- May 14, 2012
- 6,762
- 1
- 0
This is so ridiculous, it's funny. (PDF)
BTW, that's over 27,000 items individually banned. Your tax dollars hard at work.
BTW, that's over 27,000 items individually banned. Your tax dollars hard at work.
I don't see why some of them are banned. Like DAUGHTR.
Namely, $0?
I don't see why some of them are banned. Like DAUGHTR.
You think some make believe little pony made and maintains that list?
I'm still allowed to be the N1GR in this town.
Do not question our overlords, who do things only for The Greater Good.![]()
Isn't this the price of freedom, to grant folk some personal creativity, so they don't have to feel like they are just the product of some random number generator? It seems to me that granting greater freedom of self expression to folk would be a good thing, except, of course, there are those whom, the minute they get more freedom see how they can abuse it. So I would say that this monstrosity of an expression of a dictatorial inclination was simply a byproduct of an advance in liberty. Me, I like the anonymity of a government issued car tattoo and the saving of 25 bucks for the right to feel special. I also practice what I call the greater good for me. But as an aside, if I could get a plate that says 'conservatives are brain defective' I might be tempted.
Doesn't seem quite right to me.
Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signatories of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says, "A pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."[10] John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."[11]
What is liberty? What is freedom? What are the limits thereof? These are legitimate questions that we as citizens ought to ask, and then we empower our representatives to enact reasonable regulation. The problem is with some who believe that the definition of democracy is the election of people who decide what freedoms we have and when we may have them. They are in no way obligated to go beyond claiming they won the election and are not compelled in any way to listen to us while in office. If we don't like the orders we're given we can defeat them to be replaced by others who do the same thing.
Doesn't seem quite right to me.
That's because you're an idiot. And it's exactly that general idiocy which is why we don't leave things up to the unthinking knee-jerk reactions of the mob.