It's time. by Jonus

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
This is really sad. I never knew that all of you were such whores. I thought Browncoats were actually brave enough to fight for something.

Just remember when the end of your life comes that you weren't brave enough to fight for anything. Not strong enough to fight for yourself, your friends or your children.

Jonus, thats because most of these people aren't true browncoats, they would be working for the Alliance, they like to fancy themselves as browncoats but its just not so IMO.
just keep on speaking out!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WhoMe:
Calls to violence are not protected by free speech laws. (Acceptable: The government stinks, so let's change it. Not Acceptable: The government stinks, so lets get some guns and start shootin'.) Consider editing your post. Or getting some serious anger management and impulse control therapy.

There are lots of ways to "overthrow" a government. I saw a news report on the changing state of Belarus wherein a young Belorussian man explained that he thought the revolution in his country would be economic, rather than political or military. If you don't like the way your government governs, try organizing citizens to vote for someone else, run for office, print your own publication, do SOMETHING besides encouraging violence. Aside form putting yourself on Homeland Security's radar screen (Hi guys! How's the war on "terror" going? We winning yet?), you're making people think you're a little crazy.

Do you really believe there is a WAR ON TERROR?? I mean do you really believe that, have you seen the administration go after any terroist..tell me who does homeland security effect, does it effect U.S citizens or does it effect terrorist.?

so far I only see it effecting U.S citizens, so that must make us the terrorist, you know if you wear a T-shirit that someone doesn't like you can be arrested and locked up, or spied on for daring to having an opinon and speaking it. so you tell me who is the enemy..?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:54 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
I believe I know the purpose of my life. It is to overthrow the government. How did I figure this?

I saw V for Vendetta on Saturday and heard the story of Guy Fawkes and his plan to blow up parliament and in the process kill the king. It struck a chord and deeply inspired me and I have NEVER been so inspired by anything in my life. I've lived my whole life being a fucking couch potato, but I've always hated the government and any man who thinks he's better than another man. Complacent with the shit that goes on. Playing video games all day and watching movies to escape the shit of the world. Working jobs I hate and not being appreciated. Now I don’t want to kill the president. I just want to put the government “out of business”. I’ve been wracking my brain thinking of all that’s wrong with the country and thinking of what to do.

I thought of getting everyone to stop paying taxes. Without the people and their support the government can’t exist. They need us. This would take years to take effect. So we keep our fucking money and use violence if necessary. I've become so sick and fucking tired of accepting the world the way it is. It's time the people take back what's theirs. I'll follow God's laws but not some super conservative fuck who justifies his actions in the name of God.

I can't do it alone. I need everyone. We can take back everything and give it back to the people.

WE ARE NOT FREE. BUT WE CAN BE. It's time to stop being complacent. ACT NOW.

I'm a Jedi.
I'm a Ringer.
I'm a BROWNCOAT.

The realy scary thing is that you have decided to become a revolutionary based on watching V for Vendetta. Maybe you should read some Revolutionary literature; Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, people who actualy took part in revolutions. Then sit back and re-think your agenda.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 1:50 PM

DREAMTROVE

Perhaps I'm becomning overly suspicious in my old age, but this just occurred to me, so don't call me stupid just because you already thought of it.

Jonus is a mole. His incendiary posts serve to bait out the fish, like Pirate Jenny, no offense, but you bit the hook, to action to see who here was a potential terrorist. Normally I don't care, I mean, seriously, we chat daily on an open forum about the real world application of the ideas of a TV show and Movie which essentially advocate treason (against the alliance, which they most certainly do.)

So that taken into account, if aomeone was a terrorist, and they decided to forward that position in such an open forum, they are either a) a dumb ass, or b) a plant.

I've never been on an adult forum, but if someone were to go on such a thing, and someone came on and posted "20 bucks for f^&k, Call me candy" with an address, one have to would assume that such a person was a plant for law enforcement. WHy wouldn't the same apply here?

But then again, the more I think about it, the more the dumb ass possibility seems more likely.

Anyway, on to more important things:

Fletch,

They don't have to wait two years, getting rid of Bush could be accomplished right now, you can contact your congressmen and organize an impeachment. Clinton was impeached, and though that failed, it did so mainly because the impeachment came from the opposition party, and that is always too suspect a motive. In a same party situation, I say again, the GOP has everything to gain and nothing to lose by sinking Bush themselves.

I just want to reflect on the possibility that was missed: President Gore or President Gingrich?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Jonus, thats because most of these people aren't true browncoats, they would be working for the Alliance, they like to fancy themselves as browncoats but its just not so IMO.
just keep on speaking out!!

Here we see kommandant Jenny of Browncoat Zentralverwaltung deciding who is and who isn't a Browncoat.

Thus we see that Jenny has learned nothing from either Firefly or Serenity, though I'm confident that she may very well respond to me with how I'm an Alliance stooge and she heard Joss's call to bring down all governments.

All Alliance types are too wear little yellow badges to signify their evil.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:24 PM

Quote:
Free Speech is Free Speech,

And a french fry is a french fry. What's your point?

Quote:
that means puttin up with folks spouting stuff ya don't agree with, which has seemed to slip right by most folks these days..

That's a common, but completely erroneous, belief. There's a difference between what's just annoying and what's illegal.

Quote:
you won't hear me callin for someone to apply some duct-tape to Ann Coulter or Pat Robertsons mouth, they got every right to say what they please - cause in order to demand that right for myself, to demand that it be *universal*, it means I must then accept that others can do so, too.

Er, no. I took some communications law classes in college (as a journalism major, I was required to learn exactly what my limits would be), and one of the things we covered was what is and is not covered by freedom of speech laws. I know you don't see any ideological division between different types of speech, but those divisions really do exist. For instance, slander and libel laws curb freedom of speech, as do laws addressing imminent violence. It's all very nice that you "demand" this or that, but limits do exist.

This website neatly addresses some of those issues:
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect08.htm

The section most relevant to this discussion is part 3 under "Unprotected Speech."
Excerpt:
There's a long history of cases involving citizens calling cops "assholes" and other terms, which usually results in some altercation with later allegations of police brutality. Of course, speech that directly threatens the officer's safety ("I'm coming down to the station and kill you") or clearly hinders the officer's performance of their duties is criminal, but certain types of profanity, name calling, and obscene gestures are also not constitutionally protected.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WhoMe:
That's a common, but completely erroneous, belief.

No it isn't. If you don't agree with what someone is saying you can't shut them up. There are limits like inciting racial hatred, sure but that's a completely different thing.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:23 PM

Quote:
:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by WhoMe:
That's a common, but completely erroneous, belief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it isn't. If you don't agree with what someone is saying you can't shut them up. There are limits like inciting racial hatred, sure but that's a completely different thing.

Actually, WhoMe is correct. It is not protected by the constitution if you say for example "lets all kill the president". You can say how much you despise the president or want him out of office. Hell, you can even say that you wish he was dead, but announcing that you are going to commit an illegal act that threatens someone's safety, or telling someone else to commit such an act is probable cause for you to be searched and/or watched and/or detained. In fact, I can guaruntee that the NSA boys down at Project Echelon (the NSA's communication monitoring division; yes it does exist; the government has never officially admitted its there, but they haven't really bothered to keep it secret)are getting a red flag on their computer screens because I used the phrase "kill the president"(oops, another red flag; right about now, they are probably reading this to check the context to see if its a real threat).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:01 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Actually, WhoMe is correct. It is not protected by the constitution

Respectively...

No he is not.
Yes it is.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see the words slander, or libel, or threat, in there ?
I surely don't.

Anything beyond this basic context is not constitutional in nature, but in proper observance of Amendments IX and X, within the jurisdiction of the states themselves to decide what is and isn't proper, for example espousing profanity in front of women and children in michigan is a no-no in michigan, but that is a state decision, not a federal one.

So, while announcing a direct threat against a person may indeed constitute probable cause for action, that action is not in the province of the federal government, nor legally it's jurisdiction and any law, act or executive order that would say so fails the test of constitutional trump on the spot and is then invalid.

In short, the Constitution does indeed protect said speech - whether your state does or does not is between you and your state government.

It would really, really help a discussion like this if folks would GO READ THE FREAKIN THING.

And I've said my piece, no sense kickin a dead horse over it, and it's not my job to educate folk who don't seem the least bit interested.

Oh, and Jen ? c'mon, the right to dissent is universal, kid, if you want to be able to state your opinion, ya gotta let other people state theirs, otherwise it's a pointless exercise that just swaps out which side gets to oppress the other.

Respect - gotta bring some, to get some.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:23 PM

BROWNCOAT2006

Heres an idea... lets stop looking at thes incredibly eary ass piece of work and get on with our incredibly eary ass day?! what Im getting at people is, free speach good, if ya don't like what he is saying plz don't post, choose to ignore it or choose not to, up to you, and FYI Im a little scared that you chose to follow this path based off of a movie, I personally enjoyed this movie as well, but Im not gunna go off and try and dismantel the government... and a true Browncoat would not be saying that a true browncoat does anything a specific way other then love Firefly and serentiy a bit too much, a good example, go watch the serenity intro by joss or read a transcript of it, tells you right there what a browncoat is... said my peace, now im done.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Actually, WhoMe is correct. It is not protected by the constitution if you say for example "lets all kill the president". You can say how much you despise the president or want him out of office. Hell, you can even say that you wish he was dead, but announcing that you are going to commit an illegal act that threatens someone's safety, or telling someone else to commit such an act is probable cause for you to be searched and/or watched and/or detained. In fact, I can guaruntee that the NSA boys down at Project Echelon (the NSA's communication monitoring division; yes it does exist; the government has never officially admitted its there, but they haven't really bothered to keep it secret)are getting a red flag on their computer screens because I used the phrase "kill the president"(oops, another red flag; right about now, they are probably reading this to check the context to see if its a real threat).

No he isn't. My quote is accurate, the "There's a difference between what's just annoying and what's illegal." part was added later but what WhoMe said is still wrong, just slightly less inaccurate.

The original (unedited) text went like this:

Quote:
Originally posted by WhoMe:
Quote:
that means puttin up with folks spouting stuff ya don't agree with, which has seemed to slip right by most folks these days..

That's a common, but completely erroneous, belief.

Notice how the statement is a rebuke to the idea that you have to put up with what other people say even if you don’t agree with it.

Frankly I’m not concerned with what the American Constitution says on the matter, I’m not American. Fact is Freedom of Speech isn’t necessarily what Americans or your constitution decide it is, at least for the world at large.

However if you believe such things are not covered by Free Speech please stop typing. I disagree with what your saying so I bar you from saying it

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Actually, WhoMe is correct. It is not protected by the constitution

Respectively...

No he is not.
Yes it is.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see the words slander, or libel, or threat, in there ?
I surely don't.

Anything beyond this basic context is not constitutional in nature, but in proper observance of Amendments IX and X, within the jurisdiction of the states themselves to decide what is and isn't proper, for example espousing profanity in front of women and children in michigan is a no-no in michigan, but that is a state decision, not a federal one.

So, while announcing a direct threat against a person may indeed constitute probable cause for action, that action is not in the province of the federal government, nor legally it's jurisdiction and any law, act or executive order that would say so fails the test of constitutional trump on the spot and is then invalid.

In short, the Constitution does indeed protect said speech - whether your state does or does not is between you and your state government.

It would really, really help a discussion like this if folks would GO READ THE FREAKIN THING.

And I've said my piece, no sense kickin a dead horse over it, and it's not my job to educate folk who don't seem the least bit interested.

Oh, and Jen ? c'mon, the right to dissent is universal, kid, if you want to be able to state your opinion, ya gotta let other people state theirs, otherwise it's a pointless exercise that just swaps out which side gets to oppress the other.

Respect - gotta bring some, to get some.

-Frem

Okay... I just looked it up, and you're right. The constitution is supposed to protect ALL speech, but it doesn't because the government stopped paying attention to parts of the constitution a long time ago. Just look at the part about no excessive bail. It hasn't been ammended, but the government allows judges to set whatever bail they want to, even if it's in the millions. The fact is, the constitution says that we can say whatever we want, but the government says otherwise. There are laws out there that say that we can't say whatever we want. They are federally enforced. Constitutional or not, that's reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
There are laws out there that say that we can't say whatever we want. They are federally enforced. Constitutional or not, that's reality.

And that's the bottom line.
The government uses the Constitution as a guideline, more than actual rules.

Corporations and influence peddelers control all, and changes must be systematic and comprehensive to be effective.
Violence as a tool for social change at this point would turn this country into something resembling a 'Road Warrior' like existence, and BEG another country *COUGH-China* to overtake us.
Just like global warming, the U.S. is going in a direction that can't just be fully reversed.
Lasting revolutionary change can't start with killing the 'bad' guys, they are us. If you point the finger at Bush and Cheney, you have to also point at all who voted for them, all who didn't vote at all, all who shop at Wal-Mart, and all in the military for accepting the orders they are given, and not 'rising up'.

WE AS A PEOPLE need to be educated as to our choices, and I think we're doing just a little bit of that right here. And for anyone to say they're gonna defeat ANY government this big, powerful and reactionary with violence...well, they must just love the romantic idea of dying in Serenity Valley.

Work towards changing Corporate Economics and practice, and the world will change.

I identify myself as a Post-Serenity Valley Browncoat; one that ain't stupid, and one who'll see more change come from a broadwave than a bayonette.

Uncharacteristically serious Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

Jonus, thats because most of these people aren't true browncoats, they would be working for the Alliance, they like to fancy themselves as browncoats but its just not so IMO.

I disagree. There are always the crazy radicals out there (Sam Adams and his rock throwing, rabble-rousing, tea partiers and Son of Liberty).

Real revolutions, the ones that last, they come when the conservatives decide to make it happen (John Adams, George Washington, along with some farmers, shopkeepers, and the guys who make shoes). They are the Browncoats. So Jonus and the assorted Pirates can fluster and preen all they want about 'making things happen'. Its when all the Heroes stand up that the world best take notice. And I'm one Hero that more then satisfied to support the President and laugh at the opposition.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
And I'm one Hero that more then satisfied to support the President and laugh at the opposition.

You have to support him; you have no choice in the matter.
I voted for Clinton, and I can freely say I made a bad choice. Your ego and professional position don't allow for you to 'take anything back', or admit error, so you'll back him even if it comes to armageddon, and God's gonna blow this whole gig sooner or later, who better than his faithful instrument Bush Jr to get things started in that direction, eh?
WTF, you'll be in Heaven while the rest of us are doin' eternal time at the Hot Sing-Sing, right?

If we could all see things as clearly as you can...

No slave to a belief system Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:24 AM

Quote:
Do you really believe there is a WAR ON TERROR?? I mean do you really believe that, have you seen the administration go after any terroist..tell me who does homeland security effect, does it effect U.S citizens or does it effect terrorist.?

PirateJenny, you don't really understand sarcasm, do you?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
There are laws out there that say that we can't say whatever we want. They are federally enforced. Constitutional or not, that's reality.

Thank you, ReaverMan, for getting to the heart of the matter.

People forget that the first amendment is, in fact, and amendment. It was the first step in refining what is a dynamic and living foundation for federal government. The founding fathers included a provision for amending the constitution because they expected it to change over time, as society changed, as needs changed, and issues arose which they could not have foreseen while holed up in a small, smelly, hot building in Philadelphia in the summer. (Little-known fact- they shutteerd all the windows to avoid interference and eavesdropping from the outside.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:38 AM

Fremdfirma said:

Quote:
Do you see the words slander, or libel, or threat, in there ?
I surely don't.

Anything beyond this basic context is not constitutional in nature, but in proper observance of Amendments IX and X, within the jurisdiction of the states themselves to decide what is and isn't proper, for example espousing profanity in front of women and children in michigan is a no-no in michigan, but that is a state decision, not a federal one.

So, while announcing a direct threat against a person may indeed constitute probable cause for action, that action is not in the province of the federal government, nor legally it's jurisdiction and any law, act or executive order that would say so fails the test of constitutional trump on the spot and is then invalid.

In short, the Constitution does indeed protect said speech - whether your state does or does not is between you and your state government.

Nope. The very first federal libel law was passed in 1798, eleven years after the Bill of Rights was created, which shows that the founding fathers NEVER really intended "free speech" to encompass all manner of speech. (The text of that act is listed here: http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/sedact.shtml)

Similar laws have followed, including, most recently, the Patriot Act.

Your refusal to "educate" me is really cute, considering that I seem to know a lot more about this topic than you do.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:48 AM

COSMICFUGITIVE

"That's what governments are for, to get in a man's way."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[img]

[/img]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:45 PM

Quote:
Jonus is a mole. His incendiary posts serve to bait out the fish, like Pirate Jenny, no offense, but you bit the hook, to action to see who here was a potential terrorist. Normally I don't care, I mean, seriously, we chat daily on an open forum about the real world application of the ideas of a TV show and Movie which essentially advocate treason (against the alliance, which they most certainly do.)

lol! personally I didn't take this thread that seriously and still don't, but I think its a FUN thread, you see I totally like the direction that this thread went in, I never did believe the poster was serious, still don't!! I think he's having fun, anyway I hope he keeps it up!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WhoMe:
Quote:
Do you really believe there is a WAR ON TERROR?? I mean do you really believe that, have you seen the administration go after any terroist..tell me who does homeland security effect, does it effect U.S citizens or does it effect terrorist.?

PirateJenny, you don't really understand sarcasm, do you?

I guess not

, I do believe this is the 2nd time I didn't get the jest of your post, hopefully I won't make that assumption again

PJ

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

Jonus, thats because most of these people aren't true browncoats, they would be working for the Alliance, they like to fancy themselves as browncoats but its just not so IMO.

I disagree. There are always the crazy radicals out there (Sam Adams and his rock throwing, rabble-rousing, tea partiers and Son of Liberty).

Real revolutions, the ones that last, they come when the conservatives decide to make it happen (John Adams, George Washington, along with some farmers, shopkeepers, and the guys who make shoes). They are the Browncoats. So Jonus and the assorted Pirates can fluster and preen all they want about 'making things happen'. Its when all the Heroes stand up that the world best take notice. And I'm one Hero that more then satisfied to support the President and laugh at the opposition.

H

you would so be working for the Alliance, you would be in lock step, a true purplebelly!!

yeah Zero keep telling yourself that because you sure as hell isn't going to hear that from anybody else. your the kind of zero that would try to stop a little old lady from excersising her right to vote, that doesn't sound like a hero, sounds like a coward. and who in the hell would call themselves HERO anyway!!lmao..lol hahahahahahah ahahahalolaaaaahhh

thanks for the laugh zero, but you make it to easy
the only way a person like you can feel powerful is if you align yourself with the likes of this crimnal administration..its really and truly sad and patheic... Ouch!!

you know suddenly its not so funny anymore.

but on the other hand all this talk of Browncoats and purplebellys makes me want to put on a few eppies of Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 4:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
and who in the hell would call themselves HERO anyway!!

Someone who tows the party line, supports prisoner torture, wants war to secure oil, cares nothing for the truth, but likes Firefly, and feels the need to upgrade himself slightly from the slime he works with and create the delusion that he's even just a little like Mal, so he can enjoy the show a little more.

Deep down, he knows he worships at the Operative's altar, and there's the conflict.

Did I answer your question, PJ? Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 4:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
and who in the hell would call themselves HERO anyway

The name origin and meaning of Hero
Name: Hero
Gender: (Male and Female)
Origin: Greek
Meaning: Brave Defender

Its not an uncommon name. Shakespear even had a "Hero" in one of his plays...

What you really mean to ask is why did I choose the name?

Perhaps it was a tribute to the legendary 'Hero of Canton'. Perhaps it was because I won a Bronze Star in the First Gulf War. Perhaps because I once pulled a child from in front of a speeding car (drunk driver). Perhaps because I adopted a rescued puppy. Perhaps a love a good sandwhich. Perhaps, perhaps perhaps, and perhaps you and others have a few perhaps of your own. The reason is personal and will remain so.

Lets look at your name. Piratejenny. Well Jenny is a pretty common and innocent name. A pirate, while fun and colorful in some respects (aargh!) is in truth little more then a common thief and little less then a terrorist. Put them both together and you've chosen to name yourself in honor of those who have none and seek none.

I'd take a 'Hero' over a 'Pirate' anyday...in fact I did.

My contention was an intellectual argument about the nature of revolution. My proposition was that radicals might try and lead the way, but its the conservatives that move society in a particular direction. You response was to make fun of my name. Well done. Perhaps we can engage in an enlightened discourse on your love of balloon animals and birthday cake (both fine topics and enjoyable in their particular context), that might be more your speed.

H (for Hero

)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 5:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I once pulled a child from in front of a speeding car (drunk driver).
I adopted a rescued puppy.

You support a corrupt administration.
Corrupt. Indefensable. They do illegal things. And it's okay with you.
If I said I supported Saddam, that would mean I supported his administrations actions, right? Killin' lots of innocent folk, right?
While Bush is NOWHERE near as bad as Saddam was, he's still far from the pure, innocent, benevolent soul you and your type try to make like he is.

So in supporting Bush, you support WAR FOR OIL, prisoner abuse, LYING to the American people...I could go on, but you'll just put the spin on it that makes you most comfortable, 'cause that's what it's all about, YOU being comfortable, and reality beyond you own immediate experience does not easily lend itself to that, thus your need to bend it...

Coward.

Not a Hero, just Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 5:58 AM

BROWNCOATCRUSADER

Everyone Hear ME! THE NSA is monitoring this thread intently. I can't tell you how I know. Buddy, you seriously have to chill. Mal had a space ship to run to. You'll have a dumpster in Nigeria to hide in. Besides, If your in love with all these Sci-FI shows, 60% chance that the recoil of a gun would blow YOU 80 feet back.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 7:14 AM

FREMDFIRMA

WHOME spouted..

Quote:
Nope. The very first federal libel law was passed in 1798, eleven years after the Bill of Rights was created, which shows that the founding fathers NEVER really intended "free speech" to encompass all manner of speech. (The text of that act is listed here: http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/sedact.shtml)

Similar laws have followed, including, most recently, the Patriot Act.

Your refusal to "educate" me is really cute, considering that I seem to know a lot more about this topic than you do.

Issat so ?

You do realise that what you are quoting as our first 'libel' law was an attempt to utterly destroy free speech in this country, don't you ?

The Alien and Sedition acts you refer to, were considered by most to be an absolute affront to everything this country ever stood for, and were without a doubt an attempt to destroy the very freedoms that the constitution protects.

Journalists unfriendly to the establishment were arrested and tried, in a haunting parallel to the Zenger case not so long before that.

And it was done again, by Federalist/Republican government under lincoln, and again, under this administration - historically the Federalist/Republican party has despised the bill of rights and free speech as a whole, history proves that beyond any reasonable doubt.

But our founding fathers damned well intended that said speech should be free, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison came out very strongly against the Alien and Sedition acts, and came one step short of calling for the state of Virginia to secede from the union.

And you'll note that said act was more or less yanked in 1800, and in fact it was never determined whether it was even constitutional, never having been submitted to the supreme court for that test, which it would have failed utterly, at the time.

It was this brawl, and others that followed that fragmented the original parties, and is referenced as an example of how much this country values free speech and how important it is.

From Adams, to Lincoln, to Wilson, Hoover, McCarthy and HUAC - every time one of these issues comes up, be it states rights, communism, unamericanism, and now 'terrorism' - look at this history ?

Each and every time it's been exposed as naught more than a political power grab that's harmed our country, harmed our citizens, and caused untold suffering, and for what ?

More people die in bathtubs every year than from 'terrorism' - should you quit bathing and ask for the eradication of bathtubs then ?

Freedom has it's risks, and in the case of free speech, to support it is to take the risk of someone offending you - that's fine, I can deal with being offended, given I drive a cab in detroit, there's a whole plenty of offensive things bein said in both directions on most days.

You really think it's worth it to me to file libel against some jerk who just called me a dumb blind jackass ?

By your call that's liable, right ?
Because at least two of those statements are untrue.

Such laws do not exist to protect anything except maybe the egos of the wealthy and powerful, and in fact and practice are used to suppress and demolish free speech as a whole.

Your attempt to 'educate' by expressing what are more or less spoon-fed distortions of historical and legal fact has fallen fairly flat, and in all honesty, if you've that much interest in the topic, please, PLEASE read the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, and the relevant history (and from several sources so one can seperate facts from bias, please) concerning these things.

It's all well and good to say our founding fathers meant this or that, but when you have read, in their own words, a direct explaination of EXACTLY what they meant, then you can say you know.

Federalist Papers
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
Anti-Federalist Papers
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm

My personal fav would be Anti-Fed Patrick Henry, cause if you go back and read a lot of the stuff he said - he was indeed right and knew a lot more about human nature than some of the more idealistic of our founders.

Anyhow, in spite of my earnest desire to simply insult you and drive on (imma cabbie kid, it's my nature) I figure at least SOME folk might take the time to read and learn, and if so... time well spent.

*shrug*

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 8:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

My contention was an intellectual argument about the nature of revolution.

Without the ability to admit error, even on a broad spectrum of notions, you cannot have an intellectual argument, you can rant and avoid facts, but not debate.

My best friend eats cows (I'm a veggiesaurus), and when pushed as to how he can do this, he replys "Listen, I don't care about the cow's feelings or what pain they went through, I WANT a hamburger sometimes."
Truth. "I don't care.."
I disagree with him, but he isn't bull

ng me. Or himself.

Just say that you don't care what laws Bush breaks. Just say that you don't care particularly why wars are fought.
Just say that you don't care if people are tortured or not.

I'm hammering here 'cause I'm curious as to whether people can be awakened to the fact that human misery means nothing to them as a consequence of not wanting to think clearly about these things. Is reality too much to be intellectually and emotionally accountable for?

Either you're a hard-core misanthrope, or you need to excuse those whom you support out of purely emotional reasons, which is it, Hero?

Chrisisall, inconsistancy huntin'

Edit: P.S. If you're takin' time to give me the proper reply to take the wind out of my arguments, remember; you put drunks in jail. They're not a particularly hard crowd to outwit in court.
I.e., you're not as smart as you think you are, just go ahead and post it, and don't bother over-thinking it...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 8:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

My personal fav would be Anti-Fed Patrick Henry, cause if you go back and read a lot of the stuff he said - he was indeed right and knew a lot more about human nature than some of the more idealistic of our founders.

Where were you when my High School History teacher was falling asleep behind his newspaper in class?
You should be teaching this stuff.

Deprived Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 8:30 AM

Chris, not like you, chill.

Let 'em rant and rave, Conservatives are saints, they never do anything wrong, ever, anything bad done by Conservatives or the Right at large is because of evil Socialist bogeymen that infiltrated their minds with the body snatcher super evil powers. Commie-Nazi-Jews are every where!

All the Right-wingers here give the same argument more-or-less, even Dreamtrove, they're completely in capable of admiting they do bad things too.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 8:33 AM

Quote:
By your call that's liable, right ?

Libel, not liable, but thanks for playing. And it's not libel by anyone's call. (Thanks for "educating" me on another topic you don't understand.) Calling someone a dumb, blind jackass isn't libel. For a statement to be proven libelous, that statement must be published (otherwise, it's slander), people have to believe it, and that belief has to somehow negatively effect your life. The courts also look for something called "malice aforethought", which means the person meant to hurt you with his or her statement.

Look, sweetie pie, I never said I agreed with all the laws in question. The point was that complete freedom of speech in the U.S. has never existed.

Quote:
More people die in bathtubs every year than from 'terrorism'

I would absolutely love to know where you got that number.

Quote:
Anyhow, in spite of my earnest desire to simply insult you and drive on

How 'bout if I insult you and drive on? Is that okay?

Quote:
I figure at least SOME folk might take the time to read and learn, and if so... time well spent.

Did you bother to read any of the links I posted? Or is this one of those situations where anything not in line with your current opinions doesn't exist for you?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Chris, not like you, chill.

Sorry, I suddenly felt the need to call Hero on his nonsense. I sense the good in him, the conflict.
Just seein' if I can shake some truth out of him, is all. I ain't as angry as maybe those last few posts sound.

I can bring him back to the good side.
*starts choking*

Okay, but maybe I can try, anyway.

Chrisisall with the Force

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 8:47 AM

Sometimes it's like talking to Children you know. They just stick their fingers in their ears and repeat the mantra...

The right is right there is no other way, the right is right there is no other way...

Sweet, well almost.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 8:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WhoMe:
For a statement to be proven libelous, that statement must be published (otherwise, it's slander), people have to believe it, and that belief has to somehow negatively effect your life.

So if the guy called him a dumb blind jackass in front a bunch of people who passed the word that his cab should be avoided, and a passing neighborhood reporter put it in the local newspaper, and his livlihood was negatively affected,....

Forget it, I don't remember where I was going with this....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 9:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

The right is right there is no other way, the right is right there is no other way...

Strange, but in most posts I read by Hero, I detect a self-loathing, as if he isn't totally at ease with himself or what he does. Must be why he does the good stuff he does, to make up for a missing piece somewhere. He knows it, on some level.
All I have to do is get him to give up his opulent lifestyle and dump that insanely beautiful girl (Who's only with him for the $ anyway), and start driving a Hyundai, and that will be a good start!

Then he'll realize that he only supported Bush and Team Evil 'cause he was angry at the world, and in angst over all the material posessions he stood to lose if decent men were running this country, and not corporations...

On the other hand, he could just blow me off..

Probably the latter Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 9:09 AM

Quote:
On the other hand, he could just blow me off

Such a statement has very different connotations in Britain...

But I know what you mean...

At least I hope...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 9:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
On the other hand, he could just blow me off

Such a statement has very different connotations in Britain...

But I know what you mean...

At least I hope...

You know, like smoke or somethin', ya just blow it away, then it's gone... like, it don't mean nuthin to ya- has no real effect...

Get your mind outta the gutter, man!

Chrisisall, with the one about the dumb bank robber that tied up the safe and blew the guard.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 9:34 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:

Quote:
On the other hand, he could just blow me off

Such a statement has very different connotations in Britain...

Whereas lass time I was in a friend of mine said after we had just met this young lady professor : "She's seems like a nice girl, we should go knock her up in the morning."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 10:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
and who in the hell would call themselves HERO anyway!!
Someone who tows the party line, supports prisoner torture, wants war to secure oil, cares nothing for the truth, but likes Firefly, and feels the need to upgrade himself slightly from the slime he works with and create the delusion that he's even just a little like Mal, so he can enjoy the show a little more.

Deep down, he knows he worships at the Operative's altar, and there's the conflict.

Did I answer your question, PJ? Chrisisall

YEP!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 10:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Just say that you don't care what laws Bush breaks. Just say that you don't care particularly why wars are fought.
Just say that you don't care if people are tortured or not.

Seems like your trying to avoid an honost debate by relying on your own false assumptions. Rather then engaging in a dialogue, you dismiss the arguments I make and insert ones you prefer.

So here's what I'll "just say". I don't agree that the President broke any laws, not going to war, not the election, not even the wiretapping. I do care why wars are fought and I think this one, meaning the broad war on terror as well as the particular war in Iraq, is more then justified by the actions of the party-opponants. Finally, I do care if people are tortured and I support the zealous prosecution of any American official who breaks the law in such a manner, yet I also believe that under certain, very limited, circumstances torture is necessary and proper even within the framework of the Constitution (which courts have noted is not a suicide pact).

Quote:

Either you're a hard-core misanthrope, or you need to excuse those whom you support out of purely emotional reasons, which is it, Hero?

I neither 'hate mankind' nor am seeking an emotional outlet. Your imagination is somewhat limited if you cannot come up with more then two possibilites here, including the one where I am 'a true believing patriot whose informed and educated opinion on these particular issues happens to differ from yours.'

Quote:

Edit: P.S. If you're takin' time to give me the proper reply to take the wind out of my arguments, remember; you put drunks in jail.

Actually I was taking my time putting people in jail. Taking the wind out of your arguments doesn't take much time at all.

Quote:

They're not a particularly hard crowd to outwit in court.

No. Its the lawyers, judges, and juries that take up most of my effort. And its never about outwiting. My style is to tell the truth and let justice sort itself out. Sounds 'corny' but I've never lost a jury trial.

Quote:

I.e., you're not as smart as you think you are,

Maybe not, but I'm a hell of a lot smarter then you think I am.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 10:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
All I have to do is get him to give up his opulent lifestyle and dump that insanely beautiful girl (Who's only with him for the $ anyway), and start driving a Hyundai, and that will be a good start!

Hmm...my hot blonde nurse and new Mustang or a plumpy feminist and good gas milage. I'll have to think about that one.

And my oppulant lifestyle...on a government salary? If I hadn't had a wealthy grandfather to help fund lawschool, I'd take offense to that. Between him and my part-time job I managed to get out with about half the average student loans, so yeah...oppulant. If it wasn't for the bribes and kickbacks I'd be driving the low priced import and dating someone like PirateJenny (no offense).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 10:53 AM

O.K., I think everyone needs to stop for a second. How is mudslinging going to solve anything? First of all, so far, I haven't seen a single person here say that they support anti-free speech laws, so stop jumping all over Hero. If he did everything he said he did, then he deserves your utmost respect, even if you dont agree with his political leanings. I, for example, am a flaming atheist liberal, but I respect the hell out of anyone who can do those kinds of things. Look, federal laws do exist that limit free speech. Some are, in my opinion, very good ideas. Take the slander and libel laws for example. If you were, say, a restaurant owner and you got into a argument with someone outside, how would you like it if they told the local paper that there were roaches in the kitchen and that customer service sucked? True or not, this would cost you a hell of a lot of money. Money that you can never get back. Even if you somehow clear your name, you're stuck with the stigma of being "that guy with the roaches in his kitchen".
I, however, do not believe that the laws should extend any further than that which can harm a person physically, financially, etc...

Chrisisall and Piratejenny, Your absolutism sickens me. Because Hero doesn't agree with you, he's automatically the bad guy, why, I bet he even gobbles up babies.*shakes head sadly*

You know nothing about him aside from what he's told you. By taking the stand that you have against him without information about his real character, you are no better than any conservative, George Bush and Adolf Hitler included. As for whether one of us is more like a Browncoat or a Purplebelly, who cares? Both sides want to help people. Both sides have their pro's and con's. It is possible for the two to agree on somethings though. You spend all your time focusing on the differences, but if you look closer and actually ask Hero, I bet he is as against infringing on the constitution as you are, he just has different reasons why.

And will you people stop trying to say what the forefathers would think! You have no idea what they would think. Also, you have to remember that the forefathers were as fragmented and diverse as we are today. Some were Christian, some were atheist. Some believed that we should never have gone to war with Britain for independence, while some would have gladly put every English soldier against a wall and shot them.

If we really want to change things for the better, which, I for one do, then stop bitching about it because this is going nowhere. Do you think the Constitutional Convention created the foundation of our nation by hurling insults and mocking each other? OF COURSE NOT!!!

They figured out what they had in common and made a compromise! Have any of you ever heard that term before? It means finding a solution that works for EVERYONE, not the right wing or the left. That is what we should be doing right now. Work together, find out what we all want to do, because even if one side or the other gets their way, there will always be people who disagree and will be pissed at not being included, which will only result in a constant cycle of revolution which leaves us wide open to attack. If we were fighting each other, do you think China would waste a single fuckin' second gettin' troops over here to "keep the peace"? No! The Chinese dont fuck around. They have a military that numbers 20,000,000, and the will to use it. Unless we work together, we'll have our very own Miranda right here in America. In the process of trying to make the world a better place, all we will have done is screw everyone!

All I ask is that you act like rational human beings. I know it's possible, or America would never have been founded. Stop, think, compromise, then act.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 11:33 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

What you really mean to ask is why did I choose the name?

Perhaps it was a tribute to the legendary 'Hero of Canton'. Perhaps it was because I won a Bronze Star in the First Gulf War. Perhaps because I once pulled a child from in front of a speeding car (drunk driver). Perhaps because I adopted a rescued puppy. Perhaps a love a good sandwhich. Perhaps, perhaps perhaps, and perhaps you and others have a few perhaps of your own. The reason is personal and will remain so.

Perhaps it was out of modesty.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I don't agree that the President broke any laws, not going to war, not the election, not even the wiretapping. I also believe that under certain, very limited, circumstances torture is necessary and proper even within the framework of the Constitution (which courts have noted is not a suicide pact).

It's not an issue to agree or disagree with. That's my whole problem with it. Do I need to agree that the sun is hot? Bush Broke laws. Bush lied. So did Clinton. Laws are either broken or not. If you go 28 mph in a 25 mph zone, you are breaking a law. If you tell a non-truth to mislead, it's a lie.
Clinton LIED about Monica.
Call it absolutism, but the disagreement should take place over whether it is acceptable to lie, or break a law, not whether it happens. That's nonsense.

I happen to believe it IS acceptable to break certain laws, at particular times. That's not even my beef with Bush. It's gonna (and sometimes SHOULD) happen. But don't act as if we can agree or disagree about the actual actions taken.

I will accept the argument that the war in Iraq will turn out to be a good thing.
I cannot accept that the reason we went there in the first place is based on lies.

*falls over*
Uh.... out o f g a s

Absolutist Chrisisall, realizing that Hero is smart (just gittin' a rise out of ya...)
Edit: NO CITIZEN!!!! Not that kind of rise!! Sheesh!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 12:24 PM

Quote:
Do you think the Constitutional Convention created the foundation of our nation by hurling insults and mocking each other? OF COURSE NOT!!!

Yes they did! Some were gentlemen, but others were serious rabble-rousers. There was name calling, threats were made, fists were pounded against table-tops, inflammatory speeches were made, and on several occasions delegates threatened to walk out.

Political gatherings were WAY more intense in the days before t.v. brought them into everyone's home.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:

Chrisisall and Piratejenny, Your absolutism sickens me. Because Hero doesn't agree with you, he's automatically the bad guy, why, I bet he even gobbles up babies.

Is that libel?

Sorry, I guess maybe I should have messaged Hero directly, but I can't fathom how issues of yes or no can be turned into maybes.
I don't agree that we bombed Hiroshima. All the evidence is anecdotal. Documentary footage was falsified. Come on.
WMD's didn't exist. Saddam was no eminent threat to the U.S. Torture was acceptable enough until pictures surfaced. These are matters of undeniable fact. That's all.

I find compromise a difficult thing when dealing with facts.

I usually try to get us to be agreeable, but the wishy-washy maybes aren't helping anything at all.
"Bush lied to get the war he thought was necessary in the long run." I could actually respect that opinion.

Truth and Justice Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WhoMe:
Quote:
Do you think the Constitutional Convention created the foundation of our nation by hurling insults and mocking each other? OF COURSE NOT!!!

Yes they did! Some were gentlemen, but others were serious rabble-rousers. There was name calling, threats were made, fists were pounded against table-tops, inflammatory speeches were made, and on several occasions delegates threatened to walk out.

Political gatherings were WAY more intense in the days before t.v. brought them into everyone's home.

But in the end, they were forced to work together to accomplish what they intended. I never said they didn't fight and bicker. What I said was that it never got them anywhere.

"We're gonna explode? I don' wanna explode!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 12:57 PM