righteous rebellion

[Advocate]

So long as the government does shitty things, you have a right to resist. So long as you have power to be effective, you have a responsibility to resist. So long as the government does shitty things, the government has no right to resist your resistance.

[Walker]

Read Civil Disobedience by Thoreau for a more complete understanding.

Peacefully is an element of protest enumerated in the constitution.

Usually when one side (government) breaks the terms of a contract, such as that between the citizens and government, then revolution is in play.

Rigged elections breaks the contract.

[Advocate]

[quote=Walker post_id=483118 time=1607097443 user_id=11599]
Read Civil Disobedience by Thoreau for a more complete understanding.

[i]Peacefully[/i] is an element of protest enumerated in the constitution.

Usually when one side (government) breaks the terms of a contract, such as that between the citizens and government, then revolution is in play.
[/quote]

If the government was acting peacefully they'd have the right to require peaceful disobedience, but they don't, so they can't. The so-called contract is imaginary. The social contract is the foundation of the government's power and cannot be implied or implicit, it must be explicit, and it must be consensual to be valid, neither of which is the case. The pillars of legitimacy simply do not exist in any government i'm aware of, past or present.

[henry quirk]

Read Civil Disobedience by Thoreau for a more complete understanding.

Peacefully is an element of protest enumerated in the constitution.

Usually when one side (government) breaks the terms of a contract, such as that between the citizens and government, then revolution is in play.

Rigged elections breaks the contract.

I'm a little mystified by the alarm over rigged elections, as though rigged elections are the first & only deal breaker

the first time a body of lawmakers exempted themselves from the laws they craft, the deal was broken

the first time law enforcers exempted themselves from the laws they enforce, the deal was broken

the first time law adjudicators exempted themselves from the consequences of their arbitrations, the deal was broken

absolutely: stolen elections are deal-breakers, but we 'muricans have had just cause, for years, to say enough is enough

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=483139 time=1607100969 user_id=472]
[quote=Walker post_id=483118 time=1607097443 user_id=11599]
Read Civil Disobedience by Thoreau for a more complete understanding.

[i]Peacefully[/i] is an element of protest enumerated in the constitution.

Usually when one side (government) breaks the terms of a contract, such as that between the citizens and government, then revolution is in play.

Rigged elections breaks the contract.
[/quote]

I'm a little mystified by the alarm over rigged elections, as though rigged elections are the first & only deal breaker

the first time a body of lawmakers exempted themselves from the laws they craft, the deal was broken

the first time law enforcers exempted themselves from the laws they enforce, the deal was broken

the first time law adjudicators exempted themselves from the consequences of their arbitrations, the deal was broken

absolutely: stolen elections are deal-breakers, but we 'muricans have had just cause, [i]for years[/i], to say [i]enough is enough[/i]
[/quote]

gerrymandering, the electoral collage, the national reserve, Citizen's United, the Paris Accord, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Nobody i know agreed to have society become a rigged game with arbitrary, bullshit, and counter-productive rules.

[henry quirk]

Read Civil Disobedience by Thoreau for a more complete understanding.

Peacefully is an element of protest enumerated in the constitution.

Usually when one side (government) breaks the terms of a contract, such as that between the citizens and government, then revolution is in play.

Rigged elections breaks the contract.

I'm a little mystified by the alarm over rigged elections, as though rigged elections are the first & only deal breaker

the first time a body of lawmakers exempted themselves from the laws they craft, the deal was broken

the first time law enforcers exempted themselves from the laws they enforce, the deal was broken

the first time law adjudicators exempted themselves from the consequences of their arbitrations, the deal was broken

absolutely: stolen elections are deal-breakers, but we 'muricans have had just cause, for years, to say enough is enough

gerrymandering, the electoral collage, the national reserve, Citizen's United, the Paris Accord, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Nobody i know agreed to have society become a rigged game with arbitrary, bullshit, and counter-productive rules.

hell must be freezin': me, a natural rights libertarian and, you, a libertarian fascist agree on sumthin'

[Lacewing]

gerrymandering, the electoral collage, the national reserve, Citizen's United, the Paris Accord, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Nobody i know agreed to have society become a rigged game with arbitrary, bullshit, and counter-productive rules.

Agreed.

Isn't it strange that many people who want LESS LAWS AND RULES support these rules?

[Advocate]

[quote=Lacewing post_id=483152 time=1607103131 user_id=11228]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483148 time=1607102608 user_id=15238]
gerrymandering, the electoral collage, the national reserve, Citizen's United, the Paris Accord, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Nobody i know agreed to have society become a rigged game with arbitrary, bullshit, and counter-productive rules.
[/quote]
Agreed.

Isn't it strange that many people who want LESS LAWS AND RULES support these rules?
[/quote]

The difference is between saying that we need some structural frameworks for various purposes and saying the one we have is either necessary or sufficient.

[henry quirk]

gerrymandering, the electoral collage, the national reserve, Citizen's United, the Paris Accord, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Nobody i know agreed to have society become a rigged game with arbitrary, bullshit, and counter-productive rules.

Agreed.

Isn't it strange that many people who want LESS LAWS AND RULES support these rules?

my god, I agree with lace too?

hell is at absolute zero

which people, lace?

repubs & conservs don't want fewer laws & rules: they want their rules and laws

dems & progressives don't want fewer laws & rules: they want their rules and laws

even libertarians (the political party types, not the moral realists) want their rules and laws

so: which people want LESS LAWS AND RULES (but) support these rules?

[Lacewing]

Isn't it strange that many people who want LESS LAWS AND RULES support these rules?

which people, lace?

repubs & conservs don't want fewer laws & rules: they want their rules and laws

dems & progressives don't want fewer laws & rules: they want their rules and laws

even libertarians (the political party types, not the moral realists) want their rules and laws

so: which people want LESS LAWS AND RULES (but) support these rules?

Ah, well yes... I agree... people/groups want their OWN rules and laws.

I've often heard repubs say that dems want too many rules, whereas they (repubs) want less rules. Yet these same people support clearly skewed laws that are of benefit to them... such as gerrymandering and the electoral college... rather than abolishing those rules too, and allowing what is fair for ALL people. That is what I was referring to.

[Walker]

James Comey, Who Led FBI When It Spied On Trump Campaign, Gets Teaching Job At Columbia University
https://www.dailywire.com/news/james-co ... university

The FBI spied on the Trump Campaign. The proof is out there if you dig. Just because the media doesn’t consider it newsworthy does not mean it isn’t earth-shaking.

That should stop every thinking individual cold, right in their tracks. No need to go any further. No need to pass Go without stopping. But it doesn’t even slow the machine down. Not any more. Everyone is off chasing the next red laser dot.

Just because it hasn’t been prosecuted, or just because it’s old news, doesn’t pretty up the monstrosity.

But nothing will happen. This has become apparent in the past four years. The corruption runs too deep. Through his position in intelligence, Comey and his co-conspirators who go all the way to the top, have the goods on everyone. Talk about it and you will get the Trump treatment from the media, the entertainment industry, and the zombies. Truth doesn’t matter when that begins. Rest assured, resistance is futile against the proven template.

Obama’s abuse of power in the weaponizing of institutions such as the FBI is a corruption so complete, so embedded in the minds of so many as … just the way things are, get over it (the crime) and move on … not only does it go unpunished, it gets rewarded.

And the young minds continue to be poisoned.

Therefore it is Written: Since Unfairness be the new Rule, then its loin-girding time. Not time to get along, not time to heal from the Left's onslaught of the last 4 years +, not time to forget. To do so would be ... inappropriate to conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bQnxlHZsjY

[henry quirk]

in context, what does what is fair for ALL people mean, lace?

[Lacewing]

in context, what does what is fair for ALL people mean, lace?

That every person's vote counts toward the environment they want to live in. If more people live in certain areas, it's because that's what appeals to MORE PEOPLE. Areas with less people should not be able to force their uniquely specific attitudes onto the larger population and more populated areas.

Maybe instead of two warring political parties and one skewed president, we need a board of representatives for multiple interests... and the means by which to cooperate for (and deliver regional results to) a more diverse population.

[Advocate]

[quote=Lacewing post_id=483232 time=1607121721 user_id=11228]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=483200 time=1607110954 user_id=472]
in context, what does [i]what is fair for ALL people[/i] mean, lace?
[/quote]
That every person's vote counts toward the environment they want to live in. If more people live in certain areas, it's because that's what appeals to MORE PEOPLE. Areas with less people should not be able to force their uniquely specific attitudes onto the larger population and more populated areas.

Maybe instead of two warring political parties and one skewed president, we need a board of representatives for multiple interests... and the means by which to cooperate for (and deliver regional results to) a more diverse population.
[/quote]

Yes but...
You assume people can freely choose where to live in the first place, which is rarely the case. It makes more sense to count it as where they do Not want to live. They don't always have a great choice but they almost always have bad ones.

[Lacewing]

You assume people can freely choose where to live in the first place, which is rarely the case. It makes more sense to count it as where they do Not want to live. They don't always have a great choice but they almost always have bad ones.

What? Are you saying the tally of all person's votes should or should not depend on where they live?