Here's what seems to be the relevant USA Law, as it stands today:TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385
§ 2385. ADVOCATING OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
-------------
What an idiot.
More of Rivero's sedition:
Egypt and Iceland taught us all that revolution is indeed possible. It can succeed. An angry populace, tired of living looted lives, can throw out the criminal bankers and the criminal government.And....
It is simple.And.....
Revolution equals a better life.
"We're gonna start building gallows!"And he says he supports "non-violence"? Oh, sure.
You don't try to bring a cancer under tighter political control.Well, seems pretty clearly seditious. Contrary to Rivero's idea that he's living in a police-state with total information control, he's apparently quite allowed to engage in sedition without penalty. If he thinks that's the same thing going on in Egypt, and the Arab Spring/Summer, he's crazy. Here's Wiki's definition of sedition:
You kill it.
Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.Arguing to change policy or government - or even the Constitution is allowed, so long as it is pursued through democratic methods. Gallows and revolution are not democratic and clearly not constitutional.
160 comments:
But yet this is exactly the way the United States was formed, by overthrowing a government.
The Declaration of Independence says it is the people's DUTY to form a new gov't when the old one is corrupt. Are you saying Thomas Jefferson is a traitor and advocates sedition?
YES or NO?
You said this:
"Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons."
-------------------
So Thomas Jefferson would be guilty of all of the above for writing these words?:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government."
You're saying Thomas Jefferson would be GUILTY of a crime in today's world, correct??
You said:
"Gallows and revolution are not democratic and clearly not constitutional."
REALLY? So, the founders just got done engaging in a revolution, and you're saing they turned right around and said the people could NOT engage in revolution? The newly formed United States just got done defeating a tyrant [King George] and you're saying the founders were going to create founding documents and instruct the people to NOT engage in revolution, the very act that we gained our independence by?
Why would the founders, after just defeating a tyrant to gain independence, turn right around and tell the people of our new country that if the United States government eer became corrupt and tyrannical, they could NOT do what the colonies did and that they must suffer through and tolerate tyranny?
What do you think Jefferson's words mean if he does NOT mean the people can form a new government?? He CLEARLY used the words "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness".
What OTHER meaning do you take from that if he is NOT talking about secession or revolution??
Im all ears.
Even the Southerners in 1861 seceded PEACEFULLY, WITHOUT bloodshed. It wasn't until Lincoln sent his Union troops to INVADE South Carolina that the war began.
The South did NOT begin firing BECAUSE they seceded. They had ALREADY seceded PRIOR to Fort Sumter. They fired the first shot to DEFEND their state and to PROTECT themselves from being INVADED. The NORTH invaded the SOUTH-----NOT the other way around.
So, the founders just got done engaging in a revolution, and you're saing they turned right around and said the people could NOT engage in revolution?
--------------
Of course. Every successful revolution does exactly that.
Nobody seizes power with the intention of losing it again right afterwards - else what would be the point?
The Declaration of Independence is not, and was not, law.
And yes, of course the American revolutionaries were guilty of sedition. But they won. Just like the French revolution was sedition, until they won. And the English civil war.....and.....the Bolsheviks...and....every other revolutionary.
What matters is winning or not. That's all.
Imagine the American revolution had failed. You think its leaders wouldn't have been killed, jailed, exiled....destroyed....? Of course they would have. And so would anyone found guilty of sedition today.
Once again you ignore 90% of my posts and only address one of my lower points and completely ignore the HUGE points I made.
Typical of you.
I will assume that the reason for ignoring my HUGE points is because you have no answer for them and therefore, once again, you are in agreement with me through your silence.
Here was my #1 point---and naturally, it was IGNORED:
"What do you think Jefferson's words mean if he does NOT mean the people can form a new government?? He CLEARLY used the words "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness".
What OTHER meaning do you take from that if he is NOT talking about secession or revolution??
Im all ears."
How much longer will you ignore this? As well as the other points I made?
You IGNORED this:
Why would the founders, after just defeating a tyrant to gain independence, turn right around and tell the people of our new country that if the United States government eer became corrupt and tyrannical, they could NOT do what the colonies did and that they must suffer through and tolerate tyranny?
And this:
You're saying Thomas Jefferson would be GUILTY of a crime in today's world, correct??
You said this:
"Here's Wiki's definition of sedition: Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state."
Your comment presupposes that the government being acted upon is good, fair and not tyrannical. One glaring error you conveniently OMIT from this is---what if the government in power IS tyrannical and corrupt? People are just supposed to grin and bear it?
Our founders did not engage in sedition because King George was stripping them of their natural, god-given rights to be free. Are you suggesting that people are supposed to suffer through tyranny or a dictatorship?? Then why do you hate Hitler? Youre saying it is SEDITION to rise up against a corrupt government on one side of your mouth, and on the other side you condemn dictators like Hitler. How can you have it both ways? You're saying the revolutionaries should have just tolerated it and got over it, right? BUT...BUT in Hitler's case, it would have been WRONG for the people he slaughtered to rise up against him??? You MUST be saying that---because you call ANY rising up against a government SEDITION. CORRECT? Even if that government is corrupt???
You're a MORON.
You say this:
"Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.Arguing to change policy or government - or even the Constitution is allowed, so long as it is pursued through democratic methods."
Yes, but what if everything is done democratically and the Constitutional way and the government STILL violates it's own Constitution??? What then?? Thats whats happening NOW. Thats what happened in the Civil War! The Constitution was violated!
All your points were addressed.
If you think the founding fathers weren't intent on making sedition a crime after winning the revolution then you're a fool.
No state allows itself to be overthrown. The USA has a (reasonably) democratic method of changing the constitution. Other means are not allowed - they are criminal - sedition.
Your resorts to insult only show how vacuous you are.
I didn't say that last quote btw - that's WIKI - as I made clear. READ PROPERLY.
Or rather, you've combined 1/2 a wiki quote and one of mine. Duh.
The point is about Rivero - now. Not about the civil war. Learn to read?
If the government violates the Constitution there are remedies in place.
The point is, only a fool (and a criminal) goes around publishing calls for revolution - you are going to get in trouble.
And consider - Rivero claims the USA is some police state with zero liberty......yet there he is publishing sedition to a worldwide audience.......without any interference.
That's no police state is it?
In fact it's a state indulging sedition by its citizens. Far from a police state.
L/RTO: "What do you think Jefferson's words mean if he does NOT mean the people can form a new government??
--------
Those words are not "the law".
Of course people *can* form a new government - but it's a crime to remove the present one and its foundation outside of the means laid out in the Constitution. It's the same tale for each and every state and always has been.
The Declaration of Independence was sedition - to the British.
And John Adams, the *second President* passed the Aliens and Sedition Act:-
----
Fines and imprisonment could be used against those who "write, print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government.
Under the terms of this law over 20 Republican newspaper editors were arrested and some were imprisoned. The most dramatic victim of the law was REPRESENTATIVE MATTHEW LYON of Vermont. His letter that criticized President Adams' "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice" caused him to be imprisoned.
=========
And Adams *was* one of the Founding Fathers. Did you forget?
And "he played a leading role in persuading Congress to declare independence."
So, lah de dah.
1798
SECTION I. Punishes combinations against United States government.
1. Definition of offence:
Unlawfully to combine or conspire together to oppose any measure of the government of the United States, &c. This section was not complained of.
2. Grade of offence:
A high misdemeanour.
3. Punishment:
Fine not exceeding $5000, and imprisonment six months to five years.
SECTION II. Punishes seditious writings.
1. Definition of offence:
To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.
2. Grade of offence:
A misdemeanour.
3. Punishment:
Fine not exceeding $2000, and imprisonment not exceeding two years.
Clearly Rivero is writing things that in the past would have definitely landed him in jail - for sedition.
So, Rivero is in fact enjoying *greater* liberty than any Americans did in the past, even though his justification for engaging in sedition is that he enjoys liberty far less than Americans did in the past.
What a joke.
oh, and it isn't about whether you like the facts of the matter or not......it's about the facts.....not whether one digs it or not.
“All your points were addressed.”
Only ONE was, and I gave you credit for it, but it was a MINOR point----you ignored [earlier] my MAJOR points [and STILL have].
So I will post my questions a THIRD time since you have a reading deficiency:
“You IGNORED this:
Why would the founders, after just defeating a tyrant to gain independence, turn right around and tell the people of our new country that if the United States government eer became corrupt and tyrannical, they could NOT do what the colonies did and that they must suffer through and tolerate tyranny?
And this:
You're saying Thomas Jefferson would be GUILTY of a crime in today's world, correct??”
Also, I LOVE how you IGNORED this:
“You said this:
"Here's Wiki's definition of sedition: Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state."
Your comment presupposes that the government being acted upon is good, fair and not tyrannical. One glaring error you conveniently OMIT from this is---what if the government in power IS tyrannical and corrupt? People are just supposed to grin and bear it?
Our founders did not engage in sedition because King George was stripping them of their natural, god-given rights to be free. Are you suggesting that people are supposed to suffer through tyranny or a dictatorship?? Then why do you hate Hitler? Youre saying it is SEDITION to rise up against a corrupt government on one side of your mouth, and on the other side you condemn dictators like Hitler. How can you have it both ways? You're saying the revolutionaries should have just tolerated it and got over it, right? BUT...BUT in Hitler's case, it would have been WRONG for the people he slaughtered to rise up against him??? You MUST be saying that---because you call ANY rising up against a government SEDITION. CORRECT? Even if that government is corrupt???”
Care to address my Hitler issue above???
Would it have been considered SEDITION for the people to overthrow Hitler, although he was committing atrocities???
I’d LOVE the answer to that. But I won’t get one, since it will force you to ADMIT that there are cases where people rising up are NECESSARY.
What you do not understand or comprehend is that anti-sedition laws have all been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Remember, in America, the government is our servant, not our master. WE THE PEOPLE are the real rulers----NOT the Federal government---so if the PEOPLE decide to form a NEW government, it is doing so over NO ONE’S authority---because WE THE PEOPLE are the supreme authority.
There were three major Sedition Acts historically: one passed during the Adams administration in the later part of the 18th century, one passed during WWI, and one passed during the FDR administration. Although the 1940 Smith Act is still on the books, all of these statutes have been nullified by the Supreme Court.
In Yates v. United States, the SCOTUS ruled that citizens could even go as far as to advocate the forceful overthrow of the United States government (as long as these discussions were passive in nature.) This case dealt with Communist subversives, a paradigm much more detrimental to the system by which Americans are governed than the much-hyped tea party movement, which simply seeks a return to constitutionally limited government.
Additional cases include New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Watts v. United States. Although the Sedition Acts expired some years before these cases were decided, the wording is useful. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the SCOTUS declared, "Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history." In Watts v. United States, Justice William O. Douglas concurred: "The Alien and Sedition Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters; and I had thought we had done with them forever ... Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution." And finally, Watkins v. United States held that those accused under the Smith Act could rely upon the First Amendment as defense, holding that "[a] congressional investigation is subject to the command that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or press or assembly." This last case was especially relevant during the so-called Red Scare, when hundreds of suspected Communists were the left's cherished victims of America's own show trials.
Just read my responses Larry.
You clearly haven't done so.
-------
But here we go again.....I'll address the points again, even though they have already been addressed.
1) Why would the founders, after just defeating a tyrant to gain independence, turn right around and tell the people of our new country that if the United States government eer became corrupt and tyrannical, they could NOT do what the colonies did and that they must suffer through and tolerate tyranny?
---------
The answer is obvious. EVERY STATE DOES SO.
I showed you John Adams, one of the founding fathers and the 2nd President even introduced the Aliens and Sedition Act.
No state/government makes itself dispensable. All states/government make their own overthrow a crime.
2) You're saying Thomas Jefferson would be GUILTY of a crime in today's world, correct??”
-----
Yes, I am saying that. [Funny you ask me to confirm I am saying that, even though you said I had ignored the question.]
Of course Jefferson committed "a crime"......and of course it would be considered a crime today.....if, someone declared a revolution and said, say, Texas was independent and they ooverthrew the state government by force etc.
Of course it would be a crime. Just as it would be anywhere in the world.
3) Are you suggesting that people are supposed to suffer through tyranny or a dictatorship?? Then why do you hate Hitler? Youre saying it is SEDITION to rise up against a corrupt government on one side of your mouth, and on the other side you condemn dictators like Hitler.
---------
It would be a crime, under German/Nazi law. Hitler would have had anyone engaged in the least bit of sedition put to death.
Do you really think modern USA is like Nazi Germany? I don't think you know enough about inter-war Germany if that's the case.
The point of my post was to show that Rivero *is* engaged in sedition......and does so without the least punishment.
That by itself shows how different the USA is to Nazi Germany.
and it shows how unwarranted Rivero's sedition is.
oh, and it shows he knows it.
"It would be a crime, under German/Nazi law. Hitler would have had anyone engaged in the least bit of sedition put to death."
Then why do you hate Hitler??? If he would have been just followng procedure and law, why is he bad???? ANSWER THAT.
"Do you really think modern USA is like Nazi Germany?"
Oh its not too different. The only big difference really is, in Germany it was more transparent---in the USA today, it's more hidden. Have you read our PATRIOT ACT? Do you realize what kind of shit is in that?? MOST people DONT.
It would be a crime under the most enlightened of state's, not just under Hitler.
IIRC there was clarification sought in the USA (post 1950s) that supporting a 'revolutionary movement' such as Communism was not inherently seditious and therefore not automatically criminal. I think part of the McCarthy era atmosphere was a sense that Communism was sedition, above and beyond the First Amendment. But, IIRC, I think it was said that First amendment protected Communists, so long as they didn't actually agitate and call for a revolution. I think the gist of it was that it's ok to support a revolutionary movement, so long as calls for revolution aren't made imminently, against the present government, or something like that.
So, a newly liberal interpretation - a relatively recent one, IIRC.
There's clearly some antagonism and contradiction in the notion of sedition - from a revolutionary's point of view.
As you say.....it is clearly a problem of consistency that as soon as a revolution takes power it makes revolution a crime.
But that's the way it goes, how it must go, and how it will always go. Surely?
Nevertheless, whatever the issues might be, sedition is a crime. And Rivero seems to be clearly engaged in it.
He must be an idiot to do so. Or.....maybe he's something else.
At the very least, it seems clear Rivero can engage in sedition without penalty (so far). That doesn't really justify his claims about his country being a super-vicious fascist police-state, does it?
Therefore, the reasons he'd probably use to justify his sedition are non-existent. You're on about Hitler and 'natural rights'......well, you think that situation is comparable to Rivero's in 21stC America? Or under Stalin? That's ridiculous. Anyone who thinks so needs get some perspective, imo.
LNL: "Do you really think modern USA is like Nazi Germany?"
L/RTO: Oh its not too different. The only big difference really is, in Germany it was more transparent---in the USA today, it's more hidden.
==========
Well, I just don't think you know enough about Nazi Germany. I don't think you can know much about it at all if you believe such a thing.
I don't think I'm operating under any major illusions about USA, mind you.
Hell, you're on the internet right now, saying whatever you like, aren't you? You have a (free) website on which you're free to write whatever you like....to the entire world...kinda....and all within reason, of course.
I haven't heard rumours USA is gassing indigenous indians, immigrants, travellers, untermensch, whatever. They haven't done that in a good while, and never en masse?
Come on, the scale of folly in believing modern USA is "like Nazi Germany" is enormous. Let alone is it "worse". Seriously - read a pile on Nazis and the Gulag, and you will quickly change your mind. You really should make yourself familiar with that history if you think USA is 'like that'. It isn't.
This is interesting:
Friday, May 4, 2001, Associated Press reports
----
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A federal judge yesterday refused to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a 40-year-old Arkansas law that makes membership in the Communist Party illegal.
Gregory H. Holt of North Little Rock sued last year claiming the state's anti-communism law is a violation of his First Amendment rights. At the time, he also said he had registered with the state police as the law requires, an action he is contesting in the suit.
=======
May 2001
"Come on, the scale of folly in believing modern USA is "like Nazi Germany" is enormous. Let alone is it "worse". Seriously - read a pile on Nazis and the Gulag, and you will quickly change your mind."
Then why do you SUPPORT Hitler and the Gulags??? You OBVIOUSLY SUPPORT it if you think it would have been a CRIMINAL ACT for the people to rise up against him, right???
Why do you SUPPORT Hitler?? You keep REFUSING to answer this!
You have two faces.
One face says:
Hitler was wrong to do what he did.
The other face says:
It would have been wrong and CRIMINAL for the people to rise up against Hitler's government.
So, what was their option?? To PRAY Hitler would become saved and become a born-again Christian? Yeah, look how that worked out!
You're a fucking DOUCHEBAG.
TLNL's solution for the people Hitler slaughtered:
Here is what the dialogue should have been according to TLNL:
THE PEOPLE: Uh, Adolf...I mean, Mr. Hitler, what you're doing is a really bad thing and it's just not right to kill people...after all, we did nothing wrong to deserve this. We don't want to violate sedition laws and rise up against you because that would be breaking the law [even though we realize the alternative is our own gruesome deaths], so our question is....could you please stop killing us? We're asking nicely....pretty please?
HITLER: NO
After Hitler says "NO" here is the continuation:
HITLER: NO
THE PEOPLE: Ok, then. We just thought we'd ask. We will await our gruesome deaths in much anticipation. Thank you, Mr. Hitler.
whatever
this isn't going anywhere, is it.....
god it's boring.
"whatever
this isn't going anywhere, is it.....
god it's boring."
Ahhh, yes---anytime I ask questions that you REFUSE to answer or ignore repeatedly---it's ALWAYS because "its not going anywhere" and you give your brilliant "whatever".
The fact remains: You claim you hate Hitler but in saying that the people he slaughtered would be committing a crime if they rebelled against him is SUPPORTING Hitler. Hell you even said Hitler would be OBEYING THE LAW if he would have had them killed for sedition. That's worst than ANYTHING Rivero has ever said!
How can you POSSIBLY claim you hate Hitler????
HOW???
Looks like the next story on my blog will be about you SUPPORTING Hitler by claiming the people he slaughtered could not do ANYTHING about their situation unless they COMMITTED A CRIME to do so.
You are fucking pathetic.
L/RTO: ...saying that the people [Hitler] slaughtered would be committing a crime if they rebelled against him is SUPPORTING Hitler.
--------
No it isn't, it's just stating the fact of the matter.
This is why it's so tedious......you're not adding anything.
"Worst than anything Rivero said?"
Oh, so suddenly what Rivero said is.....not so very good. Sheesh.
The point is this, Larry - LIKE IT OR NOT - sedition is a crime. That applies whatever the type of government.....whatever the constitution.
Of course there's some antagonism and ambivalence there - for example when working against a Hitlerite regime: who would blame anyone for doing so? Nevertheless, it's still a crime, and one would need be stupid to engage in open sedition whatever the circumstances.
The fact Rivero feels comfortable enough to do it undermines his justification for doing it.
You haven't contributed anything on that score.....no mention of Rivero....no mention of sedition in USA....no mention of how YOUR FELLOW-TRAVELLERS engage in sedition.....nothing.
"Nevertheless, it's still a crime, and one would need be stupid to engage in open sedition whatever the circumstances."
Even if the fucking alternative is DEATH [in Hitler's case]?????
You fucking MORON.
Saying that the people Hitler slaughtered would be committing a CRIME if they rebelled is SUPPORTING HITLER!!!!
THE PEOPLE: Uh, Adolf...I mean, Mr. Hitler, what you're doing is a really bad thing and it's just not right to kill people...after all, we did nothing wrong to deserve this. We don't want to violate sedition laws and rise up against you because that would be breaking the law [even though we realize the alternative is our own gruesome deaths], so our question is....could you please stop killing us? We're asking nicely....pretty please?
HITLER: NO
THE PEOPLE: Ok, then. We just thought we'd ask. We will await our gruesome deaths in much anticipation. Thank you, Mr. Hitler.
Saying that the people Hitler slaughtered would be committing a CRIME if they rebelled is SUPPORTING HITLER!!!!
==========
So every history written of Nazi Germany supports Hitler? Rubbish.
Do you have this problem with comprehension in everyday life, or do you just pretend when you're online?
We can write your silly conversation with Hitler another way:
Gypsy 1: We're agitating to assassinate you, because without you Nazism is nothing.....
Hitler: Fine!
------
Come on, silly.
From Wiki:
On 20 July 1944, an attempt was made to assassinate Adolf Hitler, Führer of the Third Reich, inside his Wolf's Lair field headquarters near Rastenburg, East Prussia. The plot was the culmination of the efforts of several groups in the German Resistance to overthrow the Nazi-led German government. The failure of both the assassination and the military coup d'état which was planned to follow it led to the arrest of at least 7,000 people by the Gestapo.[1] According to records of the Führer Conferences on Naval Affairs, 4,980 of these were executed,[1] resulting in the destruction of the organised resistance movement in Germany for the remainder of World War II.
----------
Gee, wiki and Shirer (the source[1]) supported Hitler - according to LArry, at least.
Read my latest.
http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/10/
moron-blogger-says-
holocaust-jews-
would.html
Youre exactly like Prison Planet. When I exposed them, they didnt do ONE story on their site to debunk MY story.
Here we are again..me doing a story on your endorsing Hitler's slaughtering of Jews and all you say is "whatever"---but no story to be found on your blog about it.
Hmmmmm.
You posted a link to your own blog.
You want me to advertise your stupid site too? Crikey, that's asking a bit much, isn't it?
"You want me to advertise your stupid site too? Crikey, that's asking a bit much, isn't it?"
Access to my blog is posted every single time I post a comment [that you ALLOW]---and besides, you've posted links to my site in past articles already---assface.
Here:
http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/
2011/09/larry-jumps-
shark-as-they-say.html
Here:
http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2010
/09/according-to-madman
-larry-simons.html
and here:
http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009
/08/larry-architect-
tourettes.html
Proof youve linked to my site at LEAST three times, but NOW you claim you don't want to link to it [AGAIN] because you CANNOT refute my current story about you being a Hitler supporter and Jew hater.
Funny, you claim I "deny" the holocaust and thus dishonor the Jews---but here YOU are, the ultimate in dishonor....saying Hitler was CARRYING OUT THE LAW by putting them to death....thus ENDORSING the deaths of Jews.
You are one pathetic piece of shit.
L: Funny, you claim I "deny" the holocaust....
----
You do.
Tell us how many were murdered Larry?
Or are you too scared to give a figure?
---
L: ...here YOU are, the ultimate in dishonor....saying Hitler was CARRYING OUT THE LAW by putting them to death....thus ENDORSING the deaths of Jews.
=====
No, I didn't say the Holocaust was 'carrying out the law'. I said sedition is a crime in every state, and Hitler and the Nazis put to death most anyone engaged in sedition, Jewish or not.
For example the WhiteRoseGroup.
If you want to claim the Holocaust was reason enough to justify sedition against Nazism, then fair enough.
But it doesn't do anything for arguments in support of Rivero's "right" to engage in sedition.
Where's the American Holocaust?
Fact is, sedition would get you executed in Nazi Germany......but clearly Rivero is able to engage in it without any penalty in USA.
So what's the justification for his (and your) sedition? Nothing.
Stop spamming Larry. And quit your stupid puerile insults too.
L: you CANNOT refute my current story about you being a Hitler supporter and Jew hater.
=======
What is there to refute? Your insane rambling? Well, I couldn't give a toss.
"Stop spamming Larry. And quit your stupid puerile insults too."
Then ADDRESS the comment. Its NOT considered SPAMMING if you IGNORE IT.
Heres my comment again: ADDRESS IT
"You want me to advertise your stupid site too? Crikey, that's asking a bit much, isn't it?"
Access to my blog is posted every single time I post a comment [that you ALLOW]---and besides, you've posted links to my site in past articles already---assface.
Here:
http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/
2011/09/larry-jumps-
shark-as-they-say.html
Here:
http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2010
/09/according-to-madman
-larry-simons.html
and here:
http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009
/08/larry-architect-
tourettes.html
Proof youve linked to my site at LEAST three times, but NOW you claim you don't want to link to it [AGAIN] because you CANNOT refute my current story about you being a Hitler supporter and Jew hater.
"What is there to refute? Your insane rambling?"
Then DONT refute it! But post it on your blog to show everyone how "NUTTY" I am like you do with all of Rivero's shit. You never refute HIM either, but taht doesnt stop you from posting his words, does it????
You REFUSE to---because you KNOW it makes you look like a FOOL.
I already caught you in a lie [about posting my links], and youre afraid you will get caught in MORE. But why be afraid?? You already do NOT post your real name, which I am assuming that's the whole reason why you dont---to not get EXPOSED on your lies by name??
You're spamming with links to it anyway.
You can't help yourself look stupid can you?
"You're spamming with links to it anyway.
You can't help yourself look stupid can you?'
You claimed you was NOT posting my story on your blog because you didnt want to link to my site [sounds like Prison Planet]---but I have PROVED you ALREADY linked to my site many times in the past---so that CANT be the real reason.
We all KNOW the real reason. Don't we??
You want me to advertise your stupid site too? Crikey, that's asking a bit much, isn't it?
"You want me to advertise your stupid site too? Crikey, that's asking a bit much, isn't it?"
I saw that the FIRST fucking time you said it ASSHOLE. Thats why I posted THIS SEVERAL TIMES---which youve IGNORED:
Access to my blog is posted every single time I post a comment [that you ALLOW]---and besides, you've posted links to my site in past articles already---assface.
Here:
http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/
2011/09/larry-jumps-
shark-as-they-say.html
Here:
http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2010
/09/according-to-madman
-larry-simons.html
and here:
http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009
/08/larry-architect-
tourettes.html
Proof youve linked to my site at LEAST three times, but NOW you claim you don't want to link to it [AGAIN] because you CANNOT refute my current story about you being a Hitler supporter and Jew hater.
--------
I PROVED you LIED about acting as if youve never linked to my site, and you post the comment AGAIN! What a fucking ASSHOLE!!!
Yep--still no story on your blog debunking my story on you. Ahhhh yes, you don't "feel the need" to post my site link [although youve done it several times already as I have provided the links for] but yet you "debunk" Mike Rivero's stories practically every day, huh?
You're one crazy SOB.
Astonishing how you never manage to say anything of interest. One more stupid or faoul-mouthed comment comment and you will be banned again. You are so boring.
"You're one crazy SOB.
Astonishing how you never manage to say anything of interest. One more stupid or faoul-mouthed comment comment and you will be banned again. You are so boring."
Translation: Larry is 100% correct. I can't debunk him, so I will resort to name calling [SOB] and say that he says nothing of substance and then to top it off I will threaten him that if he says one more foul word [which I dont personally mind, because I cuss all the time but I need a diversion, so I will play the profanity card] I will ban him from my worthless site that 0.7 people visit every day.
Oh noooooo, don't ban me----noooooo! What WILL I do if you ban me?? Oh my!
LOL
You're incapable of nuance, and incapable of seeing the least nuance in others.
You're insulting.....you use foul language to attack others.....not to express yourself. You don't recognise the difference.
You're silent on Rivero's sedition. Because you're a fellow-traveller.
And yet whilst you recognise the fact sedition in germany was warranted because of the circumstances [if you accept the Holocaust, for example], but you refuse to recognise the circumstances in modern USA are quite different [no Holocaust, for example].....and so sedition cannot be similarly justified.
To illustrate....;.Rivero is engaged in sedition....without penalty. Whereas in Nazi Germany sedition was penalised with death penalty....for dropping leaflets.....not publishing to the WWW.
"And yet whilst you recognise the fact sedition in germany was warranted because of the circumstances [if you accept the Holocaust, for example]"
HUH???? But wait. YOU said Germany sedition was NOT warranted, right??? That's what our entire argument is about! And also why you refuse to debunk my story on you, because you said it was NOT warranted. Isn't it odd how you post Rivero's stories and "attempt" to debunk him when he is not saying anything personal aimed at YOU. BUT, I AM directing my comments at YOU personally, and yet you don't post MY stories about YOU and attempt to debunk them. We both know why, don't we?
"..but you refuse to recognise the circumstances in modern USA are quite different [no Holocaust, for example].....and so sedition cannot be similarly justified."
Again...HUH? Are you saying that it is written in theUS law that sedition will become justified if the conditions in the US become similar to that of Nazi Germany?? If you are NOT saying that, then what's your fucking point in even making that comment?
It says NOWHERE in our founding documents that the conditions in America have to reach Nazi Germny levels---but ONLY if our government becomes corrupt/tyrannical.
Tell you what numbnuts, let's put this whole debate to rest. I will give you one simple assignment, and if you WIN, I will surrender to you and openly post on my blog that I'm wrong. Here's the assignment:
Find ONE place IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS where it states that it is WRONG to rise up and form a new government.
Find it in just ONE place, and I will surrender an call you the winner.
I will keep posting this request until you ANSWER the request.
L: "But wait. YOU said Germany sedition was NOT warranted, right???"
-----------
No i did not. it's taken 53 comments and still you haven't realised that I never said it.
Duh!
The whole point is that whilst sedition can be (arguably) justified against Nazi Germany.....because of the Holocaust, for example.......such circumstances *****DO NOT EXIST***** in present day USA. So the justification cannot be sustained. At least not on those grounds.
And....remember.....the grounds Rivero and yourself use to justify your sedition is that "the USA is JUST LIKE Nazi Germany".
Which it obviously isn't.
----
L: you said it was NOT warranted
--------
No I did not. You assumed I did.
You were..........Wrong!
Wow - what a surprise.
---------------
L: Find ONE place IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS where it states that it is WRONG to rise up and form a new government.
Find it in just ONE place, and I will surrender an call you the winner.
I will keep posting this request until you ANSWER the request.
==================
If you want to go around shouting about how people should overthrow the elected government of USA - with violence - then don't be surprised if you get a heavy knock at the door. Fool.
Here's your assignment.....
....accepting sedition was justified against Nazi Germany (because of the prevailing conditions, the character and nature of the Nazi party and its intent).........
what are the conditions which justify sedition in the USA today?
".......such circumstances *****DO NOT EXIST***** in present day USA. So the justification cannot be sustained. At least not on those grounds."
They do not HAVE TO exist in order to rise up and form a new government, ASSHOLE. Did it exist in 1861 when the South seceded??? NO, it did not, but yet they were JUSTIFIED in seceding, because our founding documents PERMIT IT, ASSFACE.
"If you want to go around shouting about how people should overthrow the elected government of USA - with violence - then don't be surprised if you get a heavy knock at the door. Fool."
So, in other words, you CANT find ONE place in our documents where it says it is WRONG to rise up against the govt????
That's what I thought. That's because it's not there.
"....accepting sedition was justified against Nazi Germany (because of the prevailing conditions, the character and nature of the Nazi party and its intent)........."
No, pal, you cant change your tune. You said sedition in Germany was AGAINST THE LAW! Their laws didnt permit sedition in THEIR PARTICULAR CASE, according to you. It was AGAINST THE LAW, period [as you have said]. Now, your changing your story and saying it was ACCEPTABLE under their conditions. NOT ACCORDING TO GERMAN LAWS it wasn't [ACCORDING TO YOU]----DICKBRAIN. Now, stop changing your tune.
"what are the conditions which justify sedition in the USA today?"
Since our founders PERMITTED forming a new govt when "the old one was corrupt or tyrannical", I can actually name many, many reasons.
Do you really want me to list them all??? I can, EASILY. Do you really want me to make you look like a colossal fool----for the 150th time now?? Just say yes and I will begin the list.
BTW, you haven't done MY assignment yet. You commented on it, but that wasn't an answer. ADDRESSING a comment is NOT THE SAME as ANSWERING it.
Here it is again since you have a learning disability:
Find ONE place IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS where it states that it is WRONG to rise up and form a new government.
JUST ONE.
God you're a fool.
"God you're a fool."
Another EXCELLENT refutation. And now it's crystal CLEAR you cannot complete the assignment I gave you, to "Find ONE place IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS where it states that it is WRONG to rise up and form a new government", being that you have now had TWO chances to answer this question. Both times---IGNORED.
Yep. Once again, the "nut", "kook" and the "fool" silences you. Gee, if I'm a fool, and I can silence you, what does that make YOU???
You ignored THIS too [to your question "what are the conditions which justify sedition in the USA today?"]:
"Since our founders PERMITTED forming a new govt when "the old one was corrupt or tyrannical", I can actually name many, many reasons.
Do you really want me to list them all??? I can, EASILY. Do you really want me to make you look like a colossal fool----for the 150th time now?? Just say yes and I will begin the list."
Don't want me listing the conditions, huh? Yep, I didn't think so.
Let me get this straight...
You now change your tune and say that the Jews WOULD HAVE BEEN WARRANTED to overthrow Hitler DESPITE the fact that nowhere in the German sedition laws does it GRANT them permission to engage in sedition for ANY REASON? But NOW you claim it would have been warranted when the ENTIRE time up until your last post, you have been saying it would be a CRIME if Jews rebelled??....
BUT, OUR founding documents DOES PERMIT SECESSION AND OVERTHROWING A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT and you say sedition in our case would be UNWARRANTED??? When our documents actually PERMIT an overthrowing and abolishment of corrupt and tyrannical government??
So, in Germany's case you're NOW saying the Jews would have been justified and their sedition would have been warranted despite German sedition laws NOT giving them permission to do so, but in OUR founding documents, it DOES permit sedition and you call that NOT warranted??????
You're a fuckstick of gargantuan proportions!
They're all your mistaken assumptions, but I'm supposed to answer for them? Rubbish.
Learn to read.
Leran to not make assumptions, especially so many stupid ones.
"They're all your mistaken assumptions, but I'm supposed to answer for them? Rubbish.
Learn to read.
Leran to not make assumptions, especially so many stupid ones."
Ahhh yes, but yet you REFUSE to correct my "assumptions", don't you?. Hmmmm.
I see you have IGNORED for the THIRD time now the following:
"Since our founders PERMITTED forming a new govt when "the old one was corrupt or tyrannical", I can actually name many, many reasons.
Do you really want me to list them all??? I can, EASILY. Do you really want me to make you look like a colossal fool----for the 150th time now?? Just say yes and I will begin the list."
and...
"Find ONE place IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS where it states that it is WRONG to rise up and form a new government."
God, victory is sweet.
Here's the basic contradiction at the heart of your argument (one born from your mystical reverence for 'the constitution'....a set of man-made rules, like any other).
You claim the 'founding documents' grant Americans the right to overthrow their government, and its laws.
So why should anyone adhere to them?
And if they needn't adhere to the laws of the land, what makes them "law"?
You're asserting that the American people can reject and overthrow their government if they so choose.....thereby making the constitution irrelevant. Or at least you are insisting it is down to the individual to determine what the constitution means....and they can interpret it as they so choose....and the state has no legitimacy in saying otherwise. It's just a matter of opinion, right?
So....anyone can simply choose to declare the government illegitimate, and decide its laws are unjust and needn't be adhered to. Likewise the Constitution.....because that's what the founders said.....if you want to overthrow the government....you can do so....no problem.
So on what does this Constitution rest exactly? Nothing.
L: "Find ONE place IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS where it states that it is WRONG to rise up and form a new government."
========
So, anyone can do it whenever they want.....
BTW - the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the USA, Larry. I already pointed you to the current applicable law on sedition in the USA. THAT is the LAW. Not the declaration.
"You're asserting that the American people can reject and overthrow their government if they so choose.....thereby making the constitution irrelevant. Or at least you are insisting it is down to the individual to determine what the constitution means....and they can interpret it as they so choose....and the state has no legitimacy in saying otherwise. It's just a matter of opinion, right?"
WRONG. ONLY if that government is VIOLATING the very Constitution the laws are contained in and becoming tyrannical----JUST AS King George had become which caused the creation of our country to begin with, ya fuckweed.
"BTW - the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the USA, Larry. I already pointed you to the current applicable law on sedition in the USA. THAT is the LAW. Not the declaration."
Our founding documents are the supreme law in the United States. They trump any supposed law written after them. I will give you an example: The US law basically says secession is not legal, but the DOA says it is and the Constitution says states are free and independent, meaning that what the south did in the civil war was LEGAL. Capiche?
L: ONLY if that government is VIOLATING the very Constitution the laws are contained in and becoming tyrannical----JUST AS King George had become which caused the creation of our country to begin with
=======
But there wasn't a Constitution at that point.
The Constitution (obviously) came after the rebellion.
There was no Constitution for the King to violate....so he couldn't have violated it.
"But there wasn't a Constitution at that point.
The Constitution (obviously) came after the rebellion.
There was no Constitution for the King to violate....so he couldn't have violated it."
You fucking moron. NOWHERE in my post did I say King George VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION. I said this:
"ONLY if that government is VIOLATING the very Constitution the laws are contained in and becoming tyrannical----JUST AS King George had become which caused the creation of our country to begin with"
I said "just as King George had BECOME [referring to the word "tyrannical"]. I did NOT say "just as King George had DONE", which if I had, you could have justifyably assumed I was referring to King George violating the Constitution.
You REALLY need to learn reading comprehension, ASSFACE.
I also noticed you completely IGNORED this:
"Our founding documents are the supreme law in the United States. They trump any supposed law written after them. I will give you an example: The US law basically says secession is not legal, but the DOA says it is and the Constitution says states are free and independent, meaning that what the south did in the civil war was LEGAL. Capiche?"
What I find quite interesing [and humorous] is that right after I ask a question that you CANNOT answer or make a statement you CANNOT refute, you say shit like "You're boring", or "You're a fool" or "Astonishing how you never manage to say anything of interest."-----In other words....ANYTHING to divert from my questions and statements that you REFUSE to refute/answer.
BUT....BUT, you CONTINUE to address statements I make AFTER the ones you REFUSE to refute. So, in essence you're saying this:
TLNL: I can refute that [so I will answer]
[then I ask a question you cant answer or say something you can't debunk]
then you say:
TLNL: God youre a fool, or you never say anything worthwhile, etc.....
Then I make more statements. All of a sudden, I'm magically "saying worthwhile" things again because you begin addressing my comments again. It's ONLY when you FAIL to refute my points or FAIL to answer my questions [that you cannot answer] that I'm a "fool" and "not saying anything worthwhile".
Amazing.
The TRUE sign of a big fucking FRAUD.
Maybe you need to learn to write properly?
You said
"ONLY if that government is VIOLATING the very Constitution the laws are contained in *****AND***** becoming tyrannical----JUST AS King George had become...."
My emphasis added.
""ONLY if that government is VIOLATING the very Constitution the laws are contained in *****AND***** becoming tyrannical----JUST AS King George had become...."
My emphasis added."
Yes---AND becoming tyrannical. Meaning they are two separate instances that constitute rising up. Violating the Constitution AND becoming tyrannical.
STILL ignoring....
"Our founding documents are the supreme law in the United States. They trump any supposed law written after them. I will give you an example: The US law basically says secession is not legal, but the DOA says it is and the Constitution says states are free and independent, meaning that what the south did in the civil war was LEGAL. Capiche?"
Hmmm, I wonder why.
So did you mean "AND/OR"?
"So did you mean "AND/OR"?"
Even if I had JUST "or" you still would have said I was saying King George was violating the Constitution.
It's quite OBVIOUS to anyone on the face of the Earth [besides YOU] that the tyrannical part was the ONLY part that referred to King George since the Constitution had not been written in the early 1770's.
But, you [the master of diversion] wants to ONLY focus on that trivial matter [that a 3rd grader would have understood], while you IGNORE the major shit I say!!
How about addressing the questions that you NEVER answered????? HMMMMMMMMMM????
Address this:
Find ONE place IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS where it states that it is WRONG to rise up and form a new government.
You NEVER addressed that. [because you CAN'T]
Address this:
Our founding documents are the supreme law in the United States. They trump any supposed law written after them. I will give you an example: The US law basically says secession is not legal, but the DOA says it is and the Constitution says states are free and independent, meaning that what the south did in the civil war was LEGAL. Capiche?
Hmmm, that's right...you CAN'T. So you IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE. That's because you spend 100% of your time on trivial shit, that matters to NO ONE. But the major shit....IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE.
Fuckstick.
L: you IGNORE the major shit I say!!
====
Oh, it's all shit. Hard to rank it.
LArry, who gets to decide what is "tyranny"?
And you don't even say tyranny.....you said "becoming tyrannical".....a much lower standard.
Who decides when a government is "becoming tyrannical"?
Anyone?
So.....if someone has any sort of sense that the government is "becoming tyrannical" they're perfectly entitled (even obligated?) to overthrow the government?
For example, as soon as Adams passed the Aliens and Sedition Act (right after the revolution) it was perfectly legitimate, for anyone who chose to, to attempt to overthrow the government?
And.....for all your claims about the founding fathers, Adams was the 2nd President and presided over the ALiens and Sedition Act. That gives support to my position - that any and all states make sedition a crime (obviously they do). Whereas your position that anyone is entitled to overthrow the government whenever they choose (so long as they claim they believe it is becoming tyrannical) is an obvious agenda for perpetual sedition and revolution....an absurdity and a negation of the whole point of having a constitution in the first place.
I mean, why bother to even have a constitution when anyone is entitled to overthrow it? Someone somewhere will always think the constitution is unjust....and tending to tyranny. ANY constitution is "the law", and anyone believing they shouldn't be constrained by laws can 'legitimately' seek to overthrow the constitution....and from your position you would seek to allow them to do so....even though you hold dearly to "the constitution".
So....you believe in the constitution but believe people are entitled to overturn it and reject it. You even claim the laws you believe in say it's ok to do so.......so how come you believe in those laws....and what do they really amount to if you believe they can legitimately be ignored and overturned with violence if someone believes they should be (because they're tending toward tyranny)?
All laws can be considered a tyranny of sorts.....so all laws can be overturned on such a basis.
And yet you claim to be a strong constitutionalist.
Seems to me what you really believe is *your* laws are *the law*.....and nobody else's can be.
Sovereign individual stuff. Kinda crazy.
"And.....for all your claims about the founding fathers, Adams was the 2nd President and presided over the ALiens and Sedition Act. That gives support to my position - that any and all states make sedition a crime (obviously they do)."
I addressed this in my article about YOU, you piece of fucking filth. But naturally, you IGNORE it. In my article I said:
"John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which many, including his Vice President Thomas Jefferson, criticized as unconstitutional. It eventually led to the demise of the Federalist party. It was eventually deemed unconstitutional by the House Judiciary Committee.
What TLNL fails to realize or comprehend is, is that, despite the Alien and Sedition Acts being highly unconstitutional, there was at least one justification for it [though it does not outweigh the unconstitutionality of it]: The country was much different during the Adams administration than today. The country in 1798 was not the monotheistic entity known as the "United States" then. Each state was sovereign and everyone highly believed in states rights. The government was not the highly centralized, protectionist form of government we have today. In 1798 the federal government served the people, not the other way around.
So, Adams was quite petrified that, just 20 short years after the formation of this country, people would begin to pledge allegiances to other countries. Adams had to know his signing the Alien and Sedition Acts was highly unconstitutional, so it had to be out of fear and panic that drove him to make unlawful one of the most basic rights the founders adopted. Despite all these vast differences between 1798 and today's world, it was still deemed unconstitutional even then. This is how devoted to liberty our founders were.
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano puts it brilliantly in his book, It Is Dangerous To Be Right, When The Government Is Wrong, when he states:
“As the Alien and Sedition Acts show, no government, not even one comprised of the Founders who sought to safeguard our natural rights, can be trusted to permit robust freedom of speech. How could members of the same generation, indeed in some instances the same persons, who wrote, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” enact a law that abridged it?”"
So, you see, your position is bullshit.
That doesn't address my post at all.
"I mean, why bother to even have a constitution when anyone is entitled to overthrow it?"
AHHHHHHHHH, you're such a fucking MORON!!!!! I ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS!!! They are not overthrowing the CONSTITUTION, they are overthrowing GOVERNMENT.
When a government VIOLATES the Constitution, it is just cause to ALTER or ABOLISH that government, as Jefferson stated. THAT'S THE REASON for having a Constitution, you DICKWEED.
"and anyone believing they shouldn't be constrained by laws can 'legitimately' seek to overthrow the constitution"
There you go saying "overthrow the constitution" again, so you cannot claim the first time was a typo.
When did you EVER see me say I support an overthrow of the CONSTITUTION??? That doesn't even make SENSE anyway. You don't "overthrow" a constitution. You either obey it or violate it. You overthrow governments. And Jefferson said that was permissible, you shit brain.
I see you are STILL IGNORING my questions.
SHOCKER.
"That doesn't address my post at all."
Yes it does ASSFACE. You mentioned the Alien and Sedition Acts in the fucking post! ASSHOLE. And you claimed it SUPPORTED your view. I refuted it.
"And you don't even say tyranny.....you said "becoming tyrannical".....a much lower standard."
Oh brother!!! So, if someone is becoming "murderous", they are not committing murder??
Are you 5 years old??
"So....you believe in the constitution but believe people are entitled to overturn it and reject it."
NO ASSHOLE!!! NO!!!! I believe that people can reject GOVERNMENTS....GOVERNMENTS....GOVERNMENTS. Here you are again, interchanging the words "constitution" and "government" as if they are the EXACT SAME THING. They are NOT.
Would it make sense for Jefferson to say "if the Constitution becomes corrupt, then it is your duty to alter or abolish it"??? NO, it wouldn't. That's why he said "When the GOVERNMENT becomes corrupt...."
Who decides what is tyrannical, you say??? When someone violates your NATURAL BORN RIGHTS, that's who. Have you ever read about natural law/natural rights from John Locke??? Apparently NOT.
What was the Constitution before the Revolution?
"What was the Constitution before the Revolution?"
This is all you have to say, after I annihilated your points? Asking a nonsensical question??? What's this question even mean?? No one fucking knows. Another diversion tactic on your part. It's not working fuckstick. Address my points.
ADMIT you were wrong by interchanging the words "constitution" and "government" as if they are the exact same thing.
You can't answer the question, can you?
Also........
---
In March 1933, with the Enabling Act, was passed by 444–94 (the remaining Social Democrats), the Reichstag changed the Weimar Constitution to allow Hitler's government to pass laws without parliamentary debate
====
So, the Nazis acted constitutionally. According to you that makes it fine.
"You can't answer the question, can you?"
I didnt understand the fucking question. I ALREADY SAID THAT. Explain the question and just maybe I'll answer. You have the fucking nerve telling me about IGNORED questions. Ive posted this question like 7 times:
"Find ONE place IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS where it states that it is WRONG to rise up and form a new government."
..and youve IGNORED it EVERY FUCKING SINGLE TIME, you fucking worthless piece of monkey shit.
Also, love how you ignored my last 5 posts. Couldn't refute anything huh? Feeling pretty stupid that you think "government" an "constitution" is the EXACT same thing????
You said it was OK for people to overthrow governments, but not constitutions.
But what was the constitution before the Revolution?
You think Britain has no constitution?
"You think Britain has no constitution?"
Not a written one.
"You said it was OK for people to overthrow governments, but not constitutions.
But what was the constitution before the Revolution?"
Your answer still didnt explain the wording of this question. Ask it again PLAINLY and tell me EXACTLY what you're asking. It's too vague. I still have NO IDEA what you're asking.
Now, when will you answer MY question that I asked EIGHT fucking times and it's VERY easy to understand:
"Find ONE place IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS where it states that it is WRONG to rise up and form a new government."
ANSWER?????????????
Are you implying there was a constitution at the time of the revolution? There was not. In fact, the revolution took place even before the WAR.
What exactly is your point of the question???
Many people believe the revolution was the WAR itself, but it was actually the CAUSE of the war. John Adams said it himself, that the revolution PRECEDED the war.
Are you implying there was a constitution at the time of the revolution? There was not.
----------
The British Constitution.
The orthodox British view, dating from the Glorious Revolution of 1688, was that Parliament was the supreme authority throughout the empire, and so by definition anything Parliament did was constitutional.
"The British Constitution."
The UNWRITTEN British Constitution.
Was it constitutional under British rule that they strip away people's NATURAL BORN human freedoms? [These are the freedoms that no one GIVES YOU, but are NATURAL freedoms that are SELF-EVIDENT.]
TENTH fucking time now:
"Find ONE place IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS where it states that it is WRONG to rise up and form a new government."
WHEN, OH WHEN, WILL HE FUCKING ANSWER THIS QUESTION??????
Yes, the unwritten constitution.
You know that those 'natural rights' were claimed to be 'god-given'?
And you're an atheist, or an agnostic, aren't you?
There's nothing god-given about them, they're merely claimed by man and justified by the appeal to the ultimate - but non-existent - authority ie god.
The only rights man has are those he claims and sustains for himself. The appeal to god shows just how man-made, arbitrary and self-serving they are. Which is fair enough, of course, but let's not delude ourselves that there's any magic to them?
Really they are a fiction which served to function as justification for American rebellion against their then constitution.....and their wish to take the Americas for themselves.
I don't know why you keep on about this question "find somewhere it says it's not allowed to overthrow government blah blah blah".
I never said it did say that.
What I said was that every state makes sedition a crime, so as to prevent its own destruction. Else there'd be no point in obtaining power and forming a state. What is a state after all if it can just be removed by anyone who feels the wish to do so?
And yes, that even applies to your glorious american state. The founding fathers were somewhat hypocritical about it, needing to resort to "god-given rights" to justify their criminal rebellion. Which is fair enough....but, you know....don't get misty eyed about it?
"You know that those 'natural rights' were claimed to be 'god-given'?
And you're an atheist, or an agnostic, aren't you?"
Doesnt matter what I am. Whether rights come from God or are natural rights, anyone would agree that true RIGHTS are not something GIVEN but SELF-EVIDENT....in other words, they exist for the mere fact that we are HUMAN and no human has the right to say to another human "you have no rights". Doesnt matter where the origin of the rights are from. Even in the absense of a god, all people are equal and have no authority over another human being.
"I don't know why you keep on about this question "find somewhere it says it's not allowed to overthrow government blah blah blah".
I never said it did say that."
No, you said SEDITION is wrong in the United States. If that were true, that would mean our founding documents are pretty much worthless, since our founding documents are littered with the language that the states are SOVEREIGN, INDEPENDENT entities that are a part of a VOLUNTARY UNION. We are a confederation of states, not a monolithic entity. When each state entered the Union, it did so with the agreement that at any time the state can WITHDRAW from the voluntary union. Even King George, when he signed the agreement to surrender the colonies, signed it to EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE----not to the "United States" as a monolithic entity.
"The founding fathers were somewhat hypocritical about it, needing to resort to "god-given rights" to justify their criminal rebellion."
Criminal??? To separate from a TYRANT is a crime??? Once again, by saying this, you are supporting Hitler and claiming the Jews would be CRIMINALS had they rebelled and won. Tyranny is tyranny. You can say all day long that King George was not Hitler---but it's like comparing apples and oranges. Both are different, but BOTH fruit. Tyranny is tyranny.
Fuckstick.
L: Doesnt matter what I am.
----
Well, I don't know about that. Maybe.
It does seem to me that if we're going to consider ourselves atheists or agnostics then there's certainly an issue when we claim for ourselves these "god-given" rights. The Believers are perhaps entitled - at least expected - to justify their God-given rights with reference to......God.
But atheists and agnostics? Hmmm.
What have we on which appeal to appeal for these "god-given rights" ? It can't be God.
-
L: Whether rights come from God or are natural rights, anyone would agree that true RIGHTS are not something GIVEN but SELF-EVIDENT
========
My inclination is to completely agree. But......I still don't see how it makes it "a right", in the sense it has come to mean.
And natural rights? What does that really mean?
I don't think there are any such 'rights.'
I think 'rights' are only natural in so far as they are man-made. And as such they're a product of the 'altruism' of the selfish gene.
Altruistic selfishness, or selfish altruism?
-
L: "in other words, they exist for the mere fact that we are HUMAN...."
=====
Agreed.
--
L:"... and no human has the right to say to another human "you have no rights".
======
Well, it does happen nonetheless.
And you're using "rights" to argue against abuse of "rights".
How about saying no human has a right to be in such a position so as to be capable of telling another human "you have no rights!"?
What's the difference?
Or how about saying no human being has a right to die of starvation, or easily preventable disease?
That right alone would arguably contribute more to "liberty" than any other measure. One has to be alive first, for it to matter, surely?
-
L: Doesnt matter where the origin of the rights are from.
=====
It does matter.
If you are going to assert rights, then yes, they need justifying.
I'm glad we "have" rights though. I just think it misses the point. And I don't see how they are properly justified by simply laying claim to them, tbh.
Tell the people being shot every day that they have "rights"?
Tell the kids dying of starvation? Hmmm.
----
L: Even in the absence of a god, all people are equal and have no authority over another human being.
====
That seems to be an ethic, not something on which one can hang "rights", really.
I mean, I agree....all people are "equal". We're all people. But we're not all equal - not at all.
Both things are true, yes?
Oh, and the urge to egalitarianism is considered a socialist one, isn't it? Odd for a Ron Paul supporter to be cheering egalitarianism.....(Oh, we mean equality of opportunity, that's all.....)
--
L:you said SEDITION is wrong in the United States.
=====
No I didn't. I (correctly) said that sedition is a criminal offence in the USA punishable with a hefty fine and/or a considerable prison sentence.
You need be stonewall stupid to engage in sedition. Forget "Occupy Wall Street" - try occupying the polling booth first?
People (like Rivero) seem to be engaging in sedition when they haven't even tried the polling booth yet.
Or rather they have tried, and they got absolutely nowhere.
Revolution? Seriously? For what? What a joke.
---
L: ..that would mean our founding documents are pretty much worthless, since our founding documents are littered with the language that the states are SOVEREIGN, INDEPENDENT entities that are a part of a VOLUNTARY UNION. We are a confederation of states, not a monolithic entity.
=====
Of course they're not worthless. They're about as good as it gets.
But they're only what they are.....words and documents.....and ideas. It's only a Constitution. You call it THE constitution.
The best yet, surely?
They're very inspiring words, the first paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. I learned them off by heart as a teenager because I found them so inspiring - and even then (in the 1980s) it still felt like a somewhat seditious thing to do. Not especially though.....the American revolution has obviously had a major (positive) impact on British consciousness. As did the French revolution, surely, though British people still invariably despise the French. It's our sense of inferiority. I can get away with being Welsh though, so the French don't hate me so much, it seems. But then you have to pay a price with the English......ah well....Vive Le France! da da da dah dah dah dah dah dah dah.....)
--
L: Criminal??? To separate from a TYRANT is a crime???
======
To the tyrant, it is, yes.
That's a simple fact.
--
L: Once again, by saying this, you are supporting Hitler and claiming the Jews would be CRIMINALS had they rebelled and won.
=====
Errr. no.
They would have been "criminals" under the regime they were rebelling against, yes.
If they had "won", then as soon as they had "won" they would no longer be criminals and those previously grievously persecuting them would have become the criminals.
[Which *is* what happened, eventually.]
--
L: Tyranny is tyranny.
======
This post of mine was about Rivero justifying sedition on the grounds of tyranny.
And yet he's still producing his website.
Some tyranny that is.
"L: Criminal??? To separate from a TYRANT is a crime???
======
To the tyrant, it is, yes.
That's a simple fact."
Ahhh, now you have compassion for tyrants????
LOL
I say you SUPPORT Hitler, and you come back and say you have compassion for him. Amazing.
"This post of mine was about Rivero justifying sedition on the grounds of tyranny.
And yet he's still producing his website.
Some tyranny that is."
What's your point?? Here you are comparing Hitler and the Nazis again with other forms of tyranny. You're basically saying that if Americans were REALLY under tyanny now, then we would would not be able to have freedoms like writing stuff on blogs and reading books, etc...because that stuff was banned under Hitler.
Why is HITLER always your standard for REAL tyranny? In other words, you keep saying unless a society is EXACTLY like Nazi Germany, they aren't really suffering under a tyrant. How insane.
L Why is HITLER always your standard for REAL tyranny?
======
You brought up Hitler.
-
L: I say you SUPPORT Hitler, and you come back and say you have compassion for him.
====
I didn't say that at all. You're off again - making wild assumptions - and desperately stuffing words in my mouth.
Don't invent arguments.
You said:
"L: Criminal??? To separate from a TYRANT is a crime???
======
To the tyrant, it is, yes.
That's a simple fact."
Then, I said:
"I say you SUPPORT Hitler, and you come back and say you have compassion for him."
Then you say:
"I didn't say that at all. You're off again - making wild assumptions - and desperately stuffing words in my mouth."
What else is your statement [above] but support for tyrants??? Hitler was a tyrant----therefore, you support him. Capiche?
"L Why is HITLER always your standard for REAL tyranny?
======
You brought up Hitler."
That wasn't an answer to my question. See the question mark at the end of the question? That indicates it requires an answer.
I also LOVE how you ignored the rest of my comment:
"...In other words, you keep saying unless a society is EXACTLY like Nazi Germany, they aren't really suffering under a tyrant. How insane."
Guess you didn't comment on it because you COULDN'T.
Yep, I knew you'd eventually get worn out and I'd win.
Well, you just keep inventing these conversations that never happened. It's getting repetitive.
Anyway, the point stands - Rivero (and his fellow travellers) justify their sedition by claiming the USA has become a tyranny.
But it's such a tyranny that Rivero (and his fellow travellers) can engage in their sedition without the least interference, apparently.
Some tyranny.
And so what's the justification for the sedition?
Rivero clearly has greater political freedom and freedom of speech than Americans had under the 2nd President (one of the founding fathers to boot!)
What would Rivero have suffered under Adams' presidency? Or in Stalinist Russia? Or Nazi Germany?
Clearly the position is quite different and their justification for sedition based on allusions to such "tyranny" are not especially convincing.
"Rivero clearly has greater political freedom and freedom of speech than Americans had under the 2nd President (one of the founding fathers to boot!)
What would Rivero have suffered under Adams' presidency? Or in Stalinist Russia? Or Nazi Germany?"
I have already ADDRESSED the Alien and Sedition Act of John Adams in my fucking posts and IN MY STORY ABOUT YOU------and YOU FUCKING IGNORE IT CONSTANTLY. But yet, you keep fucking REPEATING this over and over!
What do you mean you addressed it?
So what?
The fact remains that Adams passed the law, AND THE LAW WAS IN FORCE WHILST IT WAS ON THE STATUTE BOOKS.
Just as the PAtriot Act is now. Just as the present laws against sedition are.
If you want to argue such laws are unconstitutional, fine. But don't pretend you're not subject to those laws until they're repealed - if they ever are.
And there is a constitutional process to deciding whether laws are constitutional or not - and you're bound to that process. As are Rivero et al.
Anyway, the sedition laws are no recent thing - if they were going to be declared unconstitutional they'd have been by now, presumably. Regardless, they ARE IN OPERATION AND YOU AND RIVERO AND EVERYONE IS SUBJECT TO THEM.
The fact Adam's QUITE DIFFERENT law against sedition was eventually found to be unconstitutional makes no difference to the fact that Americans living under it had far less "liberty" to engage in sedition than Rivero obviously does.
Those americans living under Adams did not require a revolution to overturn his sedition laws, which were far more stringent than those of today. So why should Rivero be justified in agitating for revolution today? The fact is he can do so with impunity, apparently. There goes his argument about tyranny.....
"Those americans living under Adams did not require a revolution to overturn his sedition laws, which were far more stringent than those of today."
It is not SEDITION that Rivero calls for revolution!
"So why should Rivero be justified in agitating for revolution today? The fact is he can do so with impunity, apparently. There goes his argument about tyranny....."
There you go again comparing tyranny in other times and with other leaders to our present state and claiming that just because America is NOT EXACTLY LIKE those other countries/leaders, then we are not living with tyranny today!
You keep DENYING you say this and then YOU SAY IT AGAIN!
I asked you on THIS thread if you'd like me to list the reasons why we are living in tyranny today, and naturally you gave no answer.
In fact, I said this:
"Since our founders PERMITTED forming a new govt when "the old one was corrupt or tyrannical", I can actually name many, many reasons.
Do you really want me to list them all??? I can, EASILY. Do you really want me to make you look like a colossal fool----for the 150th time now?? Just say yes and I will begin the list."
L/RTO: It is not SEDITION that Rivero calls for revolution!
=======
Err....ok then. lol. If you say so. Good luck with that.
----
L/RTO - There you go again comparing tyranny in other times and with other leaders to our present state........
=====
Oh, that isn't allowed is it? I see.
-
L/RTO: There you go....claiming that just because America is NOT EXACTLY LIKE those other countries/leaders, then we are not living with tyranny today!
====
But America only exists because of supposed "tyranny of former times". If it isn't exactly the same as now how then can you justify the past in today's terms?
Simple fact is - one of the founding fathers introduced legislation which was far more severe than that that which Rivero rails against today, even though Rivero always harks back to the past as some utopian liberty.
I guess the United States is guilty of sedition in killing Qaddafi, right?? I'm sure Libya had sedition laws and it probably included that it would be illegal to kill their leader, I'm assuming. So, Obama should be tried for sedition right???
Right????
Right????
The rebels certainly engaged in sedition. But they won, so they aren't going to face any issue over it. Here comes a new constitution etc. For you, that's "wrong", right?
I guess the American intervention in Libya is similar to the French aid for the American revolution. Yes?
So, according to you...a country can be as tyrannical as it wants to be. So, to keep their tyranny in place and undisturbed, they make sedition laws that say "anyone who rises up against us [in response to our tyranny and oppression] because they don't like dictators and us trampling on their natural born freedom will be imprisoned or killed".
And you say the people who will potentially rise up are breaking the law?
Sure, they might be breaking their unjust, dictatorial law----but as I just said, it's unjust, so their laws deserve to be ignored and overthrown---no?
So, if I become King of England tomorrow, and on day one of my reign I proclaim "All people of England will be killed unless they pay me 100% of their earnings, and they must have sex with farm animals on a daily basis", you're saying you will accept this and not revolt/rise up against unjust laws? [actually, you may not have an issue with the sex with farm animals part]
You will do NOTHING and permit me [as your King] to do this? Or will you stop it? Let me just say, if you permit it, you DESERVE death. If you do NOT permit it and rise up, are you guilty of sedition and therefore a criminal?
Do NOT fucking ignore this question.
L:RTO: So, according to you...a country can be as tyrannical as it wants to be.
========
Well, they aren't human actors, but yes, essentially state's can be "as tyrannical" as they 'want' to be. Obviously, outside of modern treaties or whatever.....
-
L:RTO: And you say the people who will potentially rise up are breaking the law?
====
It's simply a statement of FACT. Yes.
---
L:RTO: Sure, they might be breaking their unjust, dictatorial law----but as I just said, it's unjust, so their laws deserve to be ignored and overthrown---no?
=====
Agreed - though it isn't quite so simple: who decides what is unjust? On what grounds? etc. It doesn't give carte blanche to ignore whatever laws one dislikes, nor does it grant an open invite to revolution.
L/RTO: So, if I become King of England tomorrow.......you're saying you will accept this and not revolt/rise up against unjust laws?
You will do NOTHING and permit me [as your King] to do this? Or will you stop it? Let me just say, if you permit it, you DESERVE death. If you do NOT permit it and rise up, are you guilty of sedition and therefore a criminal?
==========
Well, anyone rising up against it would surely be a criminal. That's a simple statement of (what would be) the facts of the matter.
Obviously in such circumstances one would feel entitled to dissent and oppose the regime. And who could blame you?
The point is that it is wildly delusional to imagine that the situation in the USA today is comparable to such an extreme situation.
This is illustrated by the fact ?Rivero can openly engage in sedition without the least interference......the fact of which negates his justification for engaging in sedition in the first place.
When little potty-mouthed baby Larry can speak properly he can post.
But no posts of yours are being published until such time, Larry. Grow up.
Yeah I knew you'd delete the comment you fraud mother fucker---because you DIDNT answer my question and I called you out on it. Odd how you remove THAT post in particular when Ive cussedit OTHER posts!
LOL
The bottom line is, I have PROVED that sedition is justified when atrocities are taking place, there is tyranny, etc... You have stated over and over that it's a criminal act to engage in sedition, THEN on your last post you said I was RIGHT in saying sedition is justified when the laws of a country's leaders are unjust.
So, you AGREE that sedition is justified!!! CORRECT??
You can't say you agree that sedition is just WITH THE EXCEPTION of there being unjust laws---because you have stated that one must OBEY a country's laws---and no sedition law grants an individual an EXCEPTION in carrying out sedition.....SO, it doesnt matter what one decides as unjust according to you---CORRECT?? Because the laws are NOT granting exceptions...CORRECT??
BUT, you just said that you AGREED with me that sedition is justified if laws are unjust, but you added your disclaimer that "who decides what is unjust?"
Well, how can you AGREE with my statement that sedition is justified in the face of unjust laws, but add ANY disclaimer at all?? NO COUNTRY grants EXCEPTIONS to seditious acts, right????
But YOU just claimed you DO AGREE with exceptions to carrying out sedition, CORRECT??
You can't have it both ways.
sedition is criminal. You're too stupid to understand that - it's your problem.
Here's a simple question for you -
IS SEDITION IN THE USA TODAY A CRIME OR NOT?
Until you answer that, you won't get any response.
Grow up Larry.
Grow up.
Grow up. And stop spamming.
You are simply reposting a post that already appears.
IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PRINTED - AND IT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED.
Spamming is not conversation. Nor is being so insulting. Forget it, nutter.
L/RTO: NO COUNTRY grants EXCEPTIONS to seditious acts, right????
=========
exactly. finally you got there.
now you should perhaps reassess your own position and consider what you are opening yourself up to by running around shouting about 'revolution'.
and likewise with Rivero.
However, seeing as the sedition Rivero engages in attracts no retribution from the state.....there seems no need to stop engaging in sedition. But if sedition attracts no response from the state, then the state can hardly be accused of tyranny, and so the non-existent tyranny of the state can't be used to justify the sedition.....in which case what is the justification for the sedition? There isn't any. Get to the ballot box.
You were doing so well then, until the end. You just can't be civil can you, larry?
Larry - here's a big hint.....
Try it without the insults?
In other words, when you CAN reply, you dont mind the name calling. When you can't reply, you pretend the name calling bothers you and you delete the comment.
You're just like Ostroy. He will claim I violate the rules of blogger.com and tell his other 3 readers that I use nasty language but erases the proof that I do it by deleting it, therefore protecting me from blogger.com and from his readers.
In reality, I'm not being nasty, he just has no response for me and doesn't want to confront the comment---same with you.
Actually, yes, I did mind the 50 times you previously called me.....fuckface, or whatever your insult de jour is.
That you have got away with it so many times is a measure of my leniency, nothing else.
Try it without such insults, and without spamming, and your message gets posted - just as it always has done.
"Try it without such insults, and without spamming.."
ITS NOT SPAMMING IF YOU IGNORE IT CONSTANTLY!!!
Here it is again, and since you're crying like a 5 year old girl, I will remove the cuss word so it won't hurt your wittle feelwings.
"So, you AGREE that no country grants exceptions to sedition, but yet you still said this:
"Agreed - though it isn't quite so simple: who decides what is unjust? On what grounds? etc. It doesn't give carte blanche to ignore whatever laws one dislikes, nor does it grant an open invite to revolution."
in response to this statement of mine:
"Sure, they might be breaking their unjust, dictatorial law----but as I just said, it's unjust, so their laws deserve to be ignored and overthrown---no?"
So, you ADMITTED that sedition is JUSTIFIED when certain rules were unjust. But your question was "who decides what is unjust?" And I ANSWERED that question.
But what you fail to realize [or you DO and just playing stupid as not to incriminate yourself] is, by you saying "AGREED" to me on that point, you are ADMITTING there are EXCEPTIONS to breaking sedition laws [unjust laws]....
and here you are TODAY saying that you AGREE with me that no country grants exceptions to sedition laws.
So in essence you are saying the SAME thing Rivero is saying: that unjust laws PERMIT sedition!!!
Now, if I'm wrong [and I know I'm not], then PLEASE clear up the difference between what I just PROVED you said about sedition and what you claim Rivero is saying.
Keep in mind---you AGREED that sedition is justified [as I proved, and as you SAID, above] but you only question under whose AUTHORITY sedition is permitted [NOTE: It wouldn't be a revolution if one needed PERMISSION from a government to revolt]. So PLEASE enlighten us all, how is YOUR stance different from Rivero's???
And one last thing, it is NOT spamming when you IGNORE a comment. If you IGNORE a comment, I will ask it again and again until you address it. Got it? Now, answer THIS post and you will not see it again. Capiche?"
There---cuss word GONE. Now ADDRESS IT.
"Actually, yes, I did mind the 50 times you previously called me.....fuckface, or whatever your insult de jour is.
That you have got away with it so many times is a measure of my leniency, nothing else."
LOL, yeah, your "leniency" miraculously stopped when I nailed your balls to the wall with your own contradictory statements and when I called you out on the fact that I exposed your hypocrisy, because in agreeing with me that sedition is justified in the face of unjust laws----you sound EXACTLY LIKE RIVERO, and you don't want that pointed out to you on your blog! You KNOW I'm right, that's why you DELETE the comment!
If I'm wrong, then address each thing I say in my long post above point by point. Im all ears.
Your comment - now absent the vitriol - is there.
Ok? So quit your stupid griping.
I'll make it clear as day for you, seeing as you find comprehension so difficult.
L: you are ADMITTING there are EXCEPTIONS to breaking sedition laws
----
Of course. I already this. The point is - what are the grounds for the exception(s)? Simply feeling a law is "unjust" isn't good enough. I nearly got sent to jail to for not paying a parking ticket - I was given half an hour to find £350, or else I was going to jail. Now, I think that is ridiculous, and unjust. Does it seriously warrant revolution? Don't be bloody stupid!
L: and here you are TODAY saying that you AGREE with me that no country grants exceptions to sedition laws.
=====
Rubbish! You are the one that refuses to recognise sedition laws exist.
I have said from the beginning that there are laws against sedition, and that there is no exception made, regardless how 'unjust' or 'tyrannical' the regime is.
L:PLEASE clear up the difference between what I just PROVED you said about sedition and what you claim Rivero is saying.
-----
My god, you're slooooow.
The difference is that Rivero is PRESENTLY ENGAGED IN SEDITION AGAINST A DEMOCRATIC STATE. HE IS NOT ENGAGING IN SEDITION AGAINST A TYRANNY.
I - and most everyone else (I assume) - would support sedition against Nazi Germany. Because of the nature of the regime - its war against non-aligned nations - the Holocaust - the invasion of Poland - dictatorship - suspension of democracy - the totalitarianism - the authoritarianism.
Present-day USA in no way qualifies as a similar regime. USA is democratic.
AND - Rivero's sedition against a liberal-democracy with a bill of rights, rule of law etc....GOES UNPUNISHED.
QED.
GET IT NOW???
Rivero justifies his sedition on the COMPLETELY SPURIOUS grounds that USA is "a tyranny".
Yet such is the tyranny it takes no action against people engaged in sedition against it.
Some tyranny.....
Therefore Rivero's grounds for sedition do not exist - he has no justification for his sedition.
No - it is not enough to simply believe some laws are "unjust". If you believe it is....then you're a fool.....and you're opening yourself up to facing the penalties prescribed for sedition. And rightly so imo.
But even if you do engage in sedition - which you have done yourself previously (calling for violent overthrow of government) - you don't get charged with sedition.
Some tyranny.
And whilst you consider yourself such a law-abiding citizen re The Constitution, you endorse people such as Rivero engaging in sedition against the state. Some patriot you are.
You want laws repealed? You want to abolish the FED etc?
GET ELECTED!!!!
But no - you can't do that, because nobody will elect you or those who believe as you do.
And so, rather than abide by the Constitution and work to change the laws legally - you resort to sedition - calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of the USA.
Some Constitutionalist you are! The existence of laws which you believe to be unconstitutional does not provide you with a right to foment revolution and engage in sedition.
The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional - not you. You can have an opinion, but that's all it is - YOUR OPINION. The Supreme Court decides - and you are Constitutionally bound to accept it. Else what is your commitment to the Constitution? In fact it doesn't exist. In fact you believe you are bound **only** to your own Constitution - YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Constitution. Well, sorry - but YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE. You have your opinion - and you have the liberty to have your opinion - you DO NOT have a right to decide what the Constitution "really" means.
And that's what you don't get. And that right there is the danger you "sovereign individual" idiots pose to society. You don't recognise any other view - you are a king to yourselves. Let's all behave like we're 9 years old. ridiculous.
Who are the most famous contemporaries who believed as you do?
Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh.
#Nice.
But that's fine, because they believed the USA was a tyranny and blah blah blah. Right?
beginning in the late 1960s, a number of right-wing fringe groups formed that questioned the authority and nature of the federal government. Most grew out of a recently emergent right-wing tax-protest movement: arguments about the illegitimacy of income tax laws were easily expanded or altered to challenge the legitimacy of the government itself. The most important of these groups was the Posse Comitatus,1 which originated in Oregon and California around 1970.
Members of the Posse Comitatus believed that the county was the true seat of government in the United States. They did not deny the legal existence of federal or state governments, but rather claimed that the county level was the "highest authority of government in our Republic as it is closest to the people." The basic Posse manual stated that there had been "subtle subversion" of the Constitution by various arms and levels of government, especially the judiciary. There was, in fact, a "criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice, disfranchise citizens and liquidate the Constitutional Republic of these United States."
The Posse wanted to reverse this subversion and "restore" the Republic through
(1) unilateral actions by the people (i.e., the Posse) and (2) actions by the county sheriff. The sheriff, they argued, was the only constitutional law enforcement officer. Moreover, his most important role was to protect the people from the unlawful acts of officials of governments like judges and government agents. Should a sheriff refuse to carry out such duties, the people (i.e., the Posse) had the right to hang him. In fact, the two most prominent Posse symbols became a sheriff's badge and a hangman's noose.
The Posse reached its peak in the early 1980s when a farm crisis in the Midwest allowed Posse leaders to recruit among angry and desperate farmers. By this time Posse ideology had developed into an elaborate theory involving an original, utopian form of government based upon "common law" (the "de jure" government) that had been subverted and replaced with an illegitimate, tyrannical government (the "de facto" government). Americans obeyed the de facto government, because they had been tricked into believing it was legitimate.
============
They believed the USA was a tyranny - so they were entitled to do whatever the hell they likes to overthrow it. According to Larry. Right?
"The difference is that Rivero is PRESENTLY ENGAGED IN SEDITION AGAINST A DEMOCRATIC STATE. HE IS NOT ENGAGING IN SEDITION AGAINST A TYRANNY."
It was also a DEMOCRATIC state in 1861, and the South was RIGHT for what they did.
So, what is your point???
"Who are the most famous contemporaries who believed as you do?
Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh.
#Nice.
But that's fine, because they believed the USA was a tyranny and blah blah blah. Right?"
An act of terrorism is NOT what the founders permitted in the Declaration. They permitted SECESSION. Isn't it odd that when the South did the PERMITTED thing in 1861 and SECEDED, the Federal government committed the act of terrorism by INVADING and PILLAGING the South??
Amazing huh?
Don't change the topic.
Now, let's have your explanation of the difference between sedition against, say, Nazi Germany, and against the present-day USA?
Oh, but hold on - you don't believe there is any difference.
Trying to overthrow a democratically elected government (one which also holds to a Bill of Rights) is an obvious case of sedition and is anti-constitutional.
And obviously, advocating such a thing is taking steps towards doing it - and encouraging it. Sedition.
Especially when you have every opportunity to attempt to get elected and repeal whatever laws you like - if you can muster the support to do so.
Only you - and Rivero et al - don't bother because you know you cannot succeed. So instead you claim you have a right to abolish the state apparatus, remove the elected government and wholly disregard the statute laws.
Read this again?
==========
"Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years
=============
Like it or not, that's the law.
Your first response in this thread was to say:
"it is the people's DUTY to form a new gov't when the old one is corrupt."
And you asked if Jefferson would be a traitor today. A traitor is actually slightly different to a seditionist, but YES, Jefferson certainly would be guilty of sedition today. He was then - it caused a war, don't you know?
Why guilty of sedition today? You even quoted a reason yourself:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"
and
"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government"
A democratic government with a bill of rights such as modern USA - even with all its faults - IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE DESPOTISM.
Yet you claim:
L: "The only big difference really is, in Germany it was more transparent---in the USA today, it's more hidden."
----
Woah!!
So you claim for yourself and your fellow-travellers like Rivero the exact same right to sedition that you and anyone else would grant the Jews under Nazi totalitarian dictatorship and in the face of the Holocaust!
wow.
That's the measure of your.....insanity.
On the face of it, you and Rivero - and all your fellow travellers - are liable to being charged with sedition. Up to 20 years in jail for it.....
You and the others justify your sedition on the grounds that the USA is "an absolute despotism"....a tyranny.
And yet none of you get charged with sedition.
That fact alone goes a long way to disproving your claims of American-state despotism and tyranny.....and gives all the more reason why what you do is sedition.....giving all the more reason why you could (should) be charged.
But of course, if you were charged with it, then you'd claim that was tyranny and despotism! lol
I'm quite amazed that the US state doesn't jump on you folks. I imagine the reasons they don't are
1) they don't take you all that seriously (who does?)
2) it would only serve to confirm your views whilst not pursuing you undermines them
3) it would cause a shitstorm
You don't seem to understand how relatively tolerant the US state appears to be over this stuff.....nor how far into it you and your fellow-travellers actually are.
I honestly believe you should seriously think about it.
And renew your commitment to democratic reform as opposed to revolutionary impulse.
Occupy the polling booths, eh?
And respect the result.
"Now, let's have your explanation of the difference between sedition against, say, Nazi Germany, and against the present-day USA?"
There you go, using Nazi Germany as the standard of tyranny AGAIN---something you keep DENYING you do!
"Trying to overthrow a democratically elected government (one which also holds to a Bill of Rights) is an obvious case of sedition and is anti-constitutional."
NO ITS NOT!!! Thomas Jefferson would DISAGREE. It just so happens that a democratically elected government was VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION in 1861----just as it has done for the last 150 years, but the reason people dont do NOW what they did in 1861 is because Lincoln's war was for the sole purpose of creating an American empire and killing states rights and making people think secession is treason. He succeeded in doing that.
Talking about 1861 is NOT changing the subject, because in 1861 it was a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED govt THEN, as it is now---and 13 states seceded---and they had that right to secede in peace. It was Lincoln and his armies that VIOLATED the constitution by FORCING them to keep together an INVOLUNTARY union.
You dont know JACK SHIT about our origins and our documents because you're one of the brainwashed jackasses that think Lincoln was a GOOD president--when in reality, he violated the Constitution more than ANY other president.
Here's a question for you:
Was the USA in 1861 like Nazi Germany?? [I am quite aware Nazi Germany came AFTER 1861----but my point is---were they alike?]
Since you LOVE to continually use Nazi Germany as the standard for tyranny---it begs the question---was the country in 1861 like them?
But yet they SECEDED---and why? They had EVERY RIGHT to. This is why hundreds of NORTHERN [did you catch that? I said NORTHERN] newspapers SUPPORTED the secession of the South--and its why Lincoln had them all shut down and threw their editors in prison. Now WHY would Lincoln throw NORTHERN newspaper editors in prison??? HUH??? HUH?????????
BECAUSE HE WAS VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION. HE WAS TRAMPLING ON STATES RIGHTS. HE WAS CALLING SECESSION TREASON-----[but our founding documents PERMIT IT].
Read much? Apparently NOT.
L: There you go, using Nazi Germany as the standard of tyranny AGAIN
====
You brought it up first. And it certainly is a reasonable measure of "tyranny".
All a sudden you don't want it raised, because you know the USA is nothing like it, and there goes your justification for your sedition.
L/RTO: Thomas Jefferson would DISAGREE.
====
How in hell do you know?
Did you miss this qualifier?
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"
So there needs be good cause. It's given as
"a design to reduce them under absolute despotism"
That doesn't exist. Nazi Germany - yes, obviously. Present-day America? No, obviously not.
You can rant all you like, doesn't change a thing.
ABSOLUTE DESPOTISM
Despotism: In its classical form, despotism is a state where a single individual (the despot) wields all the power and authority embodying the state, and everyone else is a subsidiary person. This form of despotism was common in the first forms of statehood and civilization; the Pharaoh of Egypt is exemplary of the classical despot.
The term now implies tyrannical rule. Despotism can mean tyranny (dominance through threat of punishment and violence), or absolutism; or dictatorship (a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator, not restricted by a constitution, laws or opposition, etc.).
=========
So, absolute despotism? In the USA today? You're kidding. If you really think so, it's a measure of how out of touch you are, that's all.
Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state.
FULL STOP.
Rivero is engaging in sedition.
Yes or NO, Larry??
Gee, I LOOOOVE how you COMPLETELY IGNORED all my 1861 comments. Hmmmm, I wonder why. There you go again, IGNORING comments that you can't possibly debunk. So, as usual, I will ask them again:
"Here's a question for you:
Was the USA in 1861 like Nazi Germany?? [I am quite aware Nazi Germany came AFTER 1861----but my point is---were they alike?]
Since you LOVE to continually use Nazi Germany as the standard for tyranny---it begs the question---was the country in 1861 like them?
But yet they SECEDED---and why? They had EVERY RIGHT to. This is why hundreds of NORTHERN [did you catch that? I said NORTHERN] newspapers SUPPORTED the secession of the South--and its why Lincoln had them all shut down and threw their editors in prison. Now WHY would Lincoln throw NORTHERN newspaper editors in prison??? HUH??? HUH?????????
BECAUSE HE WAS VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION. HE WAS TRAMPLING ON STATES RIGHTS. HE WAS CALLING SECESSION TREASON-----[but our founding documents PERMIT IT]."
I can list like 15 things right now about today's world [in 2011] that are worse than in 1861. Would you like me to???
You don't think Lincoln was a tyrant??? Oh god, PLLLLLLEASE say "no" so I can DESTROY you with fact after fact that will humiliate you.
Hilarious.
Larry says: Gee, I LOOOOVE how you COMPLETELY IGNORED all my 1861 comments.
=====
You're the one ignoring my comments and questions.
"Larry says: Gee, I LOOOOVE how you COMPLETELY IGNORED all my 1861 comments.
=====
You're the one ignoring my comments and questions."
Excellent response--lol. Despite there being actual words there that appear to be a response, do you know what I see?
I see this:
"I'm still ignoring your questions Larry, because you are 100% CORRECT that the United States in 1861 was NOT like Nazi Germany but yet they STILL had a tyrant [Lincoln] and therefore, they were justified in seceding [because there was DESPOTISM], and since I cannot refute that [because it's impossible] I will keep ignoring you Larry"
You even said this:
"Despotism: In its classical form, despotism is a state where a single individual (the despot) wields all the power and authority embodying the state, and everyone else is a subsidiary person."
Wow, sounds A LOT like Lincoln!!! Lincoln wielded ALL power [he suspended Habeas Corpus, shut down 300 northern newspapers and imprisoned their editors, created a new state [west virginia] WITHOUT proper ratification nor anyone's consent, invaded the south, killed southern civilians and pillaged many southern towns, even deported a United States congressman and issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the United States--among many other things.
Not a dictator/tyrant you say??
Not despotism you say???
But yet you keep claiming that unless the United States is EXACTLY LIKE NAZI GERMANY, it's NOT tyranny. I just proved to you that tyranny comes in many forms...one of them ---Lincoln---and the states seceded because of it and they had EVERY RIGHT TO. And you can't debunk it! [because it's impossible]
I didn't know Lincoln was still President.
Come on Larry.....
"I didn't know Lincoln was still President.
Come on Larry....."
Not the point dickface. The point is [and you KNOW this is my point]:
Was 1861 like Nazi Germany?
ANSWER PLEASE.
crickets, crickets, crickets
Hmmmmm...still no answer.
That's what I thought.
Of course America in 2011 is not like America in 18 whatever.
But it was your argument that it is.
That's part of your justification for your sedition.
You even argue America today is akin to Nazi Germany.
That's another part of your justification for your sedition.
You only make yourself more culpable. Carry on.....if you want to go to jail. Idiot.
Post a Comment