Pair jailed for web race crimes

Liz Peeps said:

I'm just sick of Americans complaining and saying to themselves "don't worry Sarah Palin's on the case" when really it's just false hope. Someday the same abuses of the UK government will come to America and it will be too late.

Click to expand...

That is a pretty over the top statement.

We in the US (unlike the UK) have a recourse to stop such laws. The problem is will the people actually stand up and say no more.

Blackdog said:

That is a pretty over the top statement.

We in the US (unlike the UK) have a recourse to stop such laws. The problem is will the people actually stand up and say no more.

Click to expand...

And I'm betting that they won't.

US financial institutions were able to turn off the credit spigots and hold a gun to the head of the American people that they'd crash the economy if Congress didn't pay out hundreds of billions. What did Americans do? They called their Congress members, screamed and complained, but when came time to actually give the money over to the banks, the US people didn't do a goddamned thing. They didn't even vote out the people in Congress that made it happen. They just sat there and took it. And are they still raging about it today? No, they aren't. The American people are complacent, fat and lazy. They're going to have to be thoroughly soaked to actually get out there and affect political change.

Liz Peeps said:

I'm just sick of Americans complaining and saying to themselves "don't worry Sarah Palin's on the case" when really it's just false hope. Someday the same abuses of the UK government will come to America and it will be too late.

Click to expand...

It won't be too late. We have our guns...LOL!!!

apdst said:

It won't be too late. We have our guns...LOL!!!

Click to expand...

Oh yeah because semi auto rifles are a real match for uavs, tanks, and apcs right?

Liz Peeps said:

Oh yeah because semi auto rifles are a real match for uavs, tanks, and apcs right?

Click to expand...

I don't know about you but I own more then a few Semi Auto I have quite a few Fully Auto and have access to a few other nice toys and so do allot of other Americans.

Scorpion89 said:

I don't know about you but I own more then a few Semi Auto I have quite a few Fully Auto and have access to a few other nice toys and so do allot of other Americans.

Click to expand...

"A lot" probably isn't the word, "some" would be more appropriate. Full auto weapons are not cheap and they no pierce vehicle armor. The government has more political power and more physical power than the people. You just can't rely on revolutions to just up and happen on their own.

Liz Peeps said:

They're going to have to be thoroughly soaked to actually get out there and affect political change.

Click to expand...

Well than you admit it has a chance of happening as well.

As I said here we do have recourse, in England they don't.

Blackdog said:

Well than you admit it has a chance of happening as well.

As I said here we do have recourse, in England they don't.

Click to expand...

The Brits sold themselves out 60 years ago. Now, it's time to pay the piper.

Blackdog said:

Well than you admit it has a chance of happening as well.

As I said here we do have recourse, in England they don't.

Click to expand...

Sure the people, they can launch a peasants revolt like they did centuries gone by. They will still probably be crushed though.

Look pal, I'm trying to say "hey why don't we try to PREVENT the abuses from occurring, rather than letting the government impoverish us so much that we have no other recourse than to revolt." I mean, if you hate people and you want them to suffer as much as possible, then I can understand where you're coming from with your comments, but I would prefer people to begin DEFENDING WHAT THEY HAVE and revolting before it's all gone rather than lose everything and then fight.

America won it's independence through violence and it seems as though over the time since then we've become so fat and lazy we just assume this is how the revolutionary war was won. America is a nation of peasants; you are a peasant and if you need to be wiped out before you come to terms with reality, then you're going to suffer more than you would had you done something about it sooner.

apdst said:

No one is condemning Ahmadinejad for Holocaust denial and Anti-Zionism. We're--at least I am--condemning him for being an anti-American asshole. He could admit that the Holocaust happened and he would still be an asshole.

Click to expand...

..So you hate him because the group of people who he's enciting hate against is YOUR group? If that's not what you're implying, maybe you should edit this or something...

I don't want to be too polarizing, but I find some Americans to be so self-righteous sometimes. The UK is in a very different situation to the US. America is a country where white Christians (or white Christian values) are still a HUGE majority. The UK, and Europe, is NOT like that! Europe has a HUGE Muslim population, a pretty hefty Jewish population,and a mutitude of other races, faiths and groups besides. On top of this, Europe has just appointed one of its (overall) most racist group of representatives since the abolishment of slavery. Maybe it's a bit rash, but isn't it kind of understandable that the English courts might be keen to send a message to it's EXPLODING non-white, non-Christian, non-British population that they're not going to put up with hate messages? Free speech is important, but did you SEE what happened in Europe when that Danish newspaper printed pictures of Mohammed with a bomb vest on? That sort of minority rage is a real danger in Europe compared to America.

I mean, you're right, free speech is definitely being threatened in this case, but just because most of you guys live in the "land of the (debateably, comparatively) free", doesn't mean that every other country has the same issues surrounding free speech that America does... right?

Liz Peeps said:

Sure the people, they can launch a peasants revolt like they did centuries gone by. They will still probably be crushed though.

Click to expand...

This literally has little to do with my point. I am not calling for a revolution in this thread. :roll:

Liz Peeps said:

Look pal, I'm trying to say "hey why don't we try to PREVENT the abuses from occurring, rather than letting the government impoverish us so much that we have no other recourse than to revolt."

Click to expand...

I am not your "pal."

Now please point out where I said anything at all about "letting the government impoverish us" or anything even remotely close.

Liz Peeps said:

I mean, if you hate people and you want them to suffer as much as possible, then I can understand where you're coming from with your comments, but I would prefer people to begin DEFENDING WHAT THEY HAVE and revolting before it's all gone rather than lose everything and then fight.

Click to expand...

Are you going to get even deeper into your fallacy argument? Or are you going to move back into the realm of what I really said and respond logically?

Here is my initial comment...

"That is a pretty over the top statement.

We in the US (unlike the UK) have a recourse to stop such laws. The problem is will the people actually stand up and say no more." - Blackdog

We have a legal recourse, in England they don't. Now respond to my actual statement and stop making some kind of moonbat rant.

Liz Peeps said:

America won it's independence through violence and it seems as though over the time since then we've become so fat and lazy we just assume this is how the revolutionary war was won.

Click to expand...

Ahhhh yea?

Liz Peeps said:

America is a nation of peasants; you are a peasant and if you need to be wiped out before you come to terms with reality, then you're going to suffer more than you would had you done something about it sooner.

Click to expand...

Again nothing at all to do with anything I said. :roll:

Blackdog said:

I am not your "pal."

Now please point out where I said anything at all about "letting the government impoverish us" or anything even remotely close.

Click to expand...

Listen buddy, the government has already begun the process of impoverishing the people. I don't see you doing a damn thing about it. At least I'm trying to call attention to the fact that the US people are being screwed financially, their rights are being ignored, the rule of law is being ignored, and here you are fighting with me.

We in the US (unlike the UK) have a recourse to stop such laws. The problem is will the people actually stand up and say no more.

We have a legal recourse, in England they don't. Now respond to my actual statement and stop making some kind of moonbat rant.

Click to expand...

Legal recourse? Like remember when the USSC voided the contracts of US auto bond holders in preference of political expediency? Yeah, where's this "rule of law" defense you're saying US citizens had. What good is "rule of law" if it is thrown out in favor of political agendas? What recourse did the bond holders have? You are putting entirely too much faith in the court system, a court system that is mostly inaccessable to the common person.

Face it, you're just a weed-like peasant that has no problem getting mowed down. You might as well just pack up and move to England if that's how you feel.

Glowfish said:

..So you hate him because the group of people who he's enciting hate against is YOUR group? If that's not what you're implying, maybe you should edit this or something...

Click to expand...

You got it, sport.

Liz Peeps said:

Listen buddy, the government has already begun the process of impoverishing the people. I don't see you doing a damn thing about it.

Click to expand...

I am not your "buddy" pal. :lol:

Amazing, you don't even know my name and yet you know exactly what I am doing politically. Please tell me what I am thinking right now? :roll:

Liz Peeps said:

At least I'm trying to call attention to the fact that the US people are being screwed financially, their rights are being ignored, the rule of law is being ignored, and here you are fighting with me.

Click to expand...

Because debating on a message board is absolutely the best way to get your message out. :roll: In the end unlike you I am not pretending to know what you are doing other than debating here, which means little.

As for the rest, what does any of that have to do with what I said or even implied? I will tell you, nothing.

Nothing so far but fallacy and a minor ad-hom. Hopefully this gets better down below.

Liz Peeps said:

Legal recourse? Like remember when the USSC voided the contracts of US auto bond holders in preference of political expediency? Yeah, where's this "rule of law" defense you're saying US citizens had.

Click to expand...

Yes unlike England we can challenge it in court or vote the person out of office. Pretty simple don't you think? Or you can sit on your butt in front of a computer and whine about it as if someone here cares what you think. Amazing how logic works.

Liz Peeps said:

What good is "rule of law" if it is thrown out in favor of political agendas? What recourse did the bond holders have? You are putting entirely too much faith in the court system, a court system that is mostly inaccessable to the common person.

Click to expand...

I am doing nothing but making the statement that we do have a legal discourse. Whether the people choose to use it or not is irrelevant. It is there for use.

Liz Peeps said:

Face it, you're just a weed-like peasant that has no problem getting mowed down. You might as well just pack up and move to England if that's how you feel.

Click to expand...

And you finish off with more mind reading and ad-hom's. Added just a touch of righteous indignation too boot. Nice.

You're dreaming if you think I'm going line by line through all of that. I concede absolutely nothing. So if you want to take it upon yourself to do the heroic action of......doing absolutely nothing and putting your life into the hands of the government go right ahead, but it's that exact same thing I'm trying to get folks to realize is so dangerous.

BTW, you don't seem to understand what an ad-hom is. An ad-hom is where instead of attacking the pathetic doctrine of a person, you attack the person directly. That's fallacious and I've never been in favor of that. I've always been in favor of refuting the doctrine and THEN going on to attack the person---that's not an ad-hom.

Also, you completely ignored what happened to the bond holders and how it demonstrates your little ditty about legal recourse is completely and totally unreliable as a means of protecting your rights.

apdst said:

You got it, sport.

Click to expand...

Lol, arrogant much? Though I guess hating on someone for hating on you doesn't mean you're denying them free speech, so whatever I suppose.

Liz Peeps said:

You're dreaming if you think I'm going line by line through all of that.

Click to expand...

Don't care one way or the other.

Liz Peeps said:

I concede absolutely nothing.

Click to expand...

Nothing for you to concede. You have failed to address any of my points, so thats, that.

Liz Peeps said:

So if you want to take it upon yourself to do the heroic action of......doing absolutely nothing and putting your life into the hands of the government go right ahead, but it's that exact same thing I'm trying to get folks to realize is so dangerous.

Click to expand...

Again this has literally nothing to do with anything I said.

Here we go with the mind reading again. Please feel free to post my social security number as you seem to know so much about my life. :2wave:

Liz Peeps said:

BTW, you don't seem to understand what an ad-hom is. An ad-hom is where instead of attacking the pathetic doctrine of a person, you attack the person directly.

Click to expand...

"Listen buddy, the government has already begun the process of impoverishing the people. I don't see you doing a damn thing about it." - Liz Peeps

"Face it, you're just a weed-like peasant that has no problem getting mowed down. You might as well just pack up and move to England if that's how you feel." - Liz Peeps

"I mean, if you hate people and you want them to suffer as much as possible, then I can understand where you're coming from with your comments" - Liz Peeps

"you are a peasant and if you need to be wiped out before you come to terms with reality, then you're going to suffer more than you would had you done something about it sooner." - Liz Peeps

Adhom-

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Seems I am correct in my usage.

Liz Peeps said:

That's fallacious and I've never been in favor of that. I've always been in favor of refuting the doctrine and THEN going on to attack the person---that's not an ad-hom.

Click to expand...

I have shown above this is indeed a fabrication.

Liz Peeps said:

Also, you completely ignored what happened to the bond holders and how it demonstrates your little ditty about legal recourse is completely and totally unreliable as a means of protecting your rights.

Click to expand...

Yes I did.

Come 2010 and 2012 we can vote the president and anyone else who did this out of office.

We most certainly do have a recourse.

No, your application of ad hominem fallacy is incorrect. I have refuted your doctrine of "we have legal recourse" by giving you a very recent example of how legal recourse can evaporate so quickly for political reasons. We have legal recourse until it becomes a political matter, the courts will throw your ass out under a bus without a second thought. What recourse was available to them? You can't vote out Supreme Court Justices.

Yes I did.

Come 2010 and 2012 we can vote the president and anyone else who did this out of office.

We most certainly do have a recourse.

Click to expand...

"Yes I did"? You're agreeing with me that you ignored that point?

Liz Peeps said:

No, your application of ad hominem fallacy is incorrect.

Click to expand...

This is a lie. Do I need to repost the examples of you calling me names?

Liz Peeps said:

I have refuted your doctrine of "we have legal recourse" by giving you a very recent example of how legal recourse can evaporate so quickly for political reasons.

Click to expand...

“A denial of a stay is not a decision on the merits of the underlying legal issues,” the high court’s ruling said. The brief opinion set out the court’s standards for a stay, which include the “reasonable probability that four Justices” would agree to hear the case. “ - Chrysler sale clears last hurdle - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Well this has no relevance as it was only a stay for review.

"From Saturday through this morning, the court was peppered with applications from pension funds, accident victims and others whose legal claims would be devalued or wiped out as part of the Fiat-Chrysler deal.

The justices also received filings from the U.S. government, Chrysler, Fiat, and the United Auto Workers urging the court to allow the takeover to proceed."

So the wheels continue to turn.

Liz Peeps said:

We have legal recourse until it becomes a political matter, the courts will throw your ass out under a bus without a second thought. What recourse was available to them? You can't vote out Supreme Court Justices.

Click to expand...

"From Saturday through this morning, the court was peppered with applications from pension funds, accident victims and others whose legal claims would be devalued or wiped out as part of the Fiat-Chrysler deal."

Looks like they have recourse according to your article.

Or as I already said you can vote the people who put the justices there out of office. How hard is this to understand?

Liz Peeps said:

"Yes I did"? You're agreeing with me that you ignored that point?

Click to expand...

No. I am saying I addressed it as irrelevant. And it is still so according to your own article.

And what right, in your view, did the government have to intervene in that example?