Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by wx4caster
don't forget, everything any of us have ever said on this site is nicely filed away on our profile page in neat chronological order. If anyone
wanted to produce a character profile of us - its all right there.
makes you think you should think before you say anything
It's probably a good thing the guy got arrested, it seems maybe he has some psychological issues going on that really had nothing to do with what he
was saying. I'm glad he didn't hurt himself or anyone else for no good reason. If he were a rational logical person with a healthy state of mind, he
would never have communicated such threats or intentions, he would have played them close to the vest and wrote them on a paer he could dissolve in
acid and whatnot, not, put them in a computer where they can be retrieved even if the software erased them and the registry logs for them. No, he was
crying out for help or just seeking attention. He had no intention of acting on it or he wouldn't have been so stupid as to say something. It's like
people who say I'm going to kill myself. No they won't. If ignored and depressed long enough or cornered into making good on their claim, they
might. Otherwise- no they won't. If they are serious about such things, they'll just do it. And only a fool conspire's statistically, people are
turned in by those closest to them, usually out of concern or vengeance and the like, but, rarely does some supercop miles away ever figure them out
without being tipped of. The voluntary spy network and all that.
As to us being linked with him, sure, as fellow theorist conspirators we're all suspect as being fellow conspirators, but, they'll systematically
eliminate us until they resolve the matter. That' s how investigations go. Of course he could have been a plant to justify DHS's and the DoD's
increased war on internet control.
There is only a right to free speech when we enforce that right. For instance, I feel that, at times a Revolution against Government and an organized
reform of it's laws are way overdue. Sometimes I feel like the leaders who start wars should kill each other off and save us the trouble of dying for
them. I certainly understand why people want to kill these people and sometimes their reasons make really good sense. I advocate violence where and
when violence is due. I firmly believe that all redress of grievance should be attempted. If there is a single avenue, take it, no matter how unlikely
to resolve your conflict. The world doesn't always go one's way nor should it, but, if it is only because your way is bullied into submission, then,
These morons who want to overthrow their government rarely, if ever say what it should be replaced by. They want to destroy a System which, flawed,
can still be fixed. And, even if it can't, they don't have a detailed plan to replace it. A plan which details all the aspects of Business a
Government has to address. And without that, they are just pouring diesel fuel on a bonfire trying to put the bonfire out. Water has a soothing affect
and reformation should, too.
The Declaration of Independance gives me the Authority to alter, modify, or abolish that form of government (in whole or in part) which fails to
secure my life, liberty, and to allow for my pursuit of happiness. It is illogical to believe that I alone have that choice. It must be a majority of
the population of the oppressed who must determine that oppression is too much, and we can bear alot of oppression. It is naive to believe that you
cannot discuss your government and whether or not life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being oppressed if you can't openly discuss the
matter with your fellow Citizen's. The Citizen's won't always agree, but, that's the point. Diversity. And if the diverse majority of Citizen's
conclude that they are oppressed, then, it is further illogical to think they may not draw up and, as a majority, decide the resultant government they
want to form. Present the plan for that government to the existing Government, and if reasonably refused enough, draw up, implement, and act on the
plan of attack to remove the oppressive government. That is why we have freedom of speech. Not so we can say what we want no matter who it pisses off,
that's just a consequence. The early colonial printer's like Thomas Paine and his Common Sense, were illegal. When they won the war, the first
Ammendment they added to their new Supreme Law was the freedom of the people to openly discuss their government and legitimate actions they planned to
take to keep it running and in line.
To back this up they made it UNABRIDGABLE LAW to keep the Citizen's as armed as their Government, thus the Second Ammendment.
So to think you can't discuss inciting violence is nonsense. To do so without the proper frame of context, as a remedial recourse of action to
further the ends of the oppressed is where people go wrong.
People like this guy who threaten to kill the President are wrong, because, for one, it requires the majority consent of the oppressed to make that
choice. It does not fall to some lone gunman or group to determine the interests of the many, much less an action which will wreak havoc on a System
the majority have neither determined has oppressed them to the point of such an action being necessary, nor has assented to such a recourse as the
option to deal with such an oppression should they deem there even is oppression going on.
They act for the better good of all, when the all have not even decided themselves that such things are for their better good.
While I understand their desire to say, kill the President, I can not approve the logic that the taking of human life is the appropriate method of
address, and, I condemn their failure to seek a humane and peaceful course of redress.
But, to think people can't openly discuss such things is ridiculous and points to unjustified fear and is childishly naive.
These are my thoughts on the matter and you don't see me afraid to discuss them. Because, I don't advocate blind violence only majority sanctioned
violence. And there's no way to know if there is even a need for a revolution, much less, whether it is a campaign the majority is even willing to
undertake, unless, people can and do discuss such realities and options.
[edit on 18-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]