New Crimes, New Punishments, A New America

To find out what we must do to stop these events from occurring again, we must first examine what allowed them to happen last time. It is clear and obvious that the Human Rights brigade bear a terrible responsibility for 9/11. They stopped the Secret Services from being able to interview people on the streets, to keep a close eye on the ground, and have hamstrung the efforts of our law enforcement agencies for too long. The notion of 'innocent until proven guilty' is a fine one, and a cornerstone of our democracy, but an overly zealous interpretation can turn this blessing into a curse, by stopping the Guardians of our freedom from functioning.

Salus rei publicae suprema lex esto.

'The Welfare of the public is the Supreme Law.' This fundamental truth is often overlooked by Liberals and Human Rights activists. Attempts to safeguard the population through unwieldy laws that admit of no latitude are bound for failure, as they will cause far more harm than good. We have already seen this with the pernicious influence of the 'innocent until proven guilty' adage, but let us examine it in more general terms.

The Left believes passionately in the Rule of Law. It believes that the law must be rigorously applied, without exception, to all classes of people equally. This may appear worthy on paper but it forgets that the people who apply the law, and the people who make the law, are just that: people, like you and I. If society at large is sick, then no amount of law will get in the way of the persecution of those perceived to be at blame. If society at large is healthy, then no amount of bad laws will result in overwhelming oppression. The breakdown of moral decency in society generally follows with the breakdown of moral decency in its laws, however (Nazi Germany, for example. Also, slavery in America happened despite the spirit of the law, not because of it).

We can see that a the relationship between law and society is not simple, as the two are intertwined. Any corruption of one will help corrupt the whole. The left thinks that the Law shapes society, that the rigorous application of the law creates society in the image of the law. However, we see that the two affect each other in a symbiotic relationship.

How, then, do we properly ensure that neither are tainted? That the law and society reinforce each other in a positive feedback loop?

Quite simply by promoting the strongest emotions known to Man: Love and Hate.

We must never forget we live in an Imperial Empire, the United States of America. The greatest danger in recent times has been the upswing of radical elements (who think, but wrongly) and apathetic oiks (who do not, at all). When America was at its strongest, every man loved his nation, and during the Cold War years America was a beacon of truth and democracy throughout the world, helping shelter those who could not defend themselves, via the device of NATO. For reasons outside the scope of this article, the love that was once absolute and general in our society for our nation and our laws has faded at the fringes, which more than anything has allowed the enemies of our values to strike at us.

You may be surprised that I refer to America as 'Imperial'. Usually this term is used by the left in a derogatory fashion, but it should not be. Imperial nations in the past have done more to advance Mankind than any other. With such examples as Imperial Rome, Imperial Britain and Imperial Athens behind us, how can we be ashamed of being designated Imperial? We should grasp this trait and promote it among our people. There is nothing wrong with loving one's nation, in fact many would say it is the most powerful love of all. Many young men have died for their nations, and not for their wives, children or parents. It is a loyalty that rises above all others - the nation is the expression of the people, and their values. Being unwilling to die for one's nation is a rejection of the self.

Solutions

We must make the people of the United States love the nation once more. Our ancestors were immigrants, but when they saw the Statue of Liberty off the shore of New York they knew that they loved America, and we should not betray them by hating their legacy. All should tremble before the glory that is Imperial America, and in this fear, they should find respect, and love, for the institutions and precepts that govern us. Oh America! She stretches from shore to shore, blessing every inhabitant with the light of freedom and hatred of injustice. Foreigners may hate the truth that America brings, and try to strike at us as an infant pats his father's hand with mewling anger, but behind this hate too lies love, a greater love of America that recognises us for our fundamental justice.

The modern equivalents of the Praetorian Guard, the CIA & FBI, must surely be allowed to do their jobs unhindered by the inquisition of the left and the straightjacket of law-by-rote. They must be allowed to use fear once more - what use is law enforcement without fear to back it up? They must be allowed to wiretap and accost whomsoever they wish, for surely they are our Guardians, just as we are theirs.

When the Romans found someone who denied the might of Rome, and intended Rome harm, they would not worry about using torture to make them love Rome. So it must be with America. Already we torture our enemies abroad, and soon we begin the process at home. Why shouldn't we use the Bride of Nuremberg upon the doubters of Washington's authority, those doubters who defend the WTC attacks by whinging about 'civil rights infringements'? The greatest love comes through pain, and it is already overwhelmingly clear that America is too kind with its children. When a father belts his child, it hurts him more than it hurts the infant. So it is with the task of the modern Praetorian Guard, which must discipline those Americans among us who have forgotten their liberties.

Fear, oh glorious fear, it is our most wondrous weapon. Everybody fears America, and everybody serves America, and we should rejoice that we are Americans, and thus the masters of the world, but even we are slaves to the beautiful lady glowering across the seas on the shores of New York. Let the world send a thousand terrorists to us now, and surely we will triumph.

We have awoken, fellow Americans.

	Wait a second, imperial Britain sucked! (3.00 / 1) (#1)
	by Hawaiian Mike on Tue Dec 11th, 2001 at 05:48:53 PM PST

	Yeah, that's right... Imperial Britain sucked. They subjugated with more violence than necessary and preciptated Apartheid in South Africa; they ignored the rights of both their own citizens and the people they were subjugating all around the world in the callous fashion they didn't. America wasn't much better. For instance, take Hawaii. How many Hawaiians were asking for their inclusion in the United States? I'd say the number was rather close to about six. The annexation of Hawaii was brought on by a small group of rich white plantation owners in Hawaii. <BR> As for Texas, California, and everyone between (don't forget Nevada and Utah or they'll be mad), they were stolen from another nation in a war that America began and knew it couldn't lose. Unless it really sucked in that war. Which it didn't. It sucks to be Santa Anna. All of these empires were forged via the subjugation of people who didn't want to be subjugated. This can't be forgotten. The greater good may come of something, but it's difficult to justify even some of the most noble ends with some of the least noble means.

	the truth about humanity (4.50 / 2) (#6)
	by PotatoError on Tue Dec 11th, 2001 at 10:48:54 PM PST

	dont try to pretend humanity is anything more than it is. The most sucessful civilisations have always been brutal and direct with their actions and these have later been seen as immoral. It is human nature to fight each other whether because of competitiveness, jealousy or greed for resources. This will never be stopped or erradicated - in some small way it will be happening somewhere as we speak. Only occasionally does this element of human nature flare up to involve an entire society - thats usually when a war occurs. Such immoral acts arent confined to the past - they will happen again, probably are happening right now too. As for individuals, we arent any different mentally from our ancestors 10000 years ago - the only real difference - apart from technology - is the laws we have made and the powers we have created to enforce these laws and hold society together. By following these laws we feel ourselves to be moral. But deep down every individual human is capable of carrying out any of the immoral acts our ancestors commited if put in the right circumstances. Like I said though - this society we live in creates the wrong circumstances for us to commit such acts but if any of us were born and raised in the past, we would do exactly the same as our ancestors did. Therefore we cannot say that humans are more moral nowadays - it is simply the rules of society which can be considered to have developed and become more moral. Probably in 200 years time much of what we do now will be considered immoral and wrong and we will be the 'bad' ancestors. Its all metaethics - is ethics right or wrong, is there a clear, global definition of good and evil. I dont believe there is - certain things such as murder have been imprinted into our society as evil but surely a society could exist where it isnt considered evil. In the same way we can say the aztecs were evil because they performed human sacrifices but they would consider themselves good and what person can seriously make an unbiased judgement as to who is right? I think no-one is right. Good and evil are relative to the person judging. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Humanity and the US (none / 0) (#8)
	by SpaceGhoti on Wed Dec 12th, 2001 at 01:14:31 AM PST

	You have to take it with a grain of salt. Humanity, as a whole, has a lousy track record with human rights issues. Grouped together, most humans are too interested in getting ahead on the backs of other humans. Occasionally, groups of humans get together to deplore the inhumane and insensitive treatment of other humans (or their own group), but by and large nobody cares. So long as people are concerned with getting ahead, nobody will care about who gets left behind. What the Hawaiian is complaining about is not that humans aren't very nice people. What he's complaining about is the fact that the US claims to be nice people, but doesn't act like it very often. The fact that the US defeated British oppression (at least, from their point of view) to go on to oppress everybody else on their turf is typically human behavior, but ideologically opposed to the philosophy espoused by its people. Americans talk the talk, but walking the walk is something else. America's greatest strength is also its weakness: diversity. The diversity inherent in American blood, culture and interests translates into an incredible potential for growth and success. The seeds of wealth and progress are found in the most unlikely places. However, that same diversity breeds bigotry, greed and oppression. Sooner or later two or more diverse interests are going to come into conflict, and human nature being what it is, people will compete and quarrel instead of cooperate. Thus you have Indian reservations, the State of Hawaii and a multitude of people discontented and demanding compensation. Of course, there's no easy solution. Finding compromise within such diversity is practically a sisyphean effort. People have their own opinons about how successful (or not) the US has been. Considering the meteoric rise of the nation over the past century, it can be argued that they've done something right. At what cost, history will tell. But in the end, the US is composed of humans, and humans are far from perfect. It's essential to call us on the things we do wrong, but do so with the knowledge that it's in our nature. We really should not cast stones before checking on our own sin, first. A troll's true colors.

	humanity bad at human rights? what?????????? (none / 0) (#11)
	by philipm on Wed Dec 12th, 2001 at 03:35:02 PM PST

	I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you on that one. You may be violating the no-trolling policy. Can someone get an editor? How can humanity possibly have a bad human rights record, you elitist liberal? This is the kind of elitist twaddle that causes most liberals to criticize Joe McCarthy. Just because some stinky unwashed beast-bearded redneck liberal thinks people should lick him so he doesn't have to take a shower, doesn't make that the correct viewpoint. As Mencken said: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." You can bet your sissy catholic liberal ass that humans KNOW what human rights are all about. If you want to know, you'd better take a letter too Maria. Should you have further questions about what human rights, please consult your neighborhood crackhouse. Thank goodness they don't allow people like you to be rich in America. --philipm

	Human rights (none / 0) (#13)
	by SpaceGhoti on Wed Dec 12th, 2001 at 09:13:19 PM PST

	Well according to Americans, the basic fundamental human rights include "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Joseph McCarthy violated at least two of those rights when he subpeonaed and incarcerated people for suspected Communist leanings. Although IANAC, Jefferson's inalienable right of "the pursuit of happiness" suggests that if an American chooses to pursue happiness as a Communisim, they have that right. This hypothetical American would simply have to make sure that their Communist beliefs didn't involve forcing everyone else to become a Communist, like it or not. I haven't yet heard a better definition of human rights, so I use Mr. Jefferson's definition. According to the historical record I'm familiar, humans are remarkably bad about upholding each other's rights (countless examples of genocide, slavery and oppression of ideals and cultures). Therefore, if your definition of a troll is that I disagree with you then yes, I am a troll. Please forgive me if that doesn't concern me overmuch. A troll's true colors.

	oh, come on! (none / 0) (#19)
	by philipm on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 07:38:33 AM PST

	OK, you liberal myth making revisionist. See, the commies had nukes, hated our guts, and were setting up forward bases in Cuba. Just because Shrubby now rubs Putin's bald head for good luck, does make the fact that Stalin was an evil butcher go away. The Russia of now is far far different from the Soviet Union of McCarthy's time. Instead of Communist, think "Taliban". Would your words hold up then? Unfortunately for you, you are blinded by the Christian liberal media. Are you by any chance, form Assachussetts? Jefferson was a slave raping hypocrite. He knew all about "human" rights. Please stop your elitist non sense. --philipm

	You are half liberal (none / 0) (#22)
	by PotatoError on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 12:23:34 PM PST

	You probably maintain the "everyone has a right to free speach" retoric even though we both know that if someone stood on a US street and voiced support of the taliban you would probably support silencing them. I dont have a problem with this in itself. Just the way that you hypocritically then claim everyone has a right to free speach. Maybe you should say "everyone has a right to free speach unless we dont like what they are saying". Thats not me being liberal - thats me talking the truth. You cant have the conservative "disenters are silenced" and hold onto the liberal "everyone has a right to free speach". Do one or the other. Even if preventing the right to free speach is only done in extreme circumstances when someone is supporting an enemy thats still preventing the right to free speach - i mean who decides who the enemy is? If enough people said that christians were the enemy would it mean they could all be silenced? Therefore I cant see how you can quote freedom as speach it as a human right of your country because it is infringed all the time by semi-liberal hypocrites like you. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	another racist (none / 0) (#27)
	by philipm on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 04:25:58 PM PST

	Can you stop with the racism? Why must you continually torment the irish with their great potato mass murder? An please don't call me a "half liberal". I am not half anything. As for free speech - its a completely moronic issue that is a red flag to catholic liberals such as yourself. Your opinions are poor, so they desparately need protection. When I state my opinions, they are so strong that everyone runs away. If you want free speech - START TALKING!!!! --philipm

	huh? (none / 0) (#29)
	by PotatoError on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 08:53:20 PM PST

	What the hell is a catholic liberal? is it the same as a christian liberal which you mentioned before? oh who cares. Actually im atheist if you really want to know. Dont know about being liberal though. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	What is your problem? (none / 0) (#35)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 06:38:53 AM PST

	OMG Philip will you please please GROW UP. Get over the past and stop crying over spilt potatoes. PotatoError makes a valid point. If someone voiced an opinion on something you don't agree on, would you be so happy to have free speech? No. Free speech has it's drawbacks, but you live with them. Stop bitching just because you can't make a valid point. Guess what, I'm in Ireland too, but I don't spend all my time crying over it. Get over yourself! Stop calling people racist for no reason!

	liberalism explained (none / 0) (#49)
	by philipm on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 06:48:44 PM PST

	"The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors--psychology, sociology, women's studies--to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view." -- P.J. O'Rourke from http://www.brassknuckles.net/humor/other/rourke.php --philipm

	That's funny... (none / 0) (#50)
	by Lint on Sat Dec 15th, 2001 at 02:51:14 AM PST

	I thought P.J. O'Rourke was a humorist. He does have a few correct observations, however: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	O'Rourke (none / 0) (#55)
	by nathan on Sat Dec 15th, 2001 at 05:10:15 PM PST

	He's an interesting person. I have a hard time staying mad at him - he reminds me of an Edwardian minor noble, the sort who'd cheat at cards but never let you down in a fight. He's a complete irresponsible brat, but his heart is generally in the right place, and some of his reporting is amazing stuff. For instance, his piece on the '86 student riots in Korea is the best I've ever read. Good humour is hard to write. You might as well write Swift off with the same stroke of the pen. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	potatoes are murder!!!!!! (none / 0) (#48)
	by philipm on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 06:29:55 PM PST

	I am sorry. I can not decode your references to mass murder, and other confused catholic liberal ethics. Do you even understand that the irish murdered half their race with the potato "misplanting"? How can an irishman hate himself that much? I guess the bagpipes are a good indication of how low an irishman can descend. --philipm

	Get over youself man!!!! (none / 0) (#58)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 17th, 2001 at 07:37:04 AM PST

	Get over yourself Philip. You're not even making sense. You sound like a crazy drunk person. Get out and do something interesting with your life. I'm an athiest in case you were wondering. You have this big thing about saying "catholic liberal ethics". It's like you learnt on one of those Word Of The Day toilet rolls. Haha.

	you are confused and all over the place (none / 0) (#23)
	by Stretch on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 12:40:04 PM PST

	the commies had nukes, hated our guts, and were setting up forward bases in Cuba. Meanwhile, we had forward bases (ie. nukes) in Germany, Turkey, Italy, Japan, etc etc and "hated" their guts just the same. Lets not forget we had ICBMs back then as well (the Soviets did not). Just because Shrubby now rubs Putin's bald head for good luck, does make the fact that Stalin was an evil butcher go away. The Russia of now is far far different from the Soviet Union of McCarthy's time. The Soviet Union was also quite a bit different when Stalin was in power. Much changed when Nikita Khrushchev came to power and began testing what was percieved as a weak CIA, and an untested president. President Kennedy met the Cuban missile challege brilliantly, however the CIA almost never outwitted the KGB despite incredible amounts of leeway (which, of course, had to be reeled in once they began to screw up constantly). Instead of Communist, think "Taliban". Would your words hold up then? Unfortunately for you, you are blinded by the Christian liberal media. Liberal christian media would the antonym to conservative taliban media, correct? Jefferson was a slave raping hypocrite. He knew all about "human" rights. Jefferson was not a slave raper, what makes you say that? Bonking a slave != rape. Sorry. Perhaps he was a hypocrite, but more likely just a rich white man, living in the present, offering solutions for the future.

	is your IQ even above 50? (none / 0) (#25)
	by philipm on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 03:32:13 PM PST

	What does the fact that we had an agressive posture have to do with their agressive posture? Did my argument hurt you so badly that you are reduced to gibbering? The time period of Stalin vs the time of McCarthy was almost the same. Even today, Russia is full of jew-blamers and Stalin worshippers. Do you have a point? I guess you don't really want to compare Taliban and commies, because, for you, Taliban is bad (even though they have no nukes), while commies are not and commie haters like McCarthy are very bad. But Taliban hating is OK, according to you. Zero logical content here. And as for the rape thing, you confused poor criminal christian liberal, can you even read? Lets see, A slave is "someone who has to do what I say" or ELSE. Lets pretend I go to a Slave and tell her to have sex with me. She has sex with me. That's not rape? Get a clue. P.S. Its people like you that force Texas to have the death penalty. --philipm

	when did the soviet union ever kill US citizems? (none / 0) (#30)
	by PotatoError on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 09:03:45 PM PST

	Yea. Thats my point. If the soviet union was so bad then how come there was no war. You see the soviet union and the US was more alike than you like to accept - both were super powers. Both had citizens proud of their nations. Both had huge military strength. The only difference was how this was managed. Communism is a very difficult to work properly - true communism has never existed on this planet. Its always been corrupted by human greed such as in Stalins version. The only reason you really hate communism is because it threatens your own way of life. Its not that it is 'evil' or 'kills people'. In the same way I could argue that capitalism does too. Communism is more complicated than capitalism and the fact that humans cant work it without corrupting it is actually an insult to our species organisational skills and lack of co-operation. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	hmm (none / 0) (#47)
	by philipm on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 06:24:12 PM PST

	you are begining to sound less like a catholic liberal. Perhaps, Protestant? P.S. Racism is wrong --philipm

	Yes, it is. (none / 0) (#39)
	by Stretch on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 12:35:01 PM PST

	In the future, please use spell check in your replies. Thanks. The Soviet Union felt like it was losing the Cold War (it was, of course) and thought a first strike was eminent, this is why they felt they had to install forward bases in Cuba. A little understanding goes a long way. They wanted to kill us because they thought we wanted to kill them. The reality is, Khrushchev never wanted to start a war, especially over Cuba. With that thought in mind, perhaps it would be easier for you to understand that while they had nukes they really did NOT want to kill us like you are proclaiming. The time of Stalin and the time of Khrushchev/McCarthism are distinctly different beasts. Period. The only reason I don't compare communism to the taliban is because they ARE different. If we were to compare and contrast them, it would be obvious, to even someone of your inferior intellect, that they are opposites and share few qualities. BTW, exactly where did I say I hated the taliban or McCarthy (or even inferred either?) A slave is "someone who has to do what I say" or ELSE. Lets pretend I go to a Slave and tell her to have sex with me. She has sex with me. That's not rape? There is a distinct difference between being titled "slave" and being treated as a slave. Since you can not prove Jefferson forced his slave(s) to have intercourse with him you can not prove rape occured. Perhaps Jefferson was seduced? Perhaps he, himself, was the one raped. Too much speculation on your part to declare one of our founding fathers was a rapist. In McCarthy's days, you probably would have been rounded up as a commie for saying so.

	what? (none / 0) (#46)
	by philipm on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 06:21:04 PM PST

	>>>Since you can not prove Jefferson forced his slave(s) to have intercourse with him you can not prove rape occured. I thought I just did. So now you support slavery? Please, Please don't ever get arrested. With your legal skills, you would get locked up right away. --philipm

	I think philipm needs attention... (none / 0) (#51)
	by Lint on Sat Dec 15th, 2001 at 03:19:11 AM PST

	A few examples of philipm's fine debating skills: "Your opinions are poor, so they desparately(sic) need protection." "unfortunately for you, looking at goatsex made you gay. Sorry, you are now a minority." "How can humanity possibly have a bad human rights record, you elitist liberal?" "Should you have further questions about what human rights, please consult your neighborhood crackhouse." "Thank goodness they don't allow people like you to be rich in America." "Unfortunately for you, you are blinded by the Christian liberal media. Are you by any chance, form Assachussetts?" "When I state my opinions, they are so strong that everyone runs away." "how about "evolution". Does that ring a bell you neanderthal(sic)?" "Don't expect me to participate in your liberal fantasy." "Have you ever actually had any romance in your life?" "You, sir, are worse than Hitler, and if I ever meet you I will kick your ass." "Now, which part of the double phallus upsets you wymanist? Is it the part that goes up your butt? Or the part that goes in your front? Because if it is the butt part then you are sorely mistaken, since italians love to have butt sex, everyone with everyone." "Money is a religion, just like science and all those other stupid liberal myths." "I hate clinton bashers too. They are bitter old undersexed morons. All of them." (On female circumcision) "I mean, I know it hurts and all, but so does 12 years of cheap education followed by 4 years of really really expensive education and a lifetime debt." "Were you abused as a little kid? Did your schoolteacher molest you?" "Do not tell me what is ironical and what is not, you mendicant!" "I, however, AM NOT IGNORANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!" And many, many more. With such keenly honed logic as is found in philipm's posts, who would dare debate him? Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	stop quoting me out of context you liberal!!!!!! (none / 0) (#54)
	by philipm on Sat Dec 15th, 2001 at 07:14:13 AM PST

	Hmmmm, perhaps you would like to post on the other site where a low signal to noise ratio is encouraged, where threads are never more than 2 deep, and where everyone has an opinion, but no one wants to listen. I think your refusal to listen and learn, along with your catholic liberal elitist attitude would fit in just fine there. --philipm

	Catholics are liberal? (none / 0) (#56)
	by Lint on Sun Dec 16th, 2001 at 05:03:08 AM PST

	All of them? Who would'a thunk it? Would you like to inform them of this amazing discovery, or should I? (P.S. Slashdot has better graphics. I'm sure it's some sort of liberal conspiracy. It might even involve shudder potatoes. Too early to say, really.) Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	I'm glad you agree (none / 0) (#57)
	by philipm on Sun Dec 16th, 2001 at 08:15:00 AM PST

	It is hard work trying to inform a catholic or a liberal of anything. I'm really not optimistic. Just reducing the level of ignorance on adequacy would be a good goal. --philipm

	Tranposing "Communist" with "Taliba (none / 0) (#31)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 02:01:05 AM PST

	My statement stands. A person has the right to pursue happiness through Islam, even by joining the Taliban, if they do so of their own free will. What they may not do is violate anyone's right to pursue their own happiness by not joining/following the Taliban. China, Russia and Afghanistan all have examples of violations of human rights. But that doesn't make it a crime to be Chinese, Russian or Afghan. To bring me back to my original point, the United States doesn't have a perfect record with human rights either, which is what the Hawaiian was pointing out. That doesn't make it a crime for me to be American, though. A member of the Taliban is not a bad person for their membership, but what they do in the name of that membership. Therefore, an individual Communist or member of the Taliban is no more evil or guilty than an individual American; it all depends on what they themselves have done to support or deny human rights. I suppose it is a hopelessly liberal point of view, but I choose to excersize my right to the pursuit of happiness by endorsing it. As far as I'm concerned, you are free to think, act or believe as you will so long as you do not encroach on my right to think, act or believe as I will. I, in turn, will promise the same courtesy. We don't have to agree, and may spend a few moments laughing at the pitiable attempts at justification by the other. So long as we do nothing to actively hinder each other's pursuit of happiness, then there is no foul. A troll's true colors.

	sounds good, d00d (5.00 / 2) (#32)
	by nathan on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 02:13:09 AM PST

	I'll be out back, peacefully waggling my dick at your kids. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	I always had a suspicion about Christians like you (none / 0) (#34)
	by derek3000 on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 06:37:55 AM PST

	But that's besides the point. Waggling your dick at someone's kids obviously would fall under some sort of different rules, because it involves minors. Not to mention the kids. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	How convenient. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
	by tkatchev on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 09:24:56 AM PST

	As soon as something that irks you occurs, it suddenly falls "under different rules". Sorry, but next time, will you at least try to make an honest attempt at consistency? I'm having a real problem taking you seriously at the moment. -- Peace and much love...

	well.... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
	by nathan on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 05:49:18 PM PST

	What're you going to do, use force to stop me? What if I'm standing on my own property? You Objectionablists are funny :) Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	You missed. (none / 0) (#67)
	by SpaceGhoti on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 03:42:14 AM PST

	If you want to whack off thinking of children, go for it. If you want to expose yourself to children or otherwise force children to participate, then you're causing harm and violating their rights. Most people consider waggling your dick at them to be insulting, violating their right to pursue their own happiness. As the judge said, my right to swing my fist is limited by the proximity of your face. But thank you for playing. Please try again. A troll's true colors.

	Finally... (none / 0) (#33)
	by derek3000 on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 05:46:26 AM PST

	Someone on this site who won't drag Objectivism through the mud with elitist, social-darwinist bullshit. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	i just have one thing to say to your post (none / 0) (#45)
	by philipm on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 06:16:22 PM PST

	www.fbi.gov scared? --philipm