Actually, I'm notoriously sarcastic and unserious in my day to day life. I guess turning it into a personal attack means you have no argument.
What was I supposed to be doing exactly? Anyway, the impression I get from you on DP is that you take offense to things easily and want to control how people respond to things so that everyone acts exactly the way you want.
What makes you think Jesus was a hippie?
If you insist.
Is violence against people legally exercising their first amendment rights justifiable? Yes or no.
I really don't care if hippies get beat up nor do I care what happens to bikers. Are you offended yet?
Over used cliche. I've had better hospitality in Wisconsin and lawd knows how much I detest Wisconsin.
Well, mainly just when its hippies.
Thank you for affirming everything I've ever thought about you.
"Libertarian." HA.
Being a libertarian just means I'm for leaving you alone. Now go off and save some hippies. I have popcorn, you have a cause and dammit we have a show. Go my warrior and slay the dragon!
Alright.
I think I see what you're getting at, here.
Firstly, no definition of Liberal Democracy in today's context would ever allow for the enslavement of it's citizens. It's just not going to happen.
Now, if we'd like to say 'in the context of the times' or some-such, that Liberal Democracies had slavery, fair enough - though I have issues with that, and at best might call them 'flawed'.
But we've got to remember, we're no longer in 1861.
You're graph is comparing an archaic era (Civil War era), with a modern one (WWII era), and then presented to us in today's context.
Which era's definition is correct?
I laughed, I cried, I fell down. I was entertained.
Yeah I know; free speech, fairness, law and order, blah blah blah.
The bikers didn't give a ****, though. They saw something they loved under attack and acted. I have to respect that, even if they were technically in the wrong.
And I loved seeing the flag burners outed as cowardly ******s lacking the courage to stand up.
Yup. Highly entertaining.
Almost as much fun as this was...
View attachment 67187178
Oops, am I being unfair again? Yeah I am. I don't much care. I don't like hippies. They're just lame. They're the wimpy, whiney annoying kid with "kick me" stuck to his back. It's sort of like stepping on cockroaches, it's just hard not to.
View attachment 67187180
How old were you during the 1960's when us hippies were around? Were you even born then?
You don't have to respect violence. Violence should be condemned, and dragged through the mud whenever it's drugged out by barbarians who can't respect a differing opinion. This kind of mindset is no better than the Muslims who thought they should shoot an art gallery in Texas. Shame on you, and shame on anyone who "respects" morons who resort to violence against free speech.
Right because bike gangs are really the image of "patriotism" we need to regale... NOT! They're quite often criminals, murderers, drugs dealers, .... really, this is somehow good?
And protesting police brutality is saying that the police should do their jobs properly, not that police should disappear. The only way these protesters would be hypocrites is if after the bikers were in hand cuffs or detained, the protesters suggested they should be mistreated, artificially set up to appear guilty, tased, shot, sodomized with inanimate objects, .... I don't think they did that. People protest abuses by police, not the concept of police over all.
You folks are just so black and white in your thinking... police can do no wrong, and anyone who wants the police to obey the laws and honorable conduct somehow want the police to disappear and do nothing.
Such childish perspectives.
Did anybody die? No. Anybody seriously hurt? No.... not much more than their feelings really.
Don't know where your sense of humor went either.
After all, it's just hippies.
If you give a rat's ass about the law or the Bill of Rights, you'd side with the flag burners. There is literally no rational argument that the bikers were in the right here.
Fair enough, you present a logical argument.As I said before, I'd define the concept more in terms of structure and underlying ideology than anything else. For example, even if the C.S.A. and early U.S.A. did not extend these rights or liberties universally, they certainly did believe in the concept of fundamental human rights and liberties, and base their governments upon those ideas. Likewise, even if the vote was not extended universally, or the exact structures in play differed from their contemporary versions, both governments absolutely were founded as Representative Democratic Republics, build around the idea of the consent of the governed being the fundamental basis for the right to rule.
Now, it's entirely possible that, if the C.S.A. had survived, it would have gradually started drifting towards a less "Liberal" and more overtly authoritarian model as the need to suppress basically half of its population became more pressing. However, at the time of its founding, and for the duration of the war, there can be little doubt that it was, in fact, a "Liberal Democracy."
You don't have to respect violence. Violence should be condemned, and dragged through the mud whenever it's drugged out by barbarians who can't respect a differing opinion. This kind of mindset is no better than the Muslims who thought they should shoot an art gallery in Texas. Shame on you, and shame on anyone who "respects" morons who resort to violence against free speech.
As I said before, I'd define the concept more in terms of structure and underlying ideology than anything else. For example, even if the C.S.A. and early U.S.A. did not extend these rights or liberties universally, they certainly did believe in the concept of fundamental human rights and liberties, and base their governments upon those ideas. Likewise, even if the vote was not extended universally, or the exact structures in play differed from their contemporary versions, both governments absolutely were founded as Representative Democratic Republics, build around the idea of the consent of the governed being the fundamental basis for the right to rule.
Now, it's entirely possible that, if the C.S.A. had survived, it would have gradually started drifting towards a less "Liberal" and more overtly authoritarian model as the need to suppress basically half of its population became more pressing. However, at the time of its founding, and for the duration of the war, there can be little doubt that it was, in fact, a "Liberal Democracy."
Burning a flag isn't really speech. It's an action and those veterans reacted. I don't like violence much either. People should stay out of your personal space I reckon.
But think about it, do these politicals even know what they want? These people spend their lives psychologically bullying any one whos vulnerable, goodhearted and sensible. I think they got their just desserts.
Burning a flag isn't really speech. It's an action and those veterans reacted. I don't like violence much either. People should stay out of your personal space I reckon.
But think about it, do these politicals even know what they want? These people spend their lives psychologically bullying any one whos vulnerable, goodhearted and sensible. I think they got their just desserts.
Yup. Had some next door.
If the C.S.A survived the Civil War it was doomed to start a new one between the Confederate States. They would have seceded from the C.S.A. lol
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?