...
The American government is totally 100% corrupt, the congress is 100% corrupt. A revolution would be healthy at this time
man, the US seems to have really gone to s**t, i cant believe that no one even voiced opposition to that! the people who run this world and the ones who believe them are surely ƒu**ed.
It makes one wonder who the real terrorists are?
Actually strike that. I think it's pretty obvious!
So much for the "land of the free", eh?
Jen
...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-1926 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-1926)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4239 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4239)
This most recent bill is referenced to a prior bill, I have links describing both of them above. If you read the bill though, I don't equate it as barring peaceful demonstrations like those conducted by Gandhi and King. Its basically saying that if you use interstate commerce and commit acts of vandalism and/or some form of bodily injury or threaten to cause bodily injury, then you are guilty of the offense. Neither Gandhi nor King used or advocated vandalism or violence. So I do not see the correlation between them and what these bills seem to be saying, although I could be misinterpreting them. I'm not a lawyer or politician, so I'm just giving you what I understand these two to say. But I would suggest others interested read the bill themselves and see what they think.
Quote from: RunLola on October 06, 2006, 13:46:14
• AETA is unnecessary. There are already laws to protect industries against illegal
actions, regardless of who commits the acts.
Yes, but now they can torture them along with the other terrorists.
I wonder when they will start calling Vegetarians and Vegans terrorists. Afterall they are involved exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction of an animal enterprise or a business having a connection to, or
relationship with, an animal enterprise, that may result in loss of profits but does
not result in bodily injury...
They don't buy meat... and so they are activly contributing towards the loss of profits for animal entreprises :-o
Well, after all, disturbing the Peace IS disturbing the Peace.
And you mention Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Well, think about it. Did they NOT cause some of the worse riots in their National Histories'. Yes, they used the legal cover of pretending to advocate Non-Violence, but are we to suppose that they REALLY did not intend the obvious Effects of what they Caused.
When I went to India several decades ago, I met a wonderful man, a Professor, who I became quick friends with. He told me a story of a 'Young Man' he had known, who was in Prison with Gandhi. This 'Young Man' worshipped Gandhi and and his officiousness was in the extreme, but Gandhi was not flattered in the least, but found the attention annoying. Finally Gandhi thought it best to disillusion the 'Young Man' and told him that all of the Holy Man Pretence was only a Public Relations scam and a legal cover, and that British Law could not prosecute a man for Sedition unless Harm was deliberate and intentional, and so there was all the 'talk' about Non-Violence. But the Riots were Riots were Riots. They were planned carefully, and all the right conditions were arranged whereby Violence could be the only result that could be rationally anticipated.
Who knows who told Martin Luther King of this same strategy, or whether he figured it out himself, or whether he was simply silly enough to believe that you could put thousands of angry people up against a Frightened Government that could reasonably suspect a Violent Coup ... and not expect Violence from either one side or the other.
So, no. If people do not like the systematic harming of animals, then we can vote on it. We can make laws and regulations.
But nobody should disturb the Peace.
QuoteAnd you mention Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Well, think about it. Did they NOT cause some of the worse riots in their National Histories'. Yes, they used the legal cover of pretending to advocate Non-Violence, but are we to suppose that they REALLY did not intend the obvious Effects of what they Caused.
Actually I have to completely disagree with you on this point. They, in fact, did NOT cause the riots. The riots were caused by the governments against which they were protesting at the time. Gandhi instructed the Indians to do non-violent acts that showed their protestations to the laws being inacted against them. These acts included burning papers, ignoring laws which were biased against them, etc. The indians were also instructed to accept whatever punishment was inflicted upon them for their refusal to follow the laws. The punishments ranged from flogging and jail time to death. But the protestors did not do the killing, the governments did. The protestors did not force the governments to take these actions against them. The governments had a choice on how to react. They chose to react with violence instead of non-violence.
QuoteFinally Gandhi thought it best to disillusion the 'Young Man' and told him that all of the Holy Man Pretence was only a Public Relations scam and a legal cover, and that British Law could not prosecute a man for Sedition unless Harm was deliberate and intentional, and so there was all the 'talk' about Non-Violence. But the Riots were Riots were Riots. They were planned carefully, and all the right conditions were arranged whereby Violence could be the only result that could be rationally anticipated.
Your portrayel of Gandhi's response sounds like something he may have said, although I can't confirm it as I've obviously never met the man. However, I have read his autobiography which I found incredibly insightful on so many levels. But I think the conclusions you draw from his statements are not necessarily those Gandhi had intended. From all accounts that I've read, Gandhi abhorred the thought of being considered 'great', 'enlightened', or any other word or phrase that in any way elevated his status above those of other men. This didn't stop people from doing it, but it was not something he himself encouraged or propagated.
What you call riots began as peaceful demonstrations. Violence was not the only result that could be anticipated. Peace was also an option. Although it did not come immediately, it did eventually arrive. And it arrived as a result of the acts and examples of Gandhi. Again, the Indians protesting were not violent, however they were not submissive in obeying discriminatory laws. The decision to react with violence was made by the governments in charge at the time as a means to maintain their control. They also could have simply given in earlier and in a peaceful way. In my opinion, the governments were the one's causing the deaths and violence, not the Indians.
Holy Cow, no wonder they don't read the bills they vote on. Anyone follow the links to try to find out what this bill says? geesh
Quote from: Arn de Gothia on October 06, 2006, 17:41:40
The American government is totally 100% corrupt, the congress is 100% corrupt. A revolution would be healthy at this time
Only if a few million more people fealt like you and i do. So in reality what your saying is that even people on strike fit this category? This is off topic, But did you ever notice that war protesters are always considered to be against our soldiers? Thats such bovine excrement. War protesters (most of them) are against what our broken butt government is doing. Not our soldiers that are in harms way.
But every time it gets twisted too look like they are protesting the soldiers. How much b.s is that?