in classrooms, and who abuse the legal system extensively to enforce their religious beliefs on innocent kids? How about the people who want to limit medical research in the USA, trying to remove us from world leadership via that means, because of their regressive religious beliefs? How about those who want to enforce prayer on all children because of their profoundly dishonest assertion that "this is a Christian nation"? Just like the real world implimentation of communists, the present USA rightwing are historical revionists of a very repugnant, dishonest kind, who show by their actions that their alleged principles (things like truth, honesty, justice, etc) are entirely relative, and that their end, of enforcing their beliefs on everyone here, justifies the means. In my opinion, they are IN PRACTICE nearly identical to the real-world implementation of Communism.

The "right" in the USA is every bit as anti-intellectual as the communists. Quite frankly, they share a great deal of common ground. To wit:

1) They want to tell everybody how they must act. on penalty of law.
2) They want to suppress all dissent, either via legal or violent means. Anyone who disagrees is obviously either dishonest, ill-intentioned, stupid, or all of the above.
3) They are opposed to science, technology, and medical advances, except as it serves their political cause.
4) They routinely abuse, attack, and vilify people who disagree with them.
5) They routinely label anyone who dares to disagree with them in any fashion as the "other side".
6) They are outlandishly, insanely paranoid.

You, Jedi, in my opinion, don't stray far from the actual BEHAVIOR that communists have demonstrated in practice.

Is that what you intend to convey?

Creationist science is opinion. I never saw a Christian take someone into the street and shoot them in America for not believing in Christianity. You have got it all wrong.

What the left is doing is trying to cleanse Christianity from all institutions. They don't even want people to talk about Christianity in public. You say that Christians are "anti-intellectual"? That is laughable.

Look, I could care less what religion people believe in as long as it does not involve a call to action to harm anyone else. Why is it such a major deal with the perversionist left to censor Christianity? Why can't kids in school say a prayer? They aren't gunning anyone down, are they? No way.

What you described above is the left, but you just inserted a religion into your argument. It is tired leftist rhetoric but amusing in how you presented it.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


Hello.... Exactly what is your point? In my view, you and the communists you talk about, IN TERMS OF EFFECT ON THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY, are angstroms apart.

The acts you call for are identical to the actual actions of actual, implemented communism.

HOW do you justify that, Jedi, HOW do you justify that?

I call for action against subversives that seek to destroy the country. That is not communism. That is protecting the sovereign.

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I call for action against subversives that seek to destroy the country. That is not communism. That is protecting the sovereign.

JK

"Protecting the sovereign". Did you really mean to say that? :D

Surely, since you suggest that you've done extensive study on the subject, you realize that YOUR statement is exactly, precisely the same excuse that the Stalinists used to kill the Trotskyites, the one that the Bolshevics used when they killed the anarchists, the one that the Klan used when it killed black people ... Oh, and why was it that the National Socialists were killing off whole creeds and races of people?

Did you really mean to do that?

In some senses you are right, we must protect ourselves from deliberate, effective subversion. However, such subversion is just as effective if it forces us to act like what they'd do if they won.

That, in a nutshell is why Saddamn and Bin Laden are such absolute, stunning (despicable) successes. They have succeeded in having us turn the USA into their kind of place OURSELVES by losing. By losing they have won already, by playing on our own insecurities and internal crackpots. Your rhetoric only helps them win even more.

Why are you doing that?

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Creationist science is opinion. I never saw a Christian take someone into the street and shoot them in America for not believing in Christianity. You have got it all wrong.

The facts of the matter are that there are many cases in evidence where "for your own" good has been the excuse for murder, abuse, or other criminal behavior". In this context, I mean "for your own good according to my religion". No, it's not limited to the right, I'm surely not suggesting as much.

Now, "Creation Science" is not science. There is no "opinion" involved. It is a FACT that it is not science. The tenets are not falsifiable, they are not verifiable, and they run COUNTER to the material evidence. "Creation Science" is pure, unadulterated religion FAKING the appearance of science. How that goes along with "thou shalt not lie" is, frankly, beyond me. Asking that "Creation Science" be present in a class on comparitive religion is fine with me, but it is pure quackery to include it in a science class. There is no real discussion to be had here, that's the facts.

What the left is doing is trying to cleanse Christianity from all institutions. They don't even want people to talk about Christianity in public. You say that Christians are "anti-intellectual"? That is laughable.

Either you are one of the 10 most gullible people I know, or you said that knowing it's false. NOBODY is trying to "cleanse Christianity", and anyone who says as much IS BEARING FALSE WITNESS. The only complaints about religion are when it's considered normative, which is directly counter to several of the amendments to the constitution.

As to SOME Christians being anti-intellectual, let's talk about Hovind, or the ICR, or the CAPALERT people, all of whom assert Christianity as their basic philosophy. (edited to point out that there are some few old-Testament biblical literalists, too, so I can't assert they are ALL claiming to be Christian)

Certainly not all Christians are of that sort, I didn't say anything like that. What I did say is that many people in this day and age, apparently including you, hide behind Christianity, and use it as an excuse to attempt to force their ideals and religions (Creation Science being one of them) upon us all, DESPITE the evident and irrefutable facts of the Founder's intent. These people have gone to the extent of trying to force people to re-write the facts in the history books to support their revisionist history.



Look, I could care less what religion people believe in as long as it does not involve a call to action to harm anyone else. Why is it such a major deal with the perversionist left to censor Christianity? Why can't kids in school say a prayer? They aren't gunning anyone down, are they? No way.

Straw men, burn! Let's start with "kids in school say a prayer". They can. They just can't FORCE EVERYONE to do it, or have it ENDORSED by the school (for a public school, of course). That's the facts of the matter. Furthermore, courts HAVE supported the right to private prayer.

Calling for life-imprisonment for someone for expressing a different opinion, which is what this thread is about, is worse than gunning people down, it's calling for lifelong torture for having an opinion that doesn't agree with you. That's just sick.

When such people do something criminal (i.e. block traffic, etc) put them in jail for that. Answer the real crime they have committeed, not the one someone wants to fake up to stifle dissent.


What you described above is the left, but you just inserted a religion into your argument. It is tired leftist rhetoric but amusing in how you presented it.

JK

I have directly, honestly and factually described the actions of what calls itself the "Christian Right". Your obfuscation appears, to me, to be an attempt at pure deception on your part. Please note that I put the term "Christian" in quotes in this paragraph, because I can not find any clear connection between the "Christian Right" and "Christianity" of the biblical form. The Christianity I was taught as a child, and that I extensively examined as an adult, taught tolerance, brotherly love, and respect for fellow man. I simply can't see how that relates to what passes for the 'Christian Right', at all.

To you, I can only say:

Mene
Mene
Tekel
Upharsin

I see little reason for further responses, you routinely deny obvious facts, you won't acknowledge the astonishing similarity of your rhetoric to that of of other dictators, and you use the same old, hackneyed, and long-disproven claims about how Christians are persecuted in the USA to attempt to use utter falsehoods to divert attention from your own totalitarian calls fr action that resemble nothing better than what the communists and national socialists have actually DONE when in power.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by jj


They get shot or sent to jail in communist countries. Is that how you want our country to behave? Like a communist country?

And what were you smoking to come up with that one?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I call for action against subversives that seek to destroy the country. That is not communism. That is protecting the sovereign.

In this country, the people are sovereign over the Constitution, and the Constitution is sovereign over the government. To protect the "sovereign" government over the liberties of the people is an affront to everything this country stands for.

[jj]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


And what were you smoking to come up with that one?

Now that's a typical dishonest, insulting thing for a "conservative" to say these days.

I point out that what the stupid Oregon law calls for is exactly the same thing that Joe Stalin would do.

You accuse me of trafficing in illegal substances.

For the record. I don't smoke. Anything. I don't take drugs, with the exception of a little bit of good-tasting alcoholic beverages once in a while. I'm on my arthritis medicine (NSAID) right now, and haven't opened as much as a bottle of beer or wine for about 4 weeks presently, so I'm not drunk either, and I still say, quite sincerely,

I SEE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OREGON LEGISLATOR'S "SOLUTION" and Joe Stalin's.

I SEE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEDI'S SOLUTION AND Joe Stalin's.

And Joe Stalin's, Saddamn Hussein's, Adolph Hitler's, Idi Amin's, Nikita Kruschev's, the Taliban's, and his solutions are all the same. You want to use the force of the state to silence people who disagree with you.

Once again, there are already laws for dealing with morons who block traffic, attack people, etc. We really don't need any more, just enforce the ones we have now.

Anyone claiming "but those were good guys and these are pinko subversive liberals" IS MISSING THE ENTIRE PICTURE FROM BEGINNING TO END.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by jj


Now that's a typical dishonest, insulting thing for a "conservative" to say these days.

I point out that what the stupid Oregon law calls for is exactly the same thing that Joe Stalin would do.

You accuse me of trafficing in illegal substances.

For the record. I don't smoke. Anything. I don't take drugs, with the exception of a little bit of good-tasting alcoholic beverages once in a while. I'm on my arthritis medicine (NSAID) right now, and haven't opened as much as a bottle of beer or wine for about 4 weeks presently, so I'm not drunk either, and I still say, quite sincerely,

I SEE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OREGON LEGISLATOR'S "SOLUTION" and Joe Stalin's.

I SEE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEDI'S SOLUTION AND Joe Stalin's.

And Joe Stalin's, Saddamn Hussein's, Adolph Hitler's, Idi Amin's, Nikita Kruschev's, the Taliban's, and his solutions are all the same. You want to use the force of the state to silence people who disagree with you.

Once again, there are already laws for dealing with morons who block traffic, attack people, etc. We really don't need any more, just enforce the ones we have now.

Anyone claiming "but those were good guys and these are pinko subversive liberals" IS MISSING THE ENTIRE PICTURE FROM BEGINNING TO END.

>They get shot or sent to jail in communist countries. Is that how you want our country to behave? Like a communist country?<

That last is what you said to get me to ask what you smoked to make the comment. It is typical leftist hyperbole, nonsense top to bottom. I was talking about the definition of one type of red versus another:

>Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

Have you ever heard of an anarchist demonstration in a communist country? They are not anarchists by dictionary definition. They are just another flavor of red. <


You chose that moment to introduce your hyperbolic comments about whether I want our country to behave like communist countries. That's fairly typical verbal diarrhia for leftists. I did you the favor of asking if you were on something rather than have to defend your comments. You don't use drugs or smoke? Makes us even, though I hate to think you said that sober.

[jj]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

That's fairly typical verbal diarrhia for leftists. I did you the favor of asking if you were on something rather than have to defend your comments. You don't use drugs or smoke? Makes us even, though I hate to think you said that sober.

You know what? I'm a right-wing sort of person. The fact that you can't tell the difference between an old-style republican and a new-style republican, and call the old-style republican position "verbal diarrhia for leftists" shows, I think, the utter depravity of your condition.

You sound like one of those morons in Arizona who (temporarily) threw Barry Goldwater out of the Arizona Republican party.

The fact of the matter is that communists jailed or killed anarchists and anyone who didn't agree with them. You want to jail people for life in this country because they don't share your political position.

You won't use existing laws against criminal behavior, you'd rather support a new law that explicitly attempts to target your opposition, but that in fact is stupidly written to endanger everyone, including police and emergency services.

How are you any different than a communist regarding your position toward people you don't agree with? Your position would seem to be quite clear, you would do just as they would.

STOP evading the question and answer it.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by jj


You know what? I'm a right-wing sort of person. The fact that you can't tell the difference between an old-style republican and a new-style republican, and call the old-style republican position "verbal diarrhia for leftists" shows, I think, the utter depravity of your condition.

You sound like one of those morons in Arizona who (temporarily) threw Barry Goldwater out of the Arizona Republican party.

The fact of the matter is that communists jailed or killed anarchists and anyone who didn't agree with them. You want to jail people for life in this country because they don't share your political position.

You won't use existing laws against criminal behavior, you'd rather support a new law that explicitly attempts to target your opposition, but that in fact is stupidly written to endanger everyone, including police and emergency services.

How are you any different than a communist regarding your position toward people you don't agree with? Your position would seem to be quite clear, you would do just as they would.

STOP evading the question and answer it.

Excuse me? When did you see me say I want to jail people for life in this country because they don't share my political position? Or that I wouldn't use existing laws against criminal behavior? Or that I support new laws that target my opposition? I haven't taken a position on the subject at all. That's your assumption. You sure leap to conclusions!

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by jj



1) They want to tell everybody how they must act. on penalty of law.
2) They want to suppress all dissent, either via legal or violent means. Anyone who disagrees is obviously either dishonest, ill-intentioned, stupid, or all of the above.
3) They are opposed to science, technology, and medical advances, except as it serves their political cause.
4) They routinely abuse, attack, and vilify people who disagree with them.
5) They routinely label anyone who dares to disagree with them in any fashion as the "other side".
6) They are outlandishly, insanely paranoid.



these items describe so much of the political spectrum. No one political philosophy has a monopoly on them.

Consider for example the Republicans and Democrats in the US... many people think they are as different as black and white yet they both participate in the practices/tactics described above. Yet no one would ever say that either party resembles any of the political philosophies on the extreme ends of the spectrum.

PPG

When people are scared crap happens, and it happens a lot.-PPG

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


No, the communists in the Soviet Union (and everywhere else) considered every other party or group to be the enemy. That included Mensheviks and other communists.

If anarchists were what they say they are (but are not) they would be libertarians or close to it. In fact they are nothing of the sort. They are reds of another flavor.

Indeed, but they particularly went after anarchists as being dangerous to the party...again, anarchists -- while often in favor of promoting violence to bring about the revolution they felt was necessary in society -- specifically rejected Bolshevik leadership and their concept of the party as the vangaurd of the prolitariate.

They are distinctly different philosophies...though both can exhibit violence. Much the same as Nazism and Communism are different philosophies. My worry is that by painting with the brush you do...you will continue to confuse this point. In order to fight communism, anarchism, nazism, facism, etc. you must both know and understand the differences between them. To fail to differentiate between them is to fail to effectively counter their various evils.

Edited to add: I just thought of the example I was trying to remember. In the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell fought with a loyalist unit that was mostly comprised of anarchists. Orwell was fiercely anti-Communist and anti-Stalin. He relates, in Homage to Catalonia, how the Communist were more interested in killing loyalist anarchists (fighting on the "same side") than they were the Francoists. Orwell barely escaped with his life. My point is that the anarchists and the communists certainly would not agree that they are after the same thing or have the same goals...

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Indeed, but they particularly went after anarchists as being dangerous to the party...again, anarchists -- while often in favor of promoting violence to bring about the revolution they felt was necessary in society -- specifically rejected Bolshevik leadership and their concept of the party as the vangaurd of the prolitariate.

They are distinctly different philosophies...though both can exhibit violence. Much the same as Nazism and Communism are different philosophies. My worry is that by painting with the brush you do...you will continue to confuse this point. In order to fight communism, anarchism, nazism, facism, etc. you must both know and understand the differences between them. To fail to differentiate between them is to fail to effectively counter their various evils.

I don't argue that there are NO differences between these different groups, but instead that whatever differences they may have are not that great in the overall picture. The sources below point to reasons why virtually all of these groups are to be considered leftist. Though it is common today to consider Mussolini's fascism and Hitler's national socialism "rightist" and Lenin's Bolshevism "leftist", those differentiations are only true OF THEIR POSITION WITHIN SOCIALISM AS A WHOLE. In other words, there may well be relative right and left positions amongst them, but they are still socialists. Those of us who despise socialism as a whole may consider them essentially parts of the same overall body of socialism, and therefore they merit the same scorn. And that, by the way, includes many US Democrats (generally), who are the apparent inheritors of Mussolini's philosophy.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4087

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


"Protecting the sovereign". Did you really mean to say that? :D

Surely, since you suggest that you've done extensive study on the subject, you realize that YOUR statement is exactly, precisely the same excuse that the Stalinists used to kill the Trotskyites, the one that the Bolshevics used when they killed the anarchists, the one that the Klan used when it killed black people ... Oh, and why was it that the National Socialists were killing off whole creeds and races of people?

Did you really mean to do that?

In some senses you are right, we must protect ourselves from deliberate, effective subversion. However, such subversion is just as effective if it forces us to act like what they'd do if they won.

That, in a nutshell is why Saddamn and Bin Laden are such absolute, stunning (despicable) successes. They have succeeded in having us turn the USA into their kind of place OURSELVES by losing. By losing they have won already, by playing on our own insecurities and internal crackpots. Your rhetoric only helps them win even more.

Why are you doing that?

You are just plain confused. Our sovereign protects freedom for the individual citizen. When citizens like the leftist cultural terrorists in New York today march and try to destroy that sovereign, it is they who want to remake the US into a perversionist commie state.

A commie sovereign is different than the US sovereign. That is basic Poli-Sci 101. Maybe you should go to your local community college, take a class and get a clue.

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


these items describe so much of the political spectrum. No one political philosophy has a monopoly on them.




I hope you weren't expecting me to argue that point, because I'd much rather support it.:cool:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


I have directly, honestly and factually described the actions of what calls itself the "Christian Right". Your obfuscation appears, to me, to be an attempt at pure deception on your part. Please note that I put the term "Christian" in quotes in this paragraph, because I can not find any clear connection between the "Christian Right" and "Christianity" of the biblical form. The Christianity I was taught as a child, and that I extensively examined as an adult, taught tolerance, brotherly love, and respect for fellow man. I simply can't see how that relates to what passes for the 'Christian Right', at all.

To you, I can only say:

Mene
Mene
Tekel
Upharsin

I see little reason for further responses, you routinely deny obvious facts, you won't acknowledge the astonishing similarity of your rhetoric to that of of other dictators, and you use the same old, hackneyed, and long-disproven claims about how Christians are persecuted in the USA to attempt to use utter falsehoods to divert attention from your own totalitarian calls fr action that resemble nothing better than what the communists and national socialists have actually DONE when in power.

Clueless about history too, I take it? The US has had Christianity in every institution of the country since its inception and not one national socialist ever came to power.

Do me a favor and just ignore me from now on lol.. You are simply too stupid to debate with and too poisoned by leftism.

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Clueless about history too, I take it? The US has had Christianity in every institution of the country since its inception and not one national socialist ever came to power.

Do me a favor and just ignore me from now on lol.. You are simply too stupid to debate with and too poisoned by leftism.

JK

Still spreading that revisionist history around, are you? I see you're also engaging in malicious miscomprehension on top of that.

Finally, I require your admission that I am not even slightly on the left. Your complete capitulation in this matter is expected promptly.

(edited to say: A number of PM's have come my way, suggesting that I am mistaken in thinking that you can be reasoned with. I begin to see the truth of that.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
You are just plain confused. Our sovereign protects freedom for the individual citizen.

And so you propose that we protect freedom for individuals by taking it away from them. Just like your hero George III.

A commie sovereign is different than the US sovereign. That is basic Poli-Sci 101. Maybe you should go to your local community college, take a class and get a clue.

Hmmm...perhaps you could point out where this concept is described in the Constitution?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


Still spreading that revisionist history around, are you? I see you're also engaging in malicious miscomprehension on top of that.

Finally, I require your admission that I am not even slightly on the left. Your complete capitulation in this matter is expected promptly.

(edited to say: A number of PM's have come my way, suggesting that I am mistaken in thinking that you can be reasoned with. I begin to see the truth of that.)

If you had a clue about any of the topics we were discussing you wouldn't be whining right now. Capitulate? Shine my shoes, loser.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by shanek


And so you propose that we protect freedom for individuals by taking it away from them. Just like your hero George III.



Hmmm...perhaps you could point out where this concept is described in the Constitution?

Huh? The US Constitution is the sovereign lol.

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If you had a clue about any of the topics we were discussing you wouldn't be whining right now. Capitulate? Shine my shoes, loser.

JK

Sonny boy, suggesting that I am even a widdle iddy-bitty leftist is a flat-out falsehood.

You may be decieved, you may be saying it to be deliberately offensive, I don't know, but it most surely shows just where you stand.

Oh, and "leftism"? What is it that the "10 signs of quack science" says? People make up their own terms?

I offer you a suggestion, sir. Read the constitution. After you've done that, explain to us all the several ways that you've advocating subverting it in this thread.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Huh? The US Constitution is the sovereign lol.

The US Consitution is sovereign over the US government. But, of course, you've shown how much contempt you have for it while paying lip service to freedom...

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by jj



I offer you a suggestion, sir. Read the constitution. After you've done that, explain to us all the several ways that you've advocating subverting it in this thread.


here is a link to it


http://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/constitution/transcript.html