State of the Union - pre/post election & whatever...

[General Apathy]

Why do I stick around, Kyote? Because I have every right to do so. I'm the counter protestor here. I'm about the only one with a different viewpoint from the hive mind. Though you and others will often disagree with me, there are some intellectually honest folks who will see that the one true way of the hive isn't always the only right answer, and on occasions, that the hive mind is wrong.

Why do you follow the rest here like a little kid who seems unable to articulate a position of their own, and do anything other than your bullshit attacks? Show me anywhere when I've been an apologist for the Nazis. Doesn't exist. Yet you shovel that shit.

[Guest]

'All's for the best in the best of all possible worlds', eh, GA?

No cultivating that garden for you.

[General Apathy]

OK so I'd like an answer from all of you justifying violence including killing folks to "solve the problem of thosepeople. How far can you go?

Your "solution" sounds a lot like the rhetoric of someone else who had a "solution" for " those people."

[rebelyell2006]

They had a "solution" for white supremacists too. Rule 303.

[General Apathy]

'All's for the best in the best of all possible worlds', eh, GA?

What the hell are you talking about? I've posted nothing along those lines. You are clueless

[General Apathy]

They had a "solution" for white supremacists too

So you are equating unlawful mob action to a declared war? How insane is that?

[rebelyell2006]

ANTIFA keeping an eye out for white supremacists. Nazis were the enemy for a while, but they went into hiding like cockroaches. Now that they are back, we need to resume fighting them.

[rebelyell2006]

Interesting how quiet Grampa Apathy was this weekend. He lives in Virginia, I wonder what he did over the past few days?

[Guest]

You say how you're just...
[quote="General]...the counter protestor here.[/quote]

But if you didn't take that 'counter' position so often as a knee-jerk reaction then maybe people wouldn't draw the 'wrong' conclusions about your views and stance on events.
The problem with habits is that they often lead you into trouble. You might want to look at each individual case before you give into your habit of being the 'counter protestor' if you don't want to be confused as supporting those people you 'counter'.

[Guest]

Genuine question for you, GA.
And yes, I've chosen a particularly emotive subject on purpose because...well...because why not - that's where there is most at stake.

You take the line that the rule of law is the most important thing and that it's sacrosanct and above all else. You give the impression that it is OK to do anything so long as it abides by law.
What about the anti-apartheid demonstrators in South Africa - were they wrong for breaking the law and demonstrating against apartheid?

And another, hypothetical, question for you - if a government passes a law forbidding public demonstration (a bit like North Korea) and the people go on to demonstrate are they in the wrong as well?

I am, of course, in both situations, not dealing with a legal definition of right and wrong (that would be an obvious answer) but a moral distinction.
Therefore, does morality play no part in a citizen's response to a law (that the law is also a moral right) or can someone break a law and still be morally correct?

Those are genuine questions and entirely relevant to the discussion. I'll tell you why, because you have said how sticking to the letter of the law is the most important thing and there is no moral boundaries if we don't:

How far can you go?

The answer seems obvious to me - you go as far as is necessary.

At what point is it 'right' to break a law, where you are concerned?