Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Phaedrus wrote:I consider that solution to be incredibly subpar, but the only realistic solution we currently have...which is really not a good sign. It's more like a signifier that we aren't a very good candidate for survival.

We aren't IMO. We're never going to have a just system, it can't be done in socialism (enslaves people) and it can't be done in capitalism (enslaves people), and can't be done in the middle, though I think the middle offers the least injustice of the possibilities. There will be no utopia.

That said, I'm going to again try and swear off internet politics, I don't accomplish anything other than giving myself a headache.

great thread guys, I enjoyed reading your discussion

Pro-lifers, y'all are on the list too. And y'all advocate violence against abortion doctors, their workers and property.

Forget about the Muslisms, it's those pesky Christians we really need to worry about.

Can anyone explain why the KKK is not on the list?

SwordMaster wrote:Can anyone explain why the KKK is not on the list?

No, but blacks are.

Can anyone explain why the KKK is not on the list?

Don't those fools consider themselves Christians? Despite the fact that the Bible says:

And I went on to command YOUR judges at that particular time, saying, ‘When having a hearing between YOUR brothers, YOU must judge with righteousness between a man and his brother or his alien resident. 17 YOU must not be partial in judgment
- Deuteronomy 1: 16, 17

SadisticCynic wrote:

Can anyone explain why the KKK is not on the list?

Don't those fools consider themselves Christians? Despite the fact that the Bible says:

And I went on to command YOUR judges at that particular time, saying, ‘When having a hearing between YOUR brothers, YOU must judge with righteousness between a man and his brother or his alien resident. 17 YOU must not be partial in judgment
- Deuteronomy 1: 16, 17

The bible also says you're supposed to stone dissobedient children.

Deuteronomy 21
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/21.html

I thought that might have been safer for some men!

I tried to split this topic off into a Religion topic, looks like I missed a couple posts.

Anyway, we can debate literal vs liberal interpretations of scripture there...

Oh right, I wondered what had happened. Sure ruined that joke

Sorry, y'all are too fast for me.

As much as I agree that Napolitano's document is absurd (along with similar documents claiming that people who study the constitution itself could be considered dangerous), I'm just going to play devil's advocate and try to look at it from Dick Cheney's point-of-view.

So you're Dick Cheney. You've got a war to uphold, whatever the real reasons for it may be. You've got to continually remind people that they are in danger, and you've also got to contually assure them that they depend on you for protection. So how do you do that? You make the Department of Homeland Security! But, since your reason for starting the department were rather flimsy (threats like 9/11) then you've got to get creative to find ways to keep the department busy. And how do you do that? Easy, you explore all avenues of terrorism. All the different ways in which groups of people can become radicals! Eventually, you're going to have to explore the notion that the kinds of radicals who support guns and are disgruntled about their wartime experiences, might just be a threat to peoples' safety. Sure, it's a stretch, but it would be foolish not to explore the risk, right? Or just wait until it's too late?

So yeah, that's just what happens when your country becomes a paranoid police-state.

Drunken Idaho wrote:...you're going to have to explore the notion that the kinds of radicals who support guns and are disgruntled about their wartime experiences

.

I don't think putting veterans on the list was a result of them being disgruntled at their wartime experience, I'm sure every vet is disgruntled about that. There are no consciencous objectors in an all-volunteer army. When I was in basic, some numbnuts stood up and said he didn't believe in fighting. The drill seargent said, "son, do you know where you are?" Dude had signed up for recon!



More like, they have other radical ideas, like preserving the Constitution, and they have been trained to kill people efficiently. After I got out of the army it didn't take me long at all to realize that my combat training was just about worthless in the civilian world. I still can't help but think of normal situations in a tactical way.

DrunkenIdaho wrote:So yeah, that's just what happens when your country becomes a paranoid police-state.

cookie to the first one who can tell me who had
This Machine Kills Fascists
written on his guitar case .....

Bryan get cookie :

What ?

What the fuck ?



no, bad Baraka .... no cookie