doctorow at June 10th, 2014 15:00 — #1
jborgardt at June 10th, 2014 15:23 — #2
I wonder what everyone here would say or feel if 400 citizens with guns showed up to protect those honest citizens trying to bring truth to this world, from the federal governments blatant disregard for just about everything these days; Maybe even veterans of war standing in a line being allowed to form a well regulated militia?
imb at June 10th, 2014 15:31 — #3
I am impressed and in awe.
jim_kirk at June 10th, 2014 15:38 — #4
This is a fine opportunity to support the good work of POGO
metacyclotron at June 10th, 2014 15:45 — #5
My first IT job was working at the VA. I've always been anti-war, and stupidly, by extension, anti-soldier. Working at the VA I got to know many of them personally and discovered that almost all of them were honorable people who wanted to serve their country. It was heartbreaking to see the disillusionment in their eyes at the way they were treated by the government. It seems like some money can be diverted from the military-industrial complex towards veteran treatment.
They deserve better.
jared_kaufman at June 10th, 2014 16:06 — #6
It's like one of the few wise people left in Washington recently said, "If you can't afford to take care of your veterans, then don't go to war."
crenquis at June 10th, 2014 16:30 — #7
I'm sure that the administration just wants to know who deserves the medals that they will be issuing for coming to the aid of soldiers in need.
medievalist at June 10th, 2014 16:43 — #8
So, there's a person's name I don't see here yet. At one time the biggest hero on this site, as I recall.
Somebody who was talking about "hope" and "change"?
He got the Nobel War Prize, didn't he? Just like Kissinger, Haber and Arafat?
Who was that guy, anyway?
crenquis at June 10th, 2014 17:01 — #9
You must be talking about whatshisname -- the guy who talked about protecting whistleblowers...
Edit to say: I guess he doesn't like people moving in on his protection racket.
medievalist at June 10th, 2014 17:32 — #10
That's the guy, wossname! The one who said this:
Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled as they have been during the Bush administration. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance.
marktech at June 10th, 2014 17:41 — #11
This gives a dark new context to "We have met the enemy and he is us."
[By the way, Fantagraphics, where's volume 3?]
boundegar at June 10th, 2014 21:58 — #12
Dammit I hate when Republicans are right about something. Thank goodness it's rare.
cowicide at June 11th, 2014 03:50 — #13
I wonder what everyone here would say or feel if 400 citizens with guns showed up to protect those honest citizens trying to bring truth to this world
I would say that the guns wouldn't have anything to do with protecting them. The guns would just be a counter-productive distraction from the real issues at play. Cameras documenting a large protest minus the weapons is what makes sense.
I hate to break it to you, but the world's largest military-industrial complex doesn't fear your little pea-shooters. If anything, they love it when groups get together with them so it's yet another excuse to tax us for larger budgets and even further militarization of our police forces.
daedalus at June 11th, 2014 09:52 — #14
disarticulate at June 11th, 2014 14:46 — #15
The security complex enjoys fear; it imbibes fear; anything that can lather on the fear just gets their juices going.
Fear bypasses the long-rang fore though; the need to act now bypasses so much critical thinking, postulating, and the rest.
I agree, there's few things that'll shut down critical thinking quicker than flashing violent or deadily force, no matter what side you think you're on.
On the converse, having a 'violent' option at your disposal has been used as medium to pass non-violent protests; i'm not a historian, but Ghandi's non violent protest was in parallel with a more violent reaction.
jborgardt at June 11th, 2014 16:12 — #16
Who said it was a political issue; right left or?
Seems to me it's a right for a human being to be safe from any unjustified tyrant. In this case it's just the federal government, others it might be a bully or the mob.
Would you let some one who spoke up about a crime that has happened more than once, get sent to jail? Or would you defend them?
What methods would you use?
jborgardt at June 11th, 2014 16:22 — #17
Maybe we could consider other opinions, since this is just your opinion.
Who here has served in the military?
Who here thinks a basic defensive weapon in the hands of a war veteran is just a little pea shooter?
Who really thinks that if there were war vets who formed a militia and did nothing but stand and protect there would be any shots fired?
I think it would bring this issue into the open so quick 10000x would be marching supporting human beings right to stand tall and tell the truth.
disarticulate at June 11th, 2014 16:25 — #18
Who here enjoys rhetorical questions?
jborgardt at June 11th, 2014 16:47 — #19
I do. Some times in order to alter ones sense of self and identity in regards to emotion you have to force the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex to engage with parts of the basal ganglia through unfettered thalamocortical pathways.
(Often; being rhetorical forces ones identity to question without emotions.)
disarticulate at June 11th, 2014 16:53 — #20
Often times, Rhetorical questions are a manner in which we self-fullfill our identity, so that if it's ever questioned what we believe, we can just say "It's only a question"
next page →