Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Former Ole Miss student pleads guilty to hanging noose around statue honoring the first black affirmative action student
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Daily Negro
Mar 25, 2016, 10:20:02 PM3/25/16
to
A former student of the University of Mississippi pleaded guilty
Thursday to a federal civil rights crime, acknowledging that he
and another man had tied a noose and a Confederate flag around
the neck of a statue honoring the black man who integrated the
state flagship university.
Austin Reed Edenfield of Kennesaw, Ga., waived indictment and
pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of using a threat of
force to intimidate African American students and employees
because of their race or color, according to a U.S. Department
of Justice release. Edenfield admitted that he knew the rope and
flag would be threatening and intimidating to black students.
Edenfield will be sentenced on July 21 and faces up to a year in
prison and a $100,000 fine. The government has recommended
probation.
Another former student, Graeme Phillip Harris of Alpharetta,
Ga., pleaded guilty to the same charge last June, and was
sentenced to six months in prison.
The symbolic lynching, which the men did during the night in
February 2014 with an old version of the Georgia state flag
which includes a prominent Confederate emblem, shocked many at
Ole Miss and beyond.
The statue of James Meredith is prominent on campus, and it
speaks to the university’s complicated history.
Ole Miss was at the epicenter of a turning point in the civil
rights movement in 1962 when Meredith tried to enroll at the
Deep South institution after a Supreme Court ruling upheld his
right to do so. The governor and state legislature battled that
integration, and a riot broke out on campus around an old
Confederate monument. Two people were killed.
President John F. Kennedy ordered federal law enforcement and
troops to the campus to protect Meredith, a strong signal that
Washington would enforce the integration ruling by the Supreme
Court. Troops remained on campus until Meredith graduated in
1963.
The university has long taken pride in its southern heritage and
ties to the Confederacy. It shut down during the Civil War, when
almost all of its students enlisted. The school’s teams go by
the name Rebels, and until 2010, its mascot was the depiction of
an old Southerner, Colonel Reb.
But in recent years the university has distanced itself from
some of the symbols of the Confederacy, because it has become
for many a symbol of racism rather than history. The mascot has
been changed to a black bear, though still going by the name
Rebel. This fall, the university took down the state flag with
its Confederate emblem.
“The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that our
universities and our workplaces are free from threats of racial
violence,” said Vanita Gupta, principal deputy assistant
attorney general and head of the Justice Department’s Civil
Rights Division, in a written statement. “We will hold
accountable those who attempt to turn places of learning into
places of intimidation and fear.”
Brandi Hephner LaBanc, vice chancellor for student affairs at
the University of Mississippi, also issued a statement. “The
responsibility taken in today’s hearing is another step in the
right direction.
“Many members of our campus were deeply affected by this
incident and the university does not tolerate hateful behavior.
Today’s outcome affirms our position and sends a clear message
about what is expected in our shared community. I want to thank
the police officers, FBI and legal team for their hard work on
this case — we are grateful for their strong leadership.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2016/03/24/former-ole-miss-student-pleads-guilty-to-
hanging-noose-around-statue-honoring-the-first-black-student/
Thursday to a federal civil rights crime, acknowledging that he
and another man had tied a noose and a Confederate flag around
the neck of a statue honoring the black man who integrated the
state flagship university.
Austin Reed Edenfield of Kennesaw, Ga., waived indictment and
pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of using a threat of
force to intimidate African American students and employees
because of their race or color, according to a U.S. Department
of Justice release. Edenfield admitted that he knew the rope and
flag would be threatening and intimidating to black students.
Edenfield will be sentenced on July 21 and faces up to a year in
prison and a $100,000 fine. The government has recommended
probation.
Another former student, Graeme Phillip Harris of Alpharetta,
Ga., pleaded guilty to the same charge last June, and was
sentenced to six months in prison.
The symbolic lynching, which the men did during the night in
February 2014 with an old version of the Georgia state flag
which includes a prominent Confederate emblem, shocked many at
Ole Miss and beyond.
The statue of James Meredith is prominent on campus, and it
speaks to the university’s complicated history.
Ole Miss was at the epicenter of a turning point in the civil
rights movement in 1962 when Meredith tried to enroll at the
Deep South institution after a Supreme Court ruling upheld his
right to do so. The governor and state legislature battled that
integration, and a riot broke out on campus around an old
Confederate monument. Two people were killed.
President John F. Kennedy ordered federal law enforcement and
troops to the campus to protect Meredith, a strong signal that
Washington would enforce the integration ruling by the Supreme
Court. Troops remained on campus until Meredith graduated in
1963.
The university has long taken pride in its southern heritage and
ties to the Confederacy. It shut down during the Civil War, when
almost all of its students enlisted. The school’s teams go by
the name Rebels, and until 2010, its mascot was the depiction of
an old Southerner, Colonel Reb.
But in recent years the university has distanced itself from
some of the symbols of the Confederacy, because it has become
for many a symbol of racism rather than history. The mascot has
been changed to a black bear, though still going by the name
Rebel. This fall, the university took down the state flag with
its Confederate emblem.
“The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that our
universities and our workplaces are free from threats of racial
violence,” said Vanita Gupta, principal deputy assistant
attorney general and head of the Justice Department’s Civil
Rights Division, in a written statement. “We will hold
accountable those who attempt to turn places of learning into
places of intimidation and fear.”
Brandi Hephner LaBanc, vice chancellor for student affairs at
the University of Mississippi, also issued a statement. “The
responsibility taken in today’s hearing is another step in the
right direction.
“Many members of our campus were deeply affected by this
incident and the university does not tolerate hateful behavior.
Today’s outcome affirms our position and sends a clear message
about what is expected in our shared community. I want to thank
the police officers, FBI and legal team for their hard work on
this case — we are grateful for their strong leadership.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2016/03/24/former-ole-miss-student-pleads-guilty-to-
hanging-noose-around-statue-honoring-the-first-black-student/
Mr. B1ack
Mar 25, 2016, 11:17:04 PM3/25/16
to
"Pleads guilty" ? The statue was simply "adorned", not damaged.
I don't see any actual crime here ... or, at most, the most petty grade
of civil disobedience (which the left says is perfectly ok).
Hey, if some BLM activists glue some devils horns onto a statue
of Robert E. Lee ... are they gonna be arrested ? Just wondering.
In any case, thank Mr. Obama for working so hard to bring back
the race wars. It'll make America SO much better dontchaknow ...
I don't see any actual crime here ... or, at most, the most petty grade
of civil disobedience (which the left says is perfectly ok).
Hey, if some BLM activists glue some devils horns onto a statue
of Robert E. Lee ... are they gonna be arrested ? Just wondering.
In any case, thank Mr. Obama for working so hard to bring back
the race wars. It'll make America SO much better dontchaknow ...
Governor Swill
Mar 26, 2016, 1:38:37 AM3/26/16
to
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:17:02 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:
How about we "adorn" your front yard with a burning cross accessorized
by a few playfully thrown molotov cocktails on your front porch?
Swill
--
So if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump,
the charismatic guy promising to ‘Make America Great
Again,’ stop and take a moment to imagine how you
would feel if you just met a guy named Donald Drumpf:
a litigious, serial liar with a string of broken business
ventures and the support of a former Klan leader who
he can’t decide whether or not to condemn.
Would you think he would make a good president,
or is the spell now somewhat broken? - John Oliver
wrote:
by a few playfully thrown molotov cocktails on your front porch?
Swill
--
So if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump,
the charismatic guy promising to ‘Make America Great
Again,’ stop and take a moment to imagine how you
would feel if you just met a guy named Donald Drumpf:
a litigious, serial liar with a string of broken business
ventures and the support of a former Klan leader who
he can’t decide whether or not to condemn.
Would you think he would make a good president,
or is the spell now somewhat broken? - John Oliver
Beam Me Up Scotty
Mar 26, 2016, 2:48:57 AM3/26/16
to
On 03/25/2016 10:09 PM, Daily Negro wrote:
> A former student of the University of Mississippi pleaded guilty
> Thursday to a federal civil rights crime, acknowledging that he
> and another man had tied a noose and a Confederate flag around
> the neck of a statue honoring the black man who integrated the
> state flagship university.
>
> Austin Reed Edenfield of Kennesaw, Ga., waived indictment and
> pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of using a threat of
> force to intimidate African American students and employees
> because of their race or color, according to a U.S. Department
> of Justice release. Edenfield admitted that he knew the rope and
> flag would be threatening and intimidating to black students.
>
And yet all students and employees were intimidated.... which means it
> A former student of the University of Mississippi pleaded guilty
> Thursday to a federal civil rights crime, acknowledging that he
> and another man had tied a noose and a Confederate flag around
> the neck of a statue honoring the black man who integrated the
> state flagship university.
>
> Austin Reed Edenfield of Kennesaw, Ga., waived indictment and
> pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of using a threat of
> force to intimidate African American students and employees
> because of their race or color, according to a U.S. Department
> of Justice release. Edenfield admitted that he knew the rope and
> flag would be threatening and intimidating to black students.
>
wasn't racist. Even though an idiot kid who is likely NOT 100% "white"
perceived his own actions as "racist"
The KKK killed NOT just blacks but plenty of others and currently spews
hate at White Jews and any NON white and at whites who the KKK deems as
NOT worthy.
Which makes it a free speech question and NOT a "directed" threat that
was directed at any group (meaning it's NOT racist). And the flag is
about southern heritage which may well mean it was used to intimidate
Southerners in general or that the idiot-boy was too stupid to know who
it might intimidate. And the fact someone took a plea deal isn't any
indication of the crime but rather an indication that they feared the
Stars and Stripes and the Federal Affirmative-Action/JIM-CROW laws of
the Federal government. SO if anyone was threatening and intimidating
someone it was the Federal government that indicted a kid for an art
form the same as tagging territory by black gangs.... And the Liberals
call that tagging an art.
So either it's all tagging and all art or it's all hate crime and all
racism. SO where are all the Federal indictments for the black gang
members that tag the city to threaten others and other races?
It's time for a little equal protection under the law.
--
That's Karma
*Rumination*
#44 - Love your country, but fear your Government, and when they say
we're here from the government and we're here to help....
-run Forest run-
Mr. B1ack
Mar 26, 2016, 10:38:10 PM3/26/16
to
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 01:38:37 -0400, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:17:02 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"Pleads guilty" ? The statue was simply "adorned", not damaged.
>>I don't see any actual crime here ... or, at most, the most petty grade
>>of civil disobedience (which the left says is perfectly ok).
>>
>>Hey, if some BLM activists glue some devils horns onto a statue
>>of Robert E. Lee ... are they gonna be arrested ? Just wondering.
>>
>>In any case, thank Mr. Obama for working so hard to bring back
>>the race wars. It'll make America SO much better dontchaknow ...
>
>How about we "adorn" your front yard with a burning cross accessorized
>by a few playfully thrown molotov cocktails on your front porch?
That'd be an "attack" on an individual and private property.
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:17:02 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"Pleads guilty" ? The statue was simply "adorned", not damaged.
>>I don't see any actual crime here ... or, at most, the most petty grade
>>of civil disobedience (which the left says is perfectly ok).
>>
>>Hey, if some BLM activists glue some devils horns onto a statue
>>of Robert E. Lee ... are they gonna be arrested ? Just wondering.
>>
>>In any case, thank Mr. Obama for working so hard to bring back
>>the race wars. It'll make America SO much better dontchaknow ...
>
>How about we "adorn" your front yard with a burning cross accessorized
>by a few playfully thrown molotov cocktails on your front porch?
Seems that'd be illegal.
Statues standing around outdoors at public institutions are
a bit more, well, "public" - everybody's property. People have
been using such things to make "social commentary" since
forever.
Mr. B1ack
Mar 26, 2016, 10:41:37 PM3/26/16
to
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 02:48:53 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
<All-Liberal-Policies...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 03/25/2016 10:09 PM, Daily Negro wrote:
>> A former student of the University of Mississippi pleaded guilty
>> Thursday to a federal civil rights crime, acknowledging that he
>> and another man had tied a noose and a Confederate flag around
>> the neck of a statue honoring the black man who integrated the
>> state flagship university.
>>
>> Austin Reed Edenfield of Kennesaw, Ga., waived indictment and
>> pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of using a threat of
>> force to intimidate African American students and employees
>> because of their race or color, according to a U.S. Department
>> of Justice release. Edenfield admitted that he knew the rope and
>> flag would be threatening and intimidating to black students.
>>
>
>And yet all students and employees were intimidated.... which means it
>wasn't racist. Even though an idiot kid who is likely NOT 100% "white"
>perceived his own actions as "racist"
>
>The KKK killed NOT just blacks but plenty of others and currently spews
>hate at White Jews and any NON white and at whites who the KKK deems as
>NOT worthy.
You're missing the point ... doesn't MATTER what the
<All-Liberal-Policies...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 03/25/2016 10:09 PM, Daily Negro wrote:
>> A former student of the University of Mississippi pleaded guilty
>> Thursday to a federal civil rights crime, acknowledging that he
>> and another man had tied a noose and a Confederate flag around
>> the neck of a statue honoring the black man who integrated the
>> state flagship university.
>>
>> Austin Reed Edenfield of Kennesaw, Ga., waived indictment and
>> pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of using a threat of
>> force to intimidate African American students and employees
>> because of their race or color, according to a U.S. Department
>> of Justice release. Edenfield admitted that he knew the rope and
>> flag would be threatening and intimidating to black students.
>>
>
>And yet all students and employees were intimidated.... which means it
>wasn't racist. Even though an idiot kid who is likely NOT 100% "white"
>perceived his own actions as "racist"
>
>The KKK killed NOT just blacks but plenty of others and currently spews
>hate at White Jews and any NON white and at whites who the KKK deems as
>NOT worthy.
defacer was intending to convey - the action overlaps
pretty heavily with free speech laws and that's that.
People have been co-opting public images and
stuctures for social/religious/political commentary
since there were such things.
First Post
Mar 27, 2016, 12:04:41 AM3/27/16
to
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:41:36 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:
Good thing the kid didn't write "Trump 2016" in chalk on it or they
might have given him the death penalty, yes?
Seriously though. The statue was not damaged so the worst they should
be able to have charged him with would be along the lines of maybe
"mischief" or criminal trespass.
And whose civil rights did he actually violate?
Thus and so, the guy has been convicted of a federal crime for doing
nothing more than conveying an opinion. Hateful or not is really
irrelevant as he has effectively been convicted of a thought crime.
Meanwhile these guys are walking around free.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y3Cd9gnvlw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDb2byj74oY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiY170jCzUM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEqa90XpPw0
wrote:
might have given him the death penalty, yes?
Seriously though. The statue was not damaged so the worst they should
be able to have charged him with would be along the lines of maybe
"mischief" or criminal trespass.
And whose civil rights did he actually violate?
Thus and so, the guy has been convicted of a federal crime for doing
nothing more than conveying an opinion. Hateful or not is really
irrelevant as he has effectively been convicted of a thought crime.
Meanwhile these guys are walking around free.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y3Cd9gnvlw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDb2byj74oY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiY170jCzUM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEqa90XpPw0
Mr. B1ack
Mar 27, 2016, 3:00:02 AM3/27/16
to
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 23:03:38 -0500, First Post
<Liberals-Have-No-Point-If-They-Can't-Lie-A...@DumbassedDemocrats.com>
Let's hope there's a lot MORE of this sort of thing :-)
<Liberals-Have-No-Point-If-They-Can't-Lie-A...@DumbassedDemocrats.com>
Governor Swill
Mar 27, 2016, 2:16:32 PM3/27/16
to
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:38:09 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
gasoline.
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 01:38:37 -0400, Governor Swill
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:17:02 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Pleads guilty" ? The statue was simply "adorned", not damaged.
>>>I don't see any actual crime here ... or, at most, the most petty grade
>>>of civil disobedience (which the left says is perfectly ok).
>>>
>>>Hey, if some BLM activists glue some devils horns onto a statue
>>>of Robert E. Lee ... are they gonna be arrested ? Just wondering.
>>>
>>>In any case, thank Mr. Obama for working so hard to bring back
>>>the race wars. It'll make America SO much better dontchaknow ...
>>
>>How about we "adorn" your front yard with a burning cross accessorized
>>by a few playfully thrown molotov cocktails on your front porch?
>
> That'd be an "attack" on an individual and private property.
> Seems that'd be illegal.
>
> Statues standing around outdoors at public institutions are
> a bit more, well, "public" - everybody's property. People have
> been using such things to make "social commentary" since
> forever.
Then let's do it at the school your kids attend. I'll go get the
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 01:38:37 -0400, Governor Swill
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:17:02 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Pleads guilty" ? The statue was simply "adorned", not damaged.
>>>I don't see any actual crime here ... or, at most, the most petty grade
>>>of civil disobedience (which the left says is perfectly ok).
>>>
>>>Hey, if some BLM activists glue some devils horns onto a statue
>>>of Robert E. Lee ... are they gonna be arrested ? Just wondering.
>>>
>>>In any case, thank Mr. Obama for working so hard to bring back
>>>the race wars. It'll make America SO much better dontchaknow ...
>>
>>How about we "adorn" your front yard with a burning cross accessorized
>>by a few playfully thrown molotov cocktails on your front porch?
>
> That'd be an "attack" on an individual and private property.
> Seems that'd be illegal.
>
> Statues standing around outdoors at public institutions are
> a bit more, well, "public" - everybody's property. People have
> been using such things to make "social commentary" since
> forever.
gasoline.
Governor Swill
Mar 27, 2016, 2:18:25 PM3/27/16
to
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:41:36 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>The KKK killed NOT just blacks but plenty of others and currently spews
>>hate at White Jews and any NON white and at whites who the KKK deems as
>>NOT worthy.
>
> You're missing the point ... doesn't MATTER what the
> defacer was intending to convey - the action overlaps
> pretty heavily with free speech laws and that's that.
> People have been co-opting public images and
> stuctures for social/religious/political commentary
> since there were such things.
Our society distinguishes between opinion and hate speech. Speech
>>The KKK killed NOT just blacks but plenty of others and currently spews
>>hate at White Jews and any NON white and at whites who the KKK deems as
>>NOT worthy.
>
> You're missing the point ... doesn't MATTER what the
> defacer was intending to convey - the action overlaps
> pretty heavily with free speech laws and that's that.
> People have been co-opting public images and
> stuctures for social/religious/political commentary
> since there were such things.
specifically intended to create hatred and even incite violence is not
protected. Reference the urban myth of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded
movie theater.
Some forms of protection are not protected.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Mar 27, 2016, 5:49:01 PM3/27/16
to
there.... Maybe I went back and added it at a later time but it's in
that thread.
My ending summation was that the whole thing "in order to be equal under
the law" has to be under free speech and be treated the same as gang
tags that they use to warn off other races and gangs from their
territory and we don't see the black gang members being arrested for
Federal hate crimes about race when they tag their territory so it's NOT
equal under the law to arrest the whites that would do similar art work
for similar reasons.
--
That's Karma
Mr. B1ack
Mar 28, 2016, 5:26:32 PM3/28/16
to
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 14:16:32 -0400, Governor Swill
sorry. Now if you want to self-immolate just to make
a point, feel free ... but it does contribute to the CO2
problem .................
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:38:09 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 01:38:37 -0400, Governor Swill
>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:17:02 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Pleads guilty" ? The statue was simply "adorned", not damaged.
>>>>I don't see any actual crime here ... or, at most, the most petty grade
>>>>of civil disobedience (which the left says is perfectly ok).
>>>>
>>>>Hey, if some BLM activists glue some devils horns onto a statue
>>>>of Robert E. Lee ... are they gonna be arrested ? Just wondering.
>>>>
>>>>In any case, thank Mr. Obama for working so hard to bring back
>>>>the race wars. It'll make America SO much better dontchaknow ...
>>>
>>>How about we "adorn" your front yard with a burning cross accessorized
>>>by a few playfully thrown molotov cocktails on your front porch?
>>
>> That'd be an "attack" on an individual and private property.
>> Seems that'd be illegal.
>>
>> Statues standing around outdoors at public institutions are
>> a bit more, well, "public" - everybody's property. People have
>> been using such things to make "social commentary" since
>> forever.
>
>Then let's do it at the school your kids attend. I'll go get the
>gasoline.
None of the schools around here have any statues,
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:38:09 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 01:38:37 -0400, Governor Swill
>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:17:02 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Pleads guilty" ? The statue was simply "adorned", not damaged.
>>>>I don't see any actual crime here ... or, at most, the most petty grade
>>>>of civil disobedience (which the left says is perfectly ok).
>>>>
>>>>Hey, if some BLM activists glue some devils horns onto a statue
>>>>of Robert E. Lee ... are they gonna be arrested ? Just wondering.
>>>>
>>>>In any case, thank Mr. Obama for working so hard to bring back
>>>>the race wars. It'll make America SO much better dontchaknow ...
>>>
>>>How about we "adorn" your front yard with a burning cross accessorized
>>>by a few playfully thrown molotov cocktails on your front porch?
>>
>> That'd be an "attack" on an individual and private property.
>> Seems that'd be illegal.
>>
>> Statues standing around outdoors at public institutions are
>> a bit more, well, "public" - everybody's property. People have
>> been using such things to make "social commentary" since
>> forever.
>
>Then let's do it at the school your kids attend. I'll go get the
>gasoline.
sorry. Now if you want to self-immolate just to make
a point, feel free ... but it does contribute to the CO2
problem .................
Mr. B1ack
Mar 28, 2016, 5:46:08 PM3/28/16
to
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 14:18:25 -0400, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:41:36 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>
>>>The KKK killed NOT just blacks but plenty of others and currently spews
>>>hate at White Jews and any NON white and at whites who the KKK deems as
>>>NOT worthy.
>>
>> You're missing the point ... doesn't MATTER what the
>> defacer was intending to convey - the action overlaps
>> pretty heavily with free speech laws and that's that.
>> People have been co-opting public images and
>> stuctures for social/religious/political commentary
>> since there were such things.
>
>Our society distinguishes between opinion and hate speech.
Um ... expressing displeasure and anger IS "speech" ...
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:41:36 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>
>>>The KKK killed NOT just blacks but plenty of others and currently spews
>>>hate at White Jews and any NON white and at whites who the KKK deems as
>>>NOT worthy.
>>
>> You're missing the point ... doesn't MATTER what the
>> defacer was intending to convey - the action overlaps
>> pretty heavily with free speech laws and that's that.
>> People have been co-opting public images and
>> stuctures for social/religious/political commentary
>> since there were such things.
>
>Our society distinguishes between opinion and hate speech.
and duly protected in anyplace that likes to think of itself
as a free country. Sounds like you want to censor any
speech/opionions YOU may disagree with. You'd fit in
just fine at Ole Miss with the Young Totalitarians.
>Speech
>specifically intended to create hatred and even incite violence is not
>protected.
(though it shouldn't be). "I Hate X" is a perfectly valid
sociopolitical opinion and must never be verboten.
Interesting though, the sorts of thought crime you
wish to suppress ... sounds like the same invective
the Young Totalitarians scream out ....... planning
to have yer own lips zippered ?
Remember who wrote the Bill-o-Rights ... and the
kinds of things THEY were saying before and during
the revolution. Think they'd fail to cover their own
brands of speech ? IMHO the B-o-R covers, indeed
was written to cover, "revolutionary" speech and
even "incitement". Anybody who wants you to think
otherwise has a hidden agenda ....
>Reference the urban myth of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded
>movie theater.
to create a blind panic for fun and giggles.
BTW, we need an update to this - when's the last
time a theatre burned down ? They quit using oil
and acetylene for lighting ages ago. Today if you
shout "Fire !" everybody's gonna just look around
and say "Where ?" as they record with their phones.
Shouting "Allau Al-Akbar !" in a crowded theater may
be the more modern equivalent.
>Some forms of protection are not protected.
Mr. B1ack
Mar 28, 2016, 5:49:24 PM3/28/16
to
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 17:48:57 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
Remember who wrote the 1st amendment - people
who made a career inciting revolution and animosity.
"Hate speech" is just a political opinion YOU don't like.
who made a career inciting revolution and animosity.
"Hate speech" is just a political opinion YOU don't like.
Governor Swill
Mar 28, 2016, 10:34:10 PM3/28/16
to
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:46:07 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 14:18:25 -0400, Governor Swill
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:41:36 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>
>>>>The KKK killed NOT just blacks but plenty of others and currently spews
>>>>hate at White Jews and any NON white and at whites who the KKK deems as
>>>>NOT worthy.
>>>
>>> You're missing the point ... doesn't MATTER what the
>>> defacer was intending to convey - the action overlaps
>>> pretty heavily with free speech laws and that's that.
>>> People have been co-opting public images and
>>> stuctures for social/religious/political commentary
>>> since there were such things.
>>
>>Our society distinguishes between opinion and hate speech.
>
> Um ... expressing displeasure and anger IS "speech" ...
> and duly protected in anyplace that likes to think of itself
> as a free country. Sounds like you want to censor any
> speech/opionions YOU may disagree with. You'd fit in
> just fine at Ole Miss with the Young Totalitarians.
That's not hate speech.
noun
1.
speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the
basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender
identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hate-speech
>>Speech
>>specifically intended to create hatred and even incite violence is not
>>protected.
>
> Deliberate acute incitement is sometimes verboten
> (though it shouldn't be). "I Hate X" is a perfectly valid
> sociopolitical opinion and must never be verboten.
Nope. Unless you X is, " . . .fags and they should all be dropped
into the ocean in cement overcoats."
> Interesting though, the sorts of thought crime you
> wish to suppress ... sounds like the same invective
> the Young Totalitarians scream out ....... planning
> to have yer own lips zippered ?
The shoe doesn't fit the foot you're trying to put it on. Look
elsewhere for your Cinderella.
> Remember who wrote the Bill-o-Rights ... and the
> kinds of things THEY were saying before and during
> the revolution. Think they'd fail to cover their own
> brands of speech ? IMHO the B-o-R covers, indeed
> was written to cover, "revolutionary" speech and
> even "incitement". Anybody who wants you to think
> otherwise has a hidden agenda ....
Again, read what they wrote and said. The people they hated, they
hated for things they did, not for things they were.
>>Reference the urban myth of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded
>>movie theater.
>
> Not the same. That's deliberate mis-info intended
> to create a blind panic for fun and giggles.
Tell that to the homeless latino a couple of Donald fans beat up
because he wasn't white.
> BTW, we need an update to this - when's the last
> time a theatre burned down ? They quit using oil
> and acetylene for lighting ages ago. Today if you
> shout "Fire !" everybody's gonna just look around
> and say "Where ?" as they record with their phones.
> Shouting "Allau Al-Akbar !" in a crowded theater may
> be the more modern equivalent.
Anything intended to terrify a crowd or incite them to violence.
Doesn't have to be fire or Allah. Could be snakes on a plane.
>>Some forms of protection are not protected.
>
> Odd statement ....
Bad typo.
Some forms of speech are not protected.
wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 14:18:25 -0400, Governor Swill
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:41:36 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>
>>>>The KKK killed NOT just blacks but plenty of others and currently spews
>>>>hate at White Jews and any NON white and at whites who the KKK deems as
>>>>NOT worthy.
>>>
>>> You're missing the point ... doesn't MATTER what the
>>> defacer was intending to convey - the action overlaps
>>> pretty heavily with free speech laws and that's that.
>>> People have been co-opting public images and
>>> stuctures for social/religious/political commentary
>>> since there were such things.
>>
>>Our society distinguishes between opinion and hate speech.
>
> Um ... expressing displeasure and anger IS "speech" ...
> and duly protected in anyplace that likes to think of itself
> as a free country. Sounds like you want to censor any
> speech/opionions YOU may disagree with. You'd fit in
> just fine at Ole Miss with the Young Totalitarians.
noun
1.
speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the
basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender
identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hate-speech
>>Speech
>>specifically intended to create hatred and even incite violence is not
>>protected.
>
> Deliberate acute incitement is sometimes verboten
> (though it shouldn't be). "I Hate X" is a perfectly valid
> sociopolitical opinion and must never be verboten.
into the ocean in cement overcoats."
> Interesting though, the sorts of thought crime you
> wish to suppress ... sounds like the same invective
> the Young Totalitarians scream out ....... planning
> to have yer own lips zippered ?
elsewhere for your Cinderella.
> Remember who wrote the Bill-o-Rights ... and the
> kinds of things THEY were saying before and during
> the revolution. Think they'd fail to cover their own
> brands of speech ? IMHO the B-o-R covers, indeed
> was written to cover, "revolutionary" speech and
> even "incitement". Anybody who wants you to think
> otherwise has a hidden agenda ....
hated for things they did, not for things they were.
>>Reference the urban myth of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded
>>movie theater.
>
> Not the same. That's deliberate mis-info intended
> to create a blind panic for fun and giggles.
because he wasn't white.
> BTW, we need an update to this - when's the last
> time a theatre burned down ? They quit using oil
> and acetylene for lighting ages ago. Today if you
> shout "Fire !" everybody's gonna just look around
> and say "Where ?" as they record with their phones.
> Shouting "Allau Al-Akbar !" in a crowded theater may
> be the more modern equivalent.
Doesn't have to be fire or Allah. Could be snakes on a plane.
>>Some forms of protection are not protected.
>
> Odd statement ....
Some forms of speech are not protected.
Governor Swill
Mar 28, 2016, 10:35:58 PM3/28/16
to
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:49:23 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:
> Remember who wrote the 1st amendment - people
> who made a career inciting revolution and animosity.
I don't see that.
> "Hate speech" is just a political opinion YOU don't like.
Don't project. It isn't polite. There are a lot of political
opinions I don't like that aren't hate speech.
wrote:
> Remember who wrote the 1st amendment - people
> who made a career inciting revolution and animosity.
> "Hate speech" is just a political opinion YOU don't like.
opinions I don't like that aren't hate speech.
None of the Above
Mar 29, 2016, 3:55:06 AM3/29/16
to
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 22:34:11 -0400, Governor Swill
...unless you are a white, straight, conservative/libertarian male.
Then it's a free fire zone...
Then it's a free fire zone...
Mr. B1ack
Mar 29, 2016, 9:16:53 AM3/29/16
to
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 22:35:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:49:23 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Remember who wrote the 1st amendment - people
>> who made a career inciting revolution and animosity.
>
>I don't see that.
>
>> "Hate speech" is just a political opinion YOU don't like.
>
>Don't project. It isn't polite. There are a lot of political
>opinions I don't like that aren't hate speech.
You're just trying to make a case for content-selective
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:49:23 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Remember who wrote the 1st amendment - people
>> who made a career inciting revolution and animosity.
>
>I don't see that.
>
>> "Hate speech" is just a political opinion YOU don't like.
>
>Don't project. It isn't polite. There are a lot of political
>opinions I don't like that aren't hate speech.
censorship of sociopolitical opinion. This puts you in
the same category as Jong-Un and Irans Imams who
tailor the rules to enhance THEIR rule.
"Hate" is a genuine human emotion, a geniune perspective
on certain things and, sometimes, well-justifed and very
honest. Start picking and choosing what people may express
and there's no end to it ; your 'freedom' will become limited
to just what the powerful find useful to allow.
The 1st amendment was never meant for minimialistic
interpretation, nor any part of the BOR. The civil rights
described should always be pushed as far as it's sane
to go (and maybe a tad further just to be safe), not
dispensed with an eyedropper at the States convenience.
There is a constant stream of people wanting in to the
USA because their home countries were far too selective
about what people can say or think .... and yet you, I
suppose born here, seem eager to make the USA more
like the countries the others are fleeing. Hate to say it
but even Trump sounds more for the ideal of free speech
than what you're trying to sell here.
Think on it for awhile. ANY restriction can always be
"justified" somehow - so any and all CAN be implemented
and, if history teaches anything, WILL be implemented.
There's only one way out ... restrict no speech. All shades
of grey eventually fade to black and in a heavily e-monitored
world enforcment becomes much, much easier.
Governor Swill
Mar 30, 2016, 12:37:01 AM3/30/16
to
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:16:52 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>Don't project. It isn't polite. There are a lot of political
>>opinions I don't like that aren't hate speech.
>
> You're just trying to make a case for content-selective
> censorship of sociopolitical opinion. This puts you in
> the same category as Jong-Un and Irans Imams who
> tailor the rules to enhance THEIR rule.
Actually, I'm making a case for limiting speech that advocates
>>Don't project. It isn't polite. There are a lot of political
>>opinions I don't like that aren't hate speech.
>
> You're just trying to make a case for content-selective
> censorship of sociopolitical opinion. This puts you in
> the same category as Jong-Un and Irans Imams who
> tailor the rules to enhance THEIR rule.
violence.
Mr. B1ack
Mar 30, 2016, 8:18:41 AM3/30/16
to
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:37:02 -0400, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:16:52 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>
>>>Don't project. It isn't polite. There are a lot of political
>>>opinions I don't like that aren't hate speech.
>>
>> You're just trying to make a case for content-selective
>> censorship of sociopolitical opinion. This puts you in
>> the same category as Jong-Un and Irans Imams who
>> tailor the rules to enhance THEIR rule.
>
>Actually, I'm making a case for limiting speech that advocates
>violence.
Sometimes violence is called for. Less so in
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:16:52 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>
>>>Don't project. It isn't polite. There are a lot of political
>>>opinions I don't like that aren't hate speech.
>>
>> You're just trying to make a case for content-selective
>> censorship of sociopolitical opinion. This puts you in
>> the same category as Jong-Un and Irans Imams who
>> tailor the rules to enhance THEIR rule.
>
>Actually, I'm making a case for limiting speech that advocates
>violence.
the USA, but elsewhere ...
Governor Swill
Mar 31, 2016, 1:45:13 AM3/31/16
to
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:18:40 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
perpetrated against them? Niggers? Queers? Kikes? Spics? Bitches?
Well, the ugly ones anyway. Who else should we kill to make America a
better place?
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:37:02 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:16:52 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>
>>>>Don't project. It isn't polite. There are a lot of political
>>>>opinions I don't like that aren't hate speech.
>>>
>>> You're just trying to make a case for content-selective
>>> censorship of sociopolitical opinion. This puts you in
>>> the same category as Jong-Un and Irans Imams who
>>> tailor the rules to enhance THEIR rule.
>>
>>Actually, I'm making a case for limiting speech that advocates
>>violence.
>
> Sometimes violence is called for. Less so in
> the USA, but elsewhere ...
Violence against who? What group of people in America need violence
>>On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:16:52 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>
>>>>Don't project. It isn't polite. There are a lot of political
>>>>opinions I don't like that aren't hate speech.
>>>
>>> You're just trying to make a case for content-selective
>>> censorship of sociopolitical opinion. This puts you in
>>> the same category as Jong-Un and Irans Imams who
>>> tailor the rules to enhance THEIR rule.
>>
>>Actually, I'm making a case for limiting speech that advocates
>>violence.
>
> Sometimes violence is called for. Less so in
> the USA, but elsewhere ...
perpetrated against them? Niggers? Queers? Kikes? Spics? Bitches?
Well, the ugly ones anyway. Who else should we kill to make America a
better place?
Mr. B1ack
Mar 31, 2016, 9:26:13 PM3/31/16
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 01:45:14 -0400, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:18:40 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:37:02 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:16:52 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Don't project. It isn't polite. There are a lot of political
>>>>>opinions I don't like that aren't hate speech.
>>>>
>>>> You're just trying to make a case for content-selective
>>>> censorship of sociopolitical opinion. This puts you in
>>>> the same category as Jong-Un and Irans Imams who
>>>> tailor the rules to enhance THEIR rule.
>>>
>>>Actually, I'm making a case for limiting speech that advocates
>>>violence.
>>
>> Sometimes violence is called for. Less so in
>> the USA, but elsewhere ...
>
>Violence against who? What group of people in America need violence
>perpetrated against them? Niggers? Queers? Kikes? Spics? Bitches?
>Well, the ugly ones anyway. Who else should we kill to make America a
>better place?
Gee ... you're one hell of a racist Swill .........
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:18:40 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:37:02 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:16:52 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Don't project. It isn't polite. There are a lot of political
>>>>>opinions I don't like that aren't hate speech.
>>>>
>>>> You're just trying to make a case for content-selective
>>>> censorship of sociopolitical opinion. This puts you in
>>>> the same category as Jong-Un and Irans Imams who
>>>> tailor the rules to enhance THEIR rule.
>>>
>>>Actually, I'm making a case for limiting speech that advocates
>>>violence.
>>
>> Sometimes violence is called for. Less so in
>> the USA, but elsewhere ...
>
>Violence against who? What group of people in America need violence
>perpetrated against them? Niggers? Queers? Kikes? Spics? Bitches?
>Well, the ugly ones anyway. Who else should we kill to make America a
>better place?
I was thinking more of violence along the lines of
diametrically-opposed asshole political/ideological
factions. That's usually where it starts, and generally
both sides deserve a good bitch-slapping.
Governor Swill
Mar 31, 2016, 11:51:49 PM3/31/16
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 21:26:13 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:
Ok, so lets kill all the radical conservatives and all the radical
liberals.
wrote:
liberals.
Mr. B1ack
Apr 1, 2016, 9:50:59 PM4/1/16
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 23:51:49 -0400, Governor Swill
YOU said it ... :-)
Ya left out the lawyers though ....
There's a problem with eliminating all the rads alas,
it's kind of like wanting to throw all the homos onto
a bonfire ... every generation you get MORE. Five
percent or so will always become rads, and cause
95% of the trouble.
Fortunately 'rad' is a bit relative. In a bland boring town
the guy who wears a red hat is a 'rad'. The social and
economic environment can conspire to make the rads
somewhat *less* rad in absolute terms, they'll just
SEEM extreme within their boring environment.
American rads are mostly boring compared to some
of the stuff that comes out of the middle east. The
balkans used to be hotbeds of extremists - from
the furthest right to the furthest left and even had
a lot of bomb-throwing anarchists.
In any case, a fairly stable, prosperous, environment
makes rads less rad. They have less to be outraged
about, can get further by staying within the system.
There'll always be a FEW hard-cases, but that's not
as bad as hundreds of thousands.
Ya left out the lawyers though ....
There's a problem with eliminating all the rads alas,
it's kind of like wanting to throw all the homos onto
a bonfire ... every generation you get MORE. Five
percent or so will always become rads, and cause
95% of the trouble.
Fortunately 'rad' is a bit relative. In a bland boring town
the guy who wears a red hat is a 'rad'. The social and
economic environment can conspire to make the rads
somewhat *less* rad in absolute terms, they'll just
SEEM extreme within their boring environment.
American rads are mostly boring compared to some
of the stuff that comes out of the middle east. The
balkans used to be hotbeds of extremists - from
the furthest right to the furthest left and even had
a lot of bomb-throwing anarchists.
In any case, a fairly stable, prosperous, environment
makes rads less rad. They have less to be outraged
about, can get further by staying within the system.
There'll always be a FEW hard-cases, but that's not
as bad as hundreds of thousands.
Governor Swill
Apr 3, 2016, 12:02:00 AM4/3/16
to
Mr. B1ack
Apr 3, 2016, 10:26:17 PM4/3/16
to
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 00:02:02 -0400, Governor Swill
We'll just transfer your assets to Syria so they can
build Subway outlets then .... what are your account
numbers ? :-)
Sorry, but those stable, prosperous, environments
have to EVOLVE - and they'll do so differently in each
locale. There are some places that are so fucked up
that they may never reach that 'critical mass' for
centuries yet.
I left something out between "stable" and "prosperous" ;
"just". During the intial Islamic expansion many nations
and city-states became very prosperous and the 'cops'
worked hard to create internal stability. Yet, there were
still a lot of rads. Alas the laws beyond the Koranic basics
were often quite arbitrary, selectively enforced and brutal.
They existed not to serve The People or Justice but to
serve the king/caliph/whatever and his need of the hour.
You never knew where you stood, never knew if all your
assets would suddenly be confiscated, never knew if
your head would still be attached tomorrow morning.
As such the "stability" was more illusion than real, it
was the stability of totalitarian terror, pax trepidatio.
This is deeply entrenched in cultures across most of
the world, including the 'Islamic belt'. Things haven't
changed very much over the millenia. Even yer friendly
mayor here, when he gives a speech on tv, likely has
a few really huge cops standing behind him - a clear
message. The State may smile upon you, but it always
has a blackjack in its pocket.
build Subway outlets then .... what are your account
numbers ? :-)
Sorry, but those stable, prosperous, environments
have to EVOLVE - and they'll do so differently in each
locale. There are some places that are so fucked up
that they may never reach that 'critical mass' for
centuries yet.
I left something out between "stable" and "prosperous" ;
"just". During the intial Islamic expansion many nations
and city-states became very prosperous and the 'cops'
worked hard to create internal stability. Yet, there were
still a lot of rads. Alas the laws beyond the Koranic basics
were often quite arbitrary, selectively enforced and brutal.
They existed not to serve The People or Justice but to
serve the king/caliph/whatever and his need of the hour.
You never knew where you stood, never knew if all your
assets would suddenly be confiscated, never knew if
your head would still be attached tomorrow morning.
As such the "stability" was more illusion than real, it
was the stability of totalitarian terror, pax trepidatio.
This is deeply entrenched in cultures across most of
the world, including the 'Islamic belt'. Things haven't
changed very much over the millenia. Even yer friendly
mayor here, when he gives a speech on tv, likely has
a few really huge cops standing behind him - a clear
message. The State may smile upon you, but it always
has a blackjack in its pocket.
Governor Swill
Apr 3, 2016, 11:27:22 PM4/3/16
to
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 22:26:15 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:
>
United States pointed a different way. That way has spread across the
globe putting well over half the planet's population under the
governance of responsive, responsible governments who exist to keep
their populations happy and productive. From this, they can skim less
cream than they used to but plenty enough.
wrote:
>
> I left something out between "stable" and "prosperous" ;
> "just". During the intial Islamic expansion many nations
> and city-states became very prosperous and the 'cops'
> worked hard to create internal stability. Yet, there were
> still a lot of rads. Alas the laws beyond the Koranic basics
> were often quite arbitrary, selectively enforced and brutal.
> They existed not to serve The People or Justice but to
> serve the king/caliph/whatever and his need of the hour.
> You never knew where you stood, never knew if all your
> assets would suddenly be confiscated, never knew if
> your head would still be attached tomorrow morning.
> As such the "stability" was more illusion than real, it
> was the stability of totalitarian terror, pax trepidatio.
>
> This is deeply entrenched in cultures across most of
> the world, including the 'Islamic belt'. Things haven't
> changed very much over the millenia. Even yer friendly
> mayor here, when he gives a speech on tv, likely has
> a few really huge cops standing behind him - a clear
> message. The State may smile upon you, but it always
> has a blackjack in its pocket.
And so it has been throughout human history until the success of the
> "just". During the intial Islamic expansion many nations
> and city-states became very prosperous and the 'cops'
> worked hard to create internal stability. Yet, there were
> still a lot of rads. Alas the laws beyond the Koranic basics
> were often quite arbitrary, selectively enforced and brutal.
> They existed not to serve The People or Justice but to
> serve the king/caliph/whatever and his need of the hour.
> You never knew where you stood, never knew if all your
> assets would suddenly be confiscated, never knew if
> your head would still be attached tomorrow morning.
> As such the "stability" was more illusion than real, it
> was the stability of totalitarian terror, pax trepidatio.
>
> This is deeply entrenched in cultures across most of
> the world, including the 'Islamic belt'. Things haven't
> changed very much over the millenia. Even yer friendly
> mayor here, when he gives a speech on tv, likely has
> a few really huge cops standing behind him - a clear
> message. The State may smile upon you, but it always
> has a blackjack in its pocket.
United States pointed a different way. That way has spread across the
globe putting well over half the planet's population under the
governance of responsive, responsible governments who exist to keep
their populations happy and productive. From this, they can skim less
cream than they used to but plenty enough.
Mr. B1ack
Apr 4, 2016, 5:02:22 PM4/4/16
to
No government anywhere is particularly 'responsive' or
'responsible' or centered around the wants and needs
of Joe Citizen ... pols take care of #1 first and foremost.
Joe gets what's in the doggie bag.
Machiavellianism is far from gone, it's just become more
sophisticated. The profiteers and string-pullers no longer
have to lurk in the shadows, they only need to make their
roles a bit fuzzy so you can't really pin anything on them.
Everybody knows, say, the Koch brothers and has SOME
idea of what they do ... but you'll have a hard time linking
any one string to their finger.
>From this, they can skim less
>cream than they used to but plenty enough.
Short of putting brain-control chips in everyone, clearly
"corruption" is inherent, or at least widely present, so ANY
reduction from historical norms could be considered a
major victory.
Skimming $$$ really doesn't seem to be associated with
a nations or regions wealth. If anything, the more money
is around the more freely people pocket it. There were a
lot of hard questions asked after WW-2 of a lot of biz guys
who took advantage - right in the middle of a bad war - to
divert a fair percentage of their DC war bucks to their own
uses. Even Lincoln bitched about the war profiteers. IMHO
this is not anything we can buy our way out of or expect
people to change all that much.
Governor Swill
Apr 4, 2016, 11:43:02 PM4/4/16
to
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 17:02:20 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> Machiavellianism is far from gone, it's just become more
> sophisticated. The profiteers and string-pullers no longer
> have to lurk in the shadows, they only need to make their
> roles a bit fuzzy so you can't really pin anything on them.
> Everybody knows, say, the Koch brothers and has SOME
> idea of what they do ... but you'll have a hard time linking
> any one string to their finger.
I didn't say anything about Machiavelli being dead. I'm just pointing
out that for the first time in recorded history, the ordinary person
is actually a part of government calculation. Few governments ever
cared about their populations. Elizabeth I is one of the rare
examples of kings determined on rulership that made the People happy.
>>From this, they can skim less
>>cream than they used to but plenty enough.
>
> Hmm ... is "skim less" actually "mission accompished" ?
> Short of putting brain-control chips in everyone, clearly
> "corruption" is inherent, or at least widely present, so ANY
> reduction from historical norms could be considered a
> major victory.
No, skim less means they take a smaller piece of the pie, but it's a
much, MUCH bigger pie.
> Skimming $$$ really doesn't seem to be associated with
> a nations or regions wealth. If anything, the more money
> is around the more freely people pocket it. There were a
> lot of hard questions asked after WW-2 of a lot of biz guys
> who took advantage - right in the middle of a bad war - to
> divert a fair percentage of their DC war bucks to their own
> uses. Even Lincoln bitched about the war profiteers. IMHO
> this is not anything we can buy our way out of or expect
> people to change all that much.
ESPECIALLY Lincoln bitched about war profiteers. One popular tale
told was of the shoe manufacturer who's shoes barely lasted for more
than a day's marching. His explanation was that it was the Army's
fault. Those shoes were supposed to have been issued to the cavalry.
Anyway, my reference wasn't to war profiteering, it was to the elites
of any society and their share of the national output.
>On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 23:27:17 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>And so it has been throughout human history until the success of the
>>United States pointed a different way. That way has spread across the
>>globe putting well over half the planet's population under the
>>governance of responsive, responsible governments who exist to keep
>>their populations happy and productive.
>
> Um ... you're trying to be sarcastic, right ? :-)
>
> No government anywhere is particularly 'responsive' or
> 'responsible' or centered around the wants and needs
> of Joe Citizen ... pols take care of #1 first and foremost.
> Joe gets what's in the doggie bag.
Bitter much? :)
>>And so it has been throughout human history until the success of the
>>United States pointed a different way. That way has spread across the
>>globe putting well over half the planet's population under the
>>governance of responsive, responsible governments who exist to keep
>>their populations happy and productive.
>
> Um ... you're trying to be sarcastic, right ? :-)
>
> No government anywhere is particularly 'responsive' or
> 'responsible' or centered around the wants and needs
> of Joe Citizen ... pols take care of #1 first and foremost.
> Joe gets what's in the doggie bag.
> Machiavellianism is far from gone, it's just become more
> sophisticated. The profiteers and string-pullers no longer
> have to lurk in the shadows, they only need to make their
> roles a bit fuzzy so you can't really pin anything on them.
> Everybody knows, say, the Koch brothers and has SOME
> idea of what they do ... but you'll have a hard time linking
> any one string to their finger.
out that for the first time in recorded history, the ordinary person
is actually a part of government calculation. Few governments ever
cared about their populations. Elizabeth I is one of the rare
examples of kings determined on rulership that made the People happy.
>>From this, they can skim less
>>cream than they used to but plenty enough.
>
> Hmm ... is "skim less" actually "mission accompished" ?
> Short of putting brain-control chips in everyone, clearly
> "corruption" is inherent, or at least widely present, so ANY
> reduction from historical norms could be considered a
> major victory.
much, MUCH bigger pie.
> Skimming $$$ really doesn't seem to be associated with
> a nations or regions wealth. If anything, the more money
> is around the more freely people pocket it. There were a
> lot of hard questions asked after WW-2 of a lot of biz guys
> who took advantage - right in the middle of a bad war - to
> divert a fair percentage of their DC war bucks to their own
> uses. Even Lincoln bitched about the war profiteers. IMHO
> this is not anything we can buy our way out of or expect
> people to change all that much.
told was of the shoe manufacturer who's shoes barely lasted for more
than a day's marching. His explanation was that it was the Army's
fault. Those shoes were supposed to have been issued to the cavalry.
Anyway, my reference wasn't to war profiteering, it was to the elites
of any society and their share of the national output.
0 new messages