[ScubieNuc]

"The talibunnies had their trials. They never did w/o them. In case you missed it, the groups in the article are attempting to make simple pay per view a crime. That means they would jail folks for getting involved in it."

Really? Never? Notice I said that they could have you killed without trial. It happened.

In case you missed it, it is part of our government "by the people" that allows people to oppose whatever they wish. It is also part of our government that those opposed to such new laws also have a voice. It is also part of our government to have a open press (FR) to get the word out there. It is also part of our government that the majority rules. It is also part of our government that laws can and should be judged against the Constitution.

All that is going on is part of a democratic republic. Not a dictatorial Islamic Taliban. If you truly don't see the difference, then you are as bad as the libs who call Bush a "Nazi."

Sincerely

[spunkets]

The word taliban was not used to describe the govm't. It was used to describe the folks mounting the assault on pay per view. Also, the taliban had trials and judges, which was a point I made, regarless of any isolated incidents.

With regard to the use of the word nazi. It was F. Hayek that pointed out in the Road to Serfdom, that England was on the same path as the National Socialists they were fighting against. If the comparison fits, it's appropriate.

[dcwusmc]

"In case you missed it, it is part of our government "by the people" that allows people to oppose whatever they wish. It is also part of our government that those opposed to such new laws also have a voice. It is also part of our government to have a open press (FR) to get the word out there. It is also part of our government that the majority rules. It is also part of our government that laws can and should be judged against the Constitution.

All that is going on is part of a democratic republic..."

In case you hadn't noticed, we were handed a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC which outlined in the Founding Documents the very STRICT LIMITS on governmental authority. If you ALSO read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and the writings of the Founders, I believe you will come to the conclusion that they meant the government, particularly the Federal or Central government, to exercise no more authority than an individual might properly exercise over his own domain and property. They NEVER intended that government ever have the sort of power that you are so willing to hand it... and with good reason: they had just gotten through a WAR against a Colonial Power that had attempted to control them not even a tenth as much as what certain disgusting excuses for humanity want the government to do to us today.

Government by "the People" ONLY means that the people grant certain authorities to government to act in our name and on our behalf... BUT WE CANNOT GIVE GOVERNMENT ANY AUTHORITY TO ACT THAT WE DO NOT, OURSELVES, POSSESS. We cannot ever, legitimately, give to anyone, including government, that which is not ours to give. Just as I cannot come to your house and use force to get you to eat your broccoli or to NOT eat that cake and ice cream, I CANNOT LEGITIMATELY GET THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT FOR ME. Got it?