posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:42 PM
reply to post by dreamingawake
I went to the website and checked out the arguments and they seem legitimate, depending on the actual wording of the bill. Even if we personally are
not someone able to make a change when the government becomes tyrannical, there are people out there who *could* make a difference -
But if their views are suppressed and they are arrested before being able to join Democratic discussions, they won't be able to. This is not how a
People with legitimate opposing views, or even views that are not legitimate but are simply opinions and things they wish to express, are not
criminals or terrorists. People who call them terrorists are tyrants. That's just the way things are.
It is called freedom of speech and freedom of press and it is a patently different area of study than terrorism or criminal activity. When the
discussions start to overlap, we are talking about a society that is becoming way too sketch.
Why would someone be held indefinitely without a trial? Could it be because there is nothing to try them for? We used to be innocent until proven
In my opinion, the system is being set up so that people who criticize it have no legitimate Democratic outlet.
This could be used as a trick - because people have no Democratic outlet for their legitimate concerns, they have to address them in non-Democratic
manners if they wish to - and that makes it easier to justify locking them up.
In the end, if freedoms can be edited out of our societal structure, that seems... troublesome.
edit on 10pmTue, 10 Dec 2013 17:51:11
-0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)