Sure, if you are one of them, otherwise one might not think so.
We all have to find our toleration point then figure out what we are ready to do about it.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sure, if you are one of them, otherwise one might not think so.
We all have to find our toleration point then figure out what we are ready to do about it.
I don't see how pretense changes realities.
I wouldn't want either mad at me.
What is a jury if not an organized mob?
While not advocating for mob rule, I don't see the difference in what we have and just letting the crowd do what they do.
Does lending an air of credibility somehow change the fact that it is still mob violence just violence behind a veneer of respectability?
Look at the wisconsin governor debacle, one jury says not guilty and another says guilty.
Which is it?
Were those 6 people entrapped by the 12 fibber agents, or were they not?
Why do we tolerate lying by our agents authorized to kill with impunity?
Why do we vest this power in a tiny handful of notoriously corruptible people?
Better, imo, if we arm everybody and just kill those aggressing against others on the spot.
It's how our founding fathers would have done it.
They may have declared independence, but they got it by fighting off the thugs of the crown.
I agree that courts and cops may look good on paper, but the facts are there are many points of friction with it.
Not least of which is some killers get impunity to continue killing people that don't have it coming.
I'd probably support something similar to what we have were the positions of power rotated in some manner rather than bestowed for life or won in clearly rigged elections.
I say rigged because there is no way to count those that don't participate and those that participate are on one side of issue, generally.
Why do local taxes pass so easily?
Because the people against them don't vote in the numbers of the people that support them.