Posted on 09/24/2001 3:10:00 AM PDT by Ada Coddington
Maybe you could help this along by proving your allegation. It is impossible to prove a negative.
It figures that you are unable to discriminate between the use of force in defense of rights versus the initiation of force to violate rights.
On the night of May 24, 1856, John Brown and his company of Free State volunteers murdered five men settled along the Pottawatomie Creek in southeastern Kansas. The victims were prominently associated with the pro-slavery Law and Order Party, but were not themselves slave owners. This assault occurred three days after Border Ruffians from Missouri burned and pillaged the anti-slavery haven of Lawrence, and two days after Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was severely beaten by Senator Preston Brooks of South Carolina.At the Doyle farm, James and two of his sons, William and Drury, were dragged outside and hacked up with short, heavy sabres donated to Brown in Akron, Ohio.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/CONTEXTS/Kansas/jbrown.html
Anyway, to paraphrase him would not do his self-bannishment justice and it would be difficult to select any one, or ten, things to mention. He started the process with his first thread shortly after the attacks and continued to work diligently in that direction until he succeeded.
I advocate private violence used in self-defense.
Aside from guilt by association, I'm not sure what your point is re: Spooner, or why you
have a problem with somone advocating just guerilla warfare against a government that
advocated slavery.
As I explained, government leaders are considered legitimate targets under traditional rules of war.
All right Hank, I'll do what I can. During his last posting day here on FR, Demidog had an entire thread dedicated to him by his old arch-enemy CSAZ (currently posting as Imberedux). A quick search of the archives reveals that this thread has been quietly pulled, but I'll give you the run-down from memory. CSAZ broke the "don't carry arguments across threads" rule by dedicating the "treason defined" thread to Demidog. The ol 'Dog handled it well and tried to engage in honest debate (as always). He didn't name-call, he didn't flame, and as far as I know he didn't break the rules. What I asked the Admin Moderator to do was to prove that I was lying by sending me the offending post that got Demi whacked. I followed that thread and didn't see any, but I could be wrong. In the event that I'm wrong, and the moderator can prove it, I will publicly say so.
That's what I asked of him. I'm not playing "prove a negative" games. Just looking for some reasoning. If I was wrong in what I said, I'm not above apology.
So.... Was I wrong?
You weren't in the golf cart that day on Martha's Vineyard when it was just Bill, Bubba and the USSS.
No, it is not surprising that a terrorist like Osama bin Laden condemns our nation. It is also not surprising that most people are able to discern the difference between a slaveholder who market in human flesh and the people who inhabited the World Trade Centers on September 11th. Are you somehow trying to equate the two?
I agree. I've noticed that you and your compatriots have not skipped a beat in your ceaseless critisim of all things American that does not fit your beliefs. Even when faced with a national emergency nothing can deter you folks from marching in lock step.
Have you folks ever considered doing parades?
Who suggested the WTC event was 'staged' in order for the government to take away liberties? Who?
It figures you'd start out your post with such a ridiculous proposition. The FACT is, it doesn't MATTER who 'staged' the WTC/Pentagon attacks. What matters is that the government WILL use it as an excuse to take away freedoms and liberties. The Homeland Security office is now one more budget item that wasn't there last year. The suggestion of national ID cards wasn't on the table last year, either, but now it gets all sorts of play, as does facial-recognition hardware in airports.
NO ONE is suggesting the WTC/Pentagon were 'staged'. But some of us ARE suggesting that it will inevitably result in the loss of liberties.
Believing so doesn't make me a pansy, it doesn't make me a peacenik, it doesn't make me Un-American, and it doesn't make me Muslim.
It makes me concerned about our country's future.
And, plainly, even the name "Homeland Security" is starting to get a little Orwellian.
As for censorship, there do seem to be an awful lot of posts that are pulled for what could best be described as 'matters of taste' as opposed to 'matters of security' or 'matters of slander'. And I wonder if THAT situation is going to get better, or worse. Just MHO.
However I raise this point: there are many reasons people inquire into the reason behind someone's banishment. Although there are those who would like to scream and bark at the moon about management decisions (hence turning the forum into a meta-discussion that becomes irrelevant to the stated purpose) many people want to know so they have an example of what not to do. Most long time posters that I know who are concerned about such things are not interested in spitting in Jim's face and having their posting privilages revoked, but rather in gaining a better sense of what is not acceptable. When the reasons are not apparent for certain action, speculation abounds.
"Us folks" have condemned the attacks.
"Us folks" have condemned national ID cards.
"Us folks" have condemned censorship (unless it has to do with troop movements).
"Us folks" have expressed concern for the health of the Bill of Rights in the wake of these attacks.
"Us folks" don't believe in dropping a bunch of bombs on innocent civilians that have nothing to do with the Taliban.
"Us folks" have examined the seriousness of the Clintionian/Goreian security failures associated with the 9-11 attack.
"Us folks" are getting banned daily.
What have you been doing?
I didn't see this thread, so I can't say whether this is correct... But, if this is true, I hope demidog e-mails Jim and requests to be reinstated. Many of us, myself included, have gotten "timeouts" for going over the line at one point or another. I hate to see a longtime freeper banned long-term over something that happens in the heat of an argument. Heck, if A+Bert can be reinstated time after time, there is hope for all of us!
Anybody can find an outrageous post or two in this forum or any other open forum. And just as Internet users are increasingly aware, they mean absolutely nothing about either the general ambiance of the forum cited or the strength or weakness of the question under discussion.
The Left is frantically angling for some defensible way to allow Osama bin Laden off the hook for murdering thousands of Americans on American soil. Elkins is simply running his contribution to that effort (risibly, Wilson and WWI) up the flagpole to see if anybody salutes.
The above post on another thread made me mad...I said I felt like hitting the abuse button(This is mindless Bush Bashing in my book)and asked if anyone else thought the same....boy did I catch flak...does anyone agree that this statement in the middle of a crises should not stand? I must note I did not hit the abuse button as I rarely do...
No.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.