?

Log in

No account? Create an account
août 2019   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
brb - IL

LJ here today, gandhi tomorrow?...

Posted on 2012.12.28 at 00:18

Comments:


(Deleted comment)
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2012-12-29 00:15 (UTC) (Lien)
That's Progress in America.

...Like destroying houses in order to reduce city crime, or to invite more people to live inside the city. People simply do not see the irony in these things lately.

Social media is clearly not for society.

Surveillance and intrusion are meant to make us feel safer, etc.
bobby1933
bobby1933 at 2012-12-29 02:20 (UTC) (Lien)
But gun control in a democracy is not the same thing as gun control imposed by a foreign conqueror. Still we all have a right to our ignorance and the First Amendment never said anything about speech being correct or accurate or making sense. There is some kind of interpretation about crying "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Most people who cry about free speech have nothing to say that is worth listening to, but still, they have a right to say it.

Neither side bothered to mention just which "policy" was allegedly violated by the offending post.
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2012-12-29 03:25 (UTC) (Lien)
We do not have a democracy. Our model of representative republic has been largely commandeered by cronie capitalism and a national security state.

To the extent that the government may be involved in Facebook, a revocation of accounts based on pro-gun opinions, it directly contradicts the first amendment.

I personally have not investigated the extent of the revocations of accounts based on users' pro-gun (or etc.) opinions.

Advocating gun ownership, however, does not meet the "fire in a crowded theatre" standard, by a long shot. Again, I do ot know the extent of the issue, however. But you are correct that there is such a stipulation in the regulation of the first amendment. This amendment, however, is the least regulated of all amendments, precisely because the founders saw it as most important. And the spirit of their intention was to protect speech so as to protect the people from encroachments by a potentially tyrannous government.

Finally, many argue that this country is now indeed under foreign occupation by global banks, through a multitude of influences and accomplished by a stealthy, long term coup of sorts.
bobby1933
bobby1933 at 2012-12-29 06:00 (UTC) (Lien)
We get the kind of government that wealthy Americans want and the majority (more or less) of Americans think that they should want the kind of government that wealthy Americans want. We could be a democracy if we wanted to be. The Constitutions does not forbid it. (except for counting an African as three-fifths of a person).
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2012-12-29 16:38 (UTC) (Lien)
You are quite right.

Although, the majority of Americans do not feel a (vested) interest.

We are headed back towards an indentured-servant economy and politics, and most people deal with the mounting pressure only through personal/lonely lenses, which does not advance the public good as much as it encourages fighting amongst ourselves.
Previous Entry  Next Entry