2002-10-4 20:58:00
JJ posted:
WRONG.
I am merely saying that these injustices, as a whole, do not make this a tyrannical nation as most people understand the term. It is difficult to understand why one would want to argue this point.
Susan:
With policeman they take a young child or teenager very seriously who is killing small animals or torturing them. Why? Because the profile of a child doing that often leads to someone who is a serial killer as an adult.
I believe what some of us are trying to say to you JJ is wake up to the pattern, because THIS PATTERN leads to the very tyranny you are saying we don't have. We may not have it YET but we are headed there more rapidly than I care to think about.
JJ:
This is not part of any argument I am presenting. Patriots have been worried about this since I have first looked into the matter in the Sixties (and before). I have always stressed that we should be vigilant toward our freedoms.
My point from the beginning of this conflict has been that, overall the United Sates is not, at present, a tyrannical nation, as tyranny in reference to a nation is defined by the majority.
However, in every nation small pockets of tyranny exist within law enforcement down to marriages.
An interesting point is that we are not any closer to tyranny today than we were in the Sixties, and, in some ways, we were closer then than we are now. Those who lived through that era will probably agree.
PS
I enjoyed your Test post.
"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337
Copyright 2002 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved