Quote :

"And if they (or some portion of the population...even a minority) don't like their government, they can abolish it..."

Wrong. There is a big difference between "don't like" and "are tyrannized by." At any given point in time there are going to be plenty of people who don't like a government because it isn't kissing their particular collective ass. If you set up a government to "protect our economic interest," as you describe it, then the rich won't like it. If you set a government that favors them a little more, the poor won't like it. Not liking a government is not justification for otherthrowing it or seceding from it.

Quote :

"The founders of this country revolted against the British for much lighter forms of tyranny."

Oh, really? All of the things you listed to describe the erosion of our rights are precisely the things we revolted against, except for the "heavy taxes." We didn't rise up because they were taxing us too much, we rose up because they were taxing us too much without even pretending to ask permission first.

Quote :

"Over the past several decades our rights have been incrementally eroded...including rights to freedom of speech"

What are we not allowed to say now that we were a century ago?

Quote :

"Call us "traitors", "extremists", or whatever you want. That's what they called the founders of this country."

Well, you are all of those things, plus one more that I bet nobody called George Washington:

Douchebag.

11/17/2006 9:13:57 PM

I figured it out!

The Salisbury in Salisburyboy refers not to the city in North Carolina, but rather the former capital of Zimbabwe, now known as Harare, but known as Salisbury when Zimbabwe was white minority-ruled Rhodesia.

Sals wants to defy an "oppresive ruler" and secede.

Sals is a white nationalist and seperatist.

Salisburyboy is...Ian Smith!

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 5:04 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2006 5:04:13 AM

Example: The Nuisance Party Ordinance

RPDs keeping me down yo . . . . .

11/18/2006 11:19:01 PM

Oops, I meant the city of Harare, formerly known as Salisbury, which has always been the capital of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

11/19/2006 2:51:06 AM

PinkandBlack

your job isn't to disrupt threads that suck

11/19/2006 3:15:52 AM

"Although many people may not realize or admit it, we are living under tyranny. Over the past several decades our rights have been incrementally eroded...including rights to freedom of speech"

I live in a town where everyday people stand outside with signs saying honk for some cause or another. A city where local radio tries to challenge peoples beliefs. I can help publicize, serve, and fundraise for causes I believe in openly. And I have a job a like. Being that it’s a college town there are flyers everywhere downtown. A town where political parties do door to door campaigning. And I can vote. And Chapel Hill-Carrobo is having film, art, and music festivals every other week. I’m pretty sure what I’m seeing is free speech. (I’m also being published in the URJ at ncsu in Raleigh, and I see students opinions in the technician everyday, so I’m seeing free speech elsewhere too).

"It's time for those Americans who truly love freedom to band together and secede from the United States and form a new country. That is the best alternative. Our current government is under the control of those who wish to enslave us (or at the very least, the government is too entrenched in corruption to be salvaged). We need to start from scratch."

Granted I think there is always room for improvement with government, but I'm proud to be a part of the USA which in many ways is one of the best countries the world has seen during my life time. And while I think there is room for improvement, I don't really see you creating something exponentially better.

11/19/2006 10:45:20 AM

GrumpyGOP has already put it in the best words; there's a difference between not liking how the government currently does things and being tyrranized by the government. There are plenty of rules and regulations that I don't like, think are stupid or illogical, or just plain wish I didn't have to follow, but in no way to I feel like I'm being bullied or put down by "the man." There may be laws in this country that I disagree with, but overall life over here is not so bad. I'm free to own my own property, to have a place to live, to buy enough food to feed myself rather well, to acquire knowledge and intellectual resources to better myself, to find a job that I like, blah blah blah. As long as I operate within the confines of our current government, I'm largely free to rule over my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as I see fit. And many of our government's laws aren't that unreasonable or overbearing. The saying "if you don't like it, you can get out" may be cliche, but it still applies. By living here, you implicitly agree to follow the rules, and if you feel that this somehow limits your optimal life style then you either need to adapt and suck it up or go find some place else.

I got sucked pretty deep into the libertarian rhetoric a couple of years ago, and even now I still agree with them on many issues. But I can't any longer believe that our government is so corrupt and so oppressive that I need to take up arms and fight in some glorious, romantic revolution. Life here is not so bad that I feel the need to change it. At the very least, I think you should wait until it has beome illegal for you to espouse your dislike of the government before you start trying to even make a point. The fact that you can get away with it today should tell you something about how freedom of speeck isn't dead yet.

11/19/2006 2:11:43 PM

This guy is nuts.

11/19/2006 2:19:34 PM

Quote :

"your job isn't to disrupt threads that suck"

well someone has to show how absurd so many of these discussions are.

11/19/2006 3:06:04 PM

IF YOU THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS, EXPLAIN WHY AND ARGUE AGAINST IT. OTHERWISE, JUST STAY THE FUCK OUT OF IT.

11/20/2006 12:56:43 AM

HOW ABOUT YOU DO YOUR FUCKING JOB AND LOCK THIS KIND OF STUPID SHIT INSTEAD OF BITCHING ABOUT HOW OTHER PEOPLE DEAL WITH IT?

11/20/2006 8:14:32 AM

Quote :

"HOW ABOUT YOU DO YOUR FUCKING JOB AND LOCK THIS KIND OF STUPID SHIT INSTEAD OF BITCHING ABOUT HOW OTHER PEOPLE DEAL WITH IT?"

No. He should suspend trolls like yourself who are always whining and bitching to the mods to censor people whom you strongly disagree with.

11/20/2006 11:59:15 AM

11/20/2006 12:02:14 PM

Quote :

"And if they (or some portion of the population...even a minority) don't like their government, they can abolish it...or secede and form a new one....including founding new nations"

Quote :

"Wrong. There is a big difference between "don't like" and "are tyrannized by."...Not liking a government is not justification for otherthrowing it or seceding from it."

I don't believe people must wait until they are under full-blown tyranny until they can rightfully abolish their government and form a new one. As I said before, people don't exist to serve and bow down to governments. The people create the governments to serve their own interests. They created the governments, and can alter and abolish them if they wish. Further, segments of the population (even if a small minority) that don't want to be bound by a government have every right to secede from that government and form a new one that suits them. If the majority wants to keep that minority under the rule of the existing government, that is tyranny.

That said, I'm not suggesting that people should abolish and form new governments for slight reasons. You may not realize it or want to admit it, but we are well on the path to tyranny in the U.S. There is way more than enough just cause to abolish this existing government, or for people to secede and form a new government.

11/20/2006 12:21:54 PM

How are the intolerable acts not worse than what is going on now?

11/20/2006 12:26:49 PM

Quote :

"I didn't say anthing about the comparison between the Intolerable Acts and contemporary conditions. My point was that the founders revolted against lighter forms of tyranny than now exist...which is most certainly true. The Intolerable Acts were passed after the colonists had already started revolting. My point stands."

11/20/2006 12:28:18 PM

no they didn't. they were resisting in a nearly nonviolent manner prior to the intolerable acts, there was no open revolt.

as a matter of fact, an actual declaration of independence wasn't even thought of until well after the troops were driven from boston. up until that point it was a dispute between the subjects of the king and the crown.

you really should read a fucking book from time to time.

11/20/2006 12:31:34 PM

Quote :

"No one was in open revolt at the time of the Intolerable Acts. It was passed in response to minor acts like the Boston Tea Party. The Intolerable Acts preceded the American Revolution and were a direct cause of the Declaration of Independence - the very act that you are talking about. While you didn't mention them directly, you explicitly said that America's founding fathers revolted for smaller problems than people face today. So please stop making excuses for yourself and explain this to me: how are the intolerable acts not worse than what is going on now?"

11/20/2006 1:37:53 PM

Quote :

"no they didn't. they were resisting in a nearly nonviolent manner prior to the intolerable acts, there was no open revolt"

Quote :

"In June 1772, in what became known as the Gaspée Affair, a British warship that had been vigorously enforcing unpopular trade regulations was burned by American patriots. [...] Most serious of all was the Boston Tea Party....On December 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty dressed up like Indians of the Mohawk nation and dumped all of the tea from three anchored ships into Boston Harbor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

I guess it may not have been an "open revolt" (however you want to defnine that) prior to the Intolerable Acts, but there were at least the beginnings of an open revolt.

11/21/2006 12:54:24 PM

Quote :

"I don't believe people must wait until they are under full-blown tyranny until they can rightfully abolish their government and form a new one."

True, but until they are under full-blown tyranny, they have the ability to change things through normal political channels, and while that may be very difficult, it is still preferable to violent overthrow wherever possible. Besides, why abolish the government and not just the administrations and some of the things it's done? You dont seem to have a problem with the documents this country is founded on.

Quote :

"You may not realize it or want to admit it, but we are well on the path to tyranny in the U.S. There is way more than enough just cause to abolish this existing government, or for people to secede and form a new government."

This is what you have to prove. A lot of the things you've listed are things that have happened to Americans before -- temporarily.

Quote :

"Further, segments of the population (even if a small minority) that don't want to be bound by a government have every right to secede from that government and form a new one that suits them."

This is dangerous territory. How small can a minority be before it doesn't get to secede anymore? Can one man secede? OK, now we've got anarchism, and all this talk of government is pointless.

11/21/2006 1:33:27 PM

Quote :

"True, but until they are under full-blown tyranny, they have the ability to change things through normal political channels, and while that may be very difficult, it is still preferable to violent overthrow wherever possible."

My preferred method of battling the government is through failure to report income, smuggling, tax evasion, and other anti-government activities.

11/21/2006 1:38:15 PM

Quote :

"I guess it may not have been an "open revolt" (however you want to defnine that) prior to the Intolerable Acts, but there were at least the beginnings of an open revolt."

No, they weren't in open revolt by any definition you can find. A single instance of violence hardly sets the beginning of the American Revolution at 1772.

No please stop tap dancing and answer my question:

How are the intolerable acts not worse than what is going on now?

11/21/2006 2:47:46 PM

Quote :

"I didn't say anthing about the comparison between the Intolerable Acts and contemporary conditions. My point was that the founders revolted against lighter forms of tyranny than now exist...which is most certainly true. The Intolerable Acts were passed after the colonists had already started revolting. My point stands."

11/21/2006 4:15:38 PM

Quote :

"No one was in open revolt at the time of the Intolerable Acts. It was passed in response to minor acts like the Boston Tea Party. The Intolerable Acts preceded the American Revolution and were a direct cause of the Declaration of Independence - the very act that you are talking about. While you didn't mention them directly, you explicitly said that America's founding fathers revolted for smaller problems than people face today. So please stop making excuses for yourself and explain this to me: how are the intolerable acts not worse than what is going on now?"

Your point falls flat on its face. This thread is based on a useless comparison.

11/21/2006 4:30:29 PM