Run-of-the-mill fruitcake, then, I take it.
Not really. My cat likes playing with her own turds. You seem to like playing with mine.
Like I said, run-of-the-mill fruitcake. Shove your nonsensical, tautological hijack up your ass.
Many people in the USA seem to cofuse civil liberty with personal freedom. Nonconformists, especially when it comes to “patriotism”, are many times subject to the type of abuse that this soldier and his family are experiencing.
For me, it’s the pattern. This is not the first time people have had to face threats from people who support the Iraq war and other aspects of the Bush adminstration’s policies. Threats of violence and acts of coercion & retribution in varying forms have been used by these people in the last few years, beginning with vicous attacks on some members of the Arab-American community after 9/11 to this, death threats against a man who did what is right and was guided by his conscious, in true American style. Yes, the people perpetrating these acts are extremists, but there is a pattern, and that it hasn’t been nipped in the bud by the justice department and other enforcement agencies is what makes this less a “land of the free and home of the brave.”
Lib, I believe Astroboy was referring to when people were not free because they had the wrong skin color, not to criminals.
Shorter Lib: only an abuse-loving idiot would respond to my posts.
Proper response: OK, bye.
eh. Everyone gets death threats. Kobe’s alleged rape victim gets death threats. So does the pope. So do most politicians. Considering that there are 290 million people in america a handful of death threats are pretty good odds.
Liberal, Desmostylus, we interrupt this cat-turd volleyball tournament to bring you a thread just for you two fruitcakes.
I wonder if it’s just a handful, though. Not only is he in protective custody, but his family is too. Do they do that for just for a handful?
And even just a handful of twats threatening a person who did the right thing is worthy of scorn.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Yes of course, but I was talking about those whom he said were free, and not those whom he said were not. As I had already said, none of us is free if even one man is not free. Therefore, it would not make sense to think that I was talking about those whom I had already asserted had no freedom. If black people are enslaved, then white people are not free either. They are fugitives from moral justice.
Not just slavery but Jim Crow, too. Then there’s the internment of Japanese immigrants during WWII.
What does that have to do with being “free” or not?
Well, a fugitive is not a free man. He only appears to be free, but he is in fact on the run. He must guard his safety constantly lest those who are victims of his crime find him and punish him. As I explained before, whatever principle it is that allows any man to be oppressed allows any other man to be oppressed as well. At its root is the principle that oppression is a viable act of ethics. Therefore, whoever is in power is the oppressor, and whoever has the least political clout is the oppressed. In other words, if you find that I have lost my freedom, then your own freedom isn’t safe because whatever principle allowed me to be robbed of mine will allow the same power to rob you of yours. That’s why I brought the whole thing up. There are people who perceive no loss of freedom simply because Bush’s tyranny has not yet affected them personally. As I stated, they are like complacent vacationers who, because of the calm waters and blue sky, are oblivious to an approaching hurricane.
No, I got the “fugitive” part; it was the “moral justice” part that I was having trouble with.
That’s assuming what allowed your loss of freedom would apply to me.
An oppressor is a fugitive from moral justice because he has no ethical right to oppress.
Why wouldn’t it?
In other words, any society that allows injustices perpetrated against one person to stand obviously holds individual liberties unimportant compared to other ideals. Those ideals can be any excuse you want (“Racial purity”, “Homeland defense”, “Supporting Our Troops”, “Defending the Revolution”, etc., ad nauseum), but the fact of the matter is they can be applied to anyone who becomes vulnerable. In Stalin’s court, those closest to him were frequently the ones erased from photographs.
Freedom, in short, must be ingrained into the society or you end up with internal contradictions that lead to conflict and revolution. If you’re lucky, your nation’s own Jim Crow laws give you more Martin Luther King, Jr.s, than Bobby Seales.
Yes, but why would anyone be a fugitive from moral justice when legal justice is the one to worry about?
Barring our society becoming Fascist, what makes one person vulnerable is unlikely to apply to everyone else.
BINGO!
Give this man a prize.
For the tyrant, they are one and the same. He presumes the moral authority to make and execute whatever laws he pleases. This is true whether the tyrant is one man or a mob of millions. One day, you are Manuel Noriega, “Maximum Leader” of Panama; the next day, you are Manuel Noriega, Florida inmate. It was not any law that gave Bush I authority over the leader of a soverign state. Rather, it was his fiat interpretation of Noriega’s statement that “the North American scheme, through constant psychological and military harassment, has created a state of war in Panama,” was a declaration of war on the United States. And now, Bush II has the same broad discretionary power but with a new scope: he may now declare anyone — including you — to be a terrorist. See the concerns of the North Carolina Council of Churches about the federal government’s new powers.
Not everyone — anyone. Hope that when you become the target, you will not be the only one who cares.