Why do you tolerate this

Your Interpersonal Attribution(discrediting points) are noted
Posting from an IPhone is a challenge at times,most Inter-dweeb's
find it of no challenge to highlight a paragraph,right click and "search" via their default browser to trace back on commentary,literature etc

Try it sometime

Well, Tommy, you have avoided my question about free expression long enough.

I support the US Constitution,not the amended version so many believe in today, as those that fought the first amendements.
Amendment,Dilution,Destruction,Demise and we are right on coarse.

Originally Posted by Lucille

Well, Tommy, you have avoided my question about free expression long enough.

During my years as a practicing alcoholic, I employed any number of tactics to avoid the ultimately invariable conclusion that in order to solve my numerous problems, I needed to stop drinking altogether.
Even long after I had made the inner admission that I was, in all likelihood, suffering from the disease – and I knew or understood very little about alcoholism at that time – I concocted any number of schemes that I thought would allow me to continue drinking indefinitely: I changed the time slots every day during which I drank. I drank only when I was at home -- never if out and about, or with friends. I tried to change brands frequently, and limit quantities (rarely with any success). I swore off hard liquor in favor of only beer. I drank wine, then switched back to beer. I stopped going to bars. I went to bars only if I was going to have something to eat as well. And so on.
In the end, none of these things worked, of course. All of them led to the same end results: Total inebriation, followed by deep depression, and an inability to continue to manage my own life. And then, the next drink. There was only one way out, and that was sobriety – the cessation of all drinking, period. I wasn’t and am not alone in this. Millions and millions of other alcoholics around the world have arrived at this identical conclusion. And there will be millions, no doubt, to come in the future.
Government apologists are not at all dissimilar to alcoholics (or other addicts) who have not yet admitted the nature of their affliction. They too, are in a state of denial. No matter how many times the institution of government fails to achieve its alleged goals, no matter how much abuse or fraud or lying takes place, no matter how heavily it taxes or tramples upon liberty, it can yet be reined in, reformed, and set to rights. Or so claim these chimerical statist dreamers. We need only elect the “right” candidates next time around, make our voices heard, be vigilant, and demand that the Constitution be followed. Let’s not confuse the issue by pointing out that no such transformation in America has occurred yet in 235 years – to do so is only for malcontented cynics. No, government can work, these deniers insist, if we’ll only just give it one more chance.
Getting sober has not been easy for me. In fact, it has been and will continue to be an ongoing process – one that will last for however much time I have left in this world. It has not been a gateway into any kind of utopia or paradise. Sobriety does not bring with it perfection. It has brought, however, substantial improvement: Better physical health, mental clarity, greater emotional stability, and the opportunity to leave the past behind and grow. It has brought with it hope, renewal, and a chance for a better life. It guarantees nothing, however. It only proposes that life does not have to be a dark, angry, and hopeless experience. And the daily act of staying sober depends entirely on me. I am responsible for staying straight. If I fail to do this, no one else is at fault or can be blamed. The origin of my personal demons may not have been any direct doing of my own, but my reaction to these things, however, is up to me and only me. I cannot, nor should I wish to, alter the past. There is only today, and the prospect of tomorrow. I must, and can, live with that.
The alternative is drunkenness. And I can tell you from over a quarter of a century’s worth of experience, that’s no place to be.
I’ve come out of denial. I accept full responsibility for my past actions and how they have negatively affected my life. I no longer blame anyone but myself for this.
Those in government denial could benefit from a similar unflinching look inward. To admit the failure and rank hypocrisy of a coercive State is to begin the healing process, and the path towards correction, reason, and peace. For over 70 centuries now on a global scale, the idea called government has wrought untold destruction and mayhem.
And it’s time for society to begin the recovery process. That, or, not unlike drunks in denial, die.
Alex R. Knight

Originally Posted by JColt

I have found both extremes to be intolerant and bigoted. I have found both extremes destroy our way of life. I do know that the majority of Democrats are not ultra Liberal and the majority of Republicans are not ultra Conservative. Yet every election year these candidates gear towards the extremes.

We have way too many voters who vote for people who say they are going to do this or that but never question how they will achieve it. I cringe when ever I hear someone give all the right heart string tugs quotes of a certain party and people go, "OMG I'm voting for this person" and that person has no clue on how to achieve anything.

People better start voting for moderate and not party or this vicious cycle will continue.

Originally Posted by Metachrosis

Your Interpersonal Attribution(discrediting points) are noted
Posting from an IPhone is a challenge at times,most Inter-dweeb's
find it of no challenge to highlight a paragraph,right click and "search" via their default browser to trace back on commentary,literature etc

Try it sometime

Be that as it may, if your posts are not solely and entirely your own work, please note what parts, or it's entirety if that is the case, are not your own words, and note the source of such quotes. That is the fair and ethical thing to do when quoting someone else's words.

It would also help if you were to surround such quotes with these tags:

[quote] ***Quoted text here*** [/quote]


That is helpful to separate quoted material from your own original statements when both are present in the same post.

Not so easy with mobile Apple*
See we can do......

Originally Posted by Metachrosis

I support the US Constitution,not the amended version so many believe in today, as those that fought the first amendements.
Amendment,Dilution,Destruction,Demise and we are right on coarse.

Still does not fully address my question about free speech and how you see the role of the government as it relates to that particular issue, whether the content of the speech applies to them or not, Tommy. You bring to the table controversial subjects, usually in the form of articles written by others, but then when there is a discussion you seem to not be able to spot and respond to the issues mentioned by readers who are addressing the very article you thought important enough to post.

Originally Posted by Lucille

You did not give any attribution, did you write the above article yourself, Tommy?
In the article, you seem to be against freedom of speech where people can express how they feel, if those feelings and thoughts are 'unacceptable', and seem to be saying that freedom of expression necessarily leads to violence. I disagree.
So Tommy, is it your opinion that the government should censor free expression? Tell us what we can watch? Decide how it will affect us beforehand (prior restraints) and only allow the viewing of media that is 'appropriate', in order to protect us?

Originally Posted by Metachrosis

I support the US Constitution,not the amended version

You appear to be saying that you do not support the Second Amendment?

The article Tommy initially posted is entitled, "Hey, Liberals, Thanks for the Violence" and was written by Tim Dunkin, a free lance writer from NC who is also a regular contributor to a website called "Renew America".

Originally Posted by JColt
I have found both extremes to be intolerant and bigoted. I have found both extremes destroy our way of life. I do know that the majority of Democrats are not ultra Liberal and the majority of Republicans are not ultra Conservative. Yet every election year these candidates gear towards the extremes.

We have way too many voters who vote for people who say they are going to do this or that but never question how they will achieve it. I cringe when ever I hear someone give all the right heart string tugs quotes of a certain party and people go, "OMG I'm voting for this person" and that person has no clue on how to achieve anything.

People better start voting for moderate and not party or this vicious cycle will continue.

Here, here! Spot on!

People obviously want a change in our government and the way our lives are heading. Heck, wasn't the current president voted in on the promise of change?

Did we get what was promised? Have we EVER?

Well, that's the problem. They ALL lie. So when you go to the polls you try to figure out who is going to be lying the least, or you pick the one who is telling the lies that you want to hear.

Personally, I believe that anyone who could actually effect a REAL change doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. There are too many powerful controlling influences who like things just the way they are. We will not be ALLOWED to topple that apple cart at the ballot box. And any alternative means to effect REAL change is just not likely at all to ever happen in this country. The personal costs are far too great for most people to contemplate. And this most certainly has not happened about by accident.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Personally, I believe that anyone who could actually effect a REAL change doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. There are too many powerful controlling influences who like things just the way they are.

Correct. There are several smart Dem's and Rep's who stay right where they are. Highly qualified but know they probably make more of a difference in position they are in.