Good point he makes and it applies to much more than Hilary - today's "We didn't actually break any rules," is yesterday's "I was only obeying orders."

Not really. You don't ask what peoples beliefs are at a job interview, why would you do it here? And asking her to seek faith? It would be no better than panel of Muslims suggesting to a Christian competitor that they should convert to Islam.

Frankly the overwhelming feeling I was detecting from the panel was fear. It was as if the slaves were trying to convince the rebel to shut up lest master hear and give them all the cane. Love is not a command to be obeyed.

The crux of the matter is 'shall not infringe' vs shall not infringe - unless <name exception>'.

If you obey that law literally (constitution is law after all), then most prerequisites to gun ownership are non-starters.

Historically, legislators break that [constitutional] law here and there, but the absoluteness of the statement makes it hard to put up much in the way of hurdles.

As an aside, statements in the bill of rights are terse and without exception for a reason. When you enshrine exceptions, you allow for recategorization of legal constructs as subsets of those exceptions. Which in effect neutralizes the protection, and makes it meaningless.

So, if there was "freedom of speech - unless it causes distress" : then anything that people want to silence would simply be judged as distressing, and that would be the end of freedom of speech (you'd only need people hearing the case to consider it distressing in their opinion). The lack of exceptions empowers people to more easily argue against laws that infringe on those rights - given that there is no real 'easy-out' for infringing laws.

The NRA is the force that guards the 2nd amendment, backed by the people that want it protected (gun owners and gun industry alike). It's their place to push for the strongest 2nd amendment possible. That's their rightful purpose. Other entities can argue against them. We have an adversarial legal system, and that's the nature of the beast.

I'm confident that if there was an amendment protecting the right to drive a car on public roads, then driver's ed requirements would be under legal challenge, too.

-scheherazade

Look, it's really simple. The question was, "Will the US military obey unlawful orders."

I pointed to one proven instance where they absolutely did just that. I didn't bring up rape or any of that, you did, but it actually makes my case even more solid. Not only did they OBEY those orders, they took them several steps further on their own. Abu Ghraib is an excellent example because there was a court case and therefore there's a lot of documentation.

There are a ton of other examples, especially from WWII onward, firebombing major German cities, nuclear attacks on Japan, use of Napalm in Vietnam. Treatment of POWs.... It's a very long list of debatable war crimes, many of which are poorly documented. If you want to pick one as a better example, go ahead, but building up straw men to attack when you seem to essentially agree with the thrust of my argument seems petty and ridiculous.

In theory, yes.

In practice, they've been obeying unlawful orders for quite some time now. I'm not sure why they'd stop just because the Prez is named Trump. Have you all forgotten Abu Ghraib so quickly? And that's just one of hundreds of examples.

Where's the line?

On the shelf to the left of my screen rests a copy of Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill. Excuse the hyperbole, but every single page of that book details actions by the US military/intelligence agencies that were in violation of both international and domestic law. Individuals may refuse to obey unlawful orders, but the organisations will commit every atrocity in the book without much thought.

How many laws did the CIA break during those three years when Hayden was in charge? How many torture camps did it run? How many "black sites"? How many extrajudicial renditions took place?

Let's not even bother with all the shenanigans of the NSA under Hayden's command.

Aside from annexing your lands and turning them into leisure worlds for retired Legionnaires, they also brought central heating, exotic goods, plumbing, roads, law, order, popular clothing styles -- but only for the wealthy -- and at the cost of maybe raping your children to teach your village a lesson to obey Roman rule.

Generations later hardly anyone even remembers and you're now part of the empire. And when you're invaded by other "barbarians" your ancestors will protect their Roman culture as if it were always theirs to enjoy. Fight the other barbarians for us, you barbarian!!

You almost get the feeling they defined the entire future of western civilization. Every nasty bit; confusingly superior customs that are required otherwise you become a slave -- and maybe you'll become a slave anyway, even if you follow the rules. After all, once a bitch, always a bitch and so an entire legion slowly blots out your cultural and genetic existence.

Yay, Roman Empire!

you must be drinking MSNBC tea.

The party is making rich people richer? You mean Obama and the Democrats. The rich got way richer the last 7 years especially the banks, and no of them went to jail.

The people on the right just want the government to obey the Constitution. Pure and simple. Democrats and the Republicans are no longer for the people. 19 Trillion and counting .

So...the feds holding property they've held at least since 1907 as a wildlife refuge, or surroundings they've purchased since then, and leasing it to people like these at ridiculously low prices is 'creeping into our lives' and 'overgrowth of government'?
Um...yeah...how does that work?
These people committed arson on federal land DURING A WILDFIRE and were found guilty, and are sentenced under federal MINIMUM guidelines, not given the max, and these Bundy people are finding that an overreach of government...how?
The cognitive dissonance in their last statement would be hilarious if it wasn't an actual mindset so many people AGREE with when talking about white groups, but scoff at as self serving drivel when applied to black groups.
THESE people think the law is rigged against them? What should the Black Lives Matter people think when it's PROVEN the law is rigged against them, and it's their LIFE at stake, not their right to do whatever they want on other people's property, including arson, without consequence.
And can you imagine the terrified outrage on Fox if a group of armed BLM (Black Lives Matter) people took over a BLM (Bureau of Land Management) office, like these nutjobs did? Now consider the ridicule if they did it to 'protest' the mandatory sentencing of a convicted arsonist....who's black.

Oh...interesting to find out this as well....
-Many of the tactics and talking points being used were popularized in the 1970s by the white supremacist group Posse Comitatus. This group promoted the “Christian Patriot” movement, advocated the formation of “Citizens Militias,” helped forge an idiosyncratic reading of the Constitution, said the county sheriff was the highest elected official that should be obeyed, and opposed federal environmental restrictions.

Sweet Zombie Jesus!

@HugeJerk come on man,now you're just engaging in semantics,while ignoring voodoos point.

ok,lets play the semantics game and change the scenario,and see how comfortable you are with those scenarios:

@VoodooV has a video of your family member smoking weed...in a park.

@VoodooV has a video of your family member participating in a winter solstice ritual and his companies owner is a strict,religious fundamentalist.

(and before you throw out that firing over religious reasons is illegal,understand that the companies boss is not an idiot.your family member will be fired for other reasons,but rest assured..he is GONE).

@VoodooV has a video of your family member meeting with a lady of the evening.

would you like me to continue?
because in every one of these scenarios NOBODY was harmed,yet each one of those activities could bring great harm to your family member.

smoking weed harms no one,but it is illegal still in many states and many companies have a strict "drug-free' policy.(which i think is retarded)

engaging in a religious ritual,conforming to your family members belief system,harms no one,but is in direct conflict with the religious practices of the person who signs his checks.this would likely result in termination..with predjudice..but wait,thats against the law!! damn..foiled again!
aaaaah,but what is this?
the boss could just use another reason for termination.
the argument has been made that the owner of the company can do what he pleases..it is his company after all and he views paganism as heretical and against the wishes and dictates of GOD.
so your family member can just kiss his job goodbye.

or how about prostitution?
nobody was harmed.
sex between consensual adults for the exchange of currency.
but..its illegal...so bye bye to job.

and if @VoodooV was a particularly venal and nasty human being ,who REALLY wanted to impose his will upon your family member.he could just send those tapes to every new job your family member may have the luck to get.send them to creditors.apartment managers.etc etc.

@VoodooV could literally destroy your family members life,just by sending a video with an implied threat.

"if you do not take action about this person,i will expose YOU"

most people do not have the temerity to stand up to that form of bullying.they have businesses to run,bills to pay and families to protect.

and it is also why this tactic is so effective,because it WORKS.browbeating with the intent to force submission to a set of moral ideals held by a select,self righteous few.

it is like the dark ages!! but with broadband and iphones!!

so you better behave.
better obey all laws,real and social.
or the focus could become YOU,and not some turdnugget that is easy to hate.

@newtboy
still missing my main point.

which may be my fault,i tend to ramble.

i can agree that:
choices have consequences.
i can agree that an employer had a right to fire according to its own dictates and standards.
i can actually agree with much of what you are saying,but it is not my point.

i am simply pointing out the larger and greater societal implications of how social media,youtube,instagram,tumblr etc etc are being used as bully pulpits by those who feel morally superior to admonish,chastise and ridicule other people into submission.sometimes rightly so,other times not.

there is already a growing number of people who have been directly affected by this new paradigm,and what i find disturbing is that so few are even bothered by this new development.

people have lost jobs over facebook posts!
for posting an opinion for fuck sakes!

and nobody seems to have a problem with this?
this is perfectly acceptable in a supposed "free" society?

lets use a totally hyperbolic example,but the parameters are the same:
during the salem witch trials it was later found to be common practice that one farmer would accuse his competition of witchcraft.

was this neighbor actually practicing witchcraft?
probably not,but what an effective way to rid yourself of competition.

we can use an even more recent example of afghanistan,where farmers were turning in their rivals for cash.they get rid of competition and their neighbor is whisked off to gitmo.

do you see what i am saying?

the larger implications are vast and easily abused.
and this is most certainly a PC police issue,because it is actually punishing offensive speech,opinions and positions.

west baptist church are a repulsive and offensive group of religious thugs,but they have a right to speak and express their vile opinions.

and i will defend their right to be offensive and vulgar,while totally disagreeing with their position.

this is social control by proxy.
don't say anything offensive,or there shall be consequences i.e:job loss
dont say anything controversial or there will be consequences,or post anything racy or contrary to social norms.

in fact,because more and more people are paying the price for saying/posting a controversial view or offensive opinion,just be quiet.

sit down.
shut up.
and obey.

or the PC police will band together to expose your offensive,controversial and subversive opinions and destroy your life.

so you just sit there and think your thoughts,but don't you dare voice them,or the morality police will expose you for the subversive you are.

this tactic is already reaching orwellian levels.
and nobody seems to be bothered.
nobody seems to be giving this the scrutiny and examination it deserves.there is a real danger here that many of my fellow citizens seems to be either unaware,or just dont care the larger implications and that is disturbing to me.

because some of the examples are just like THIS turdnugget.
a reprehensible,vulgar and ignorant example of a human being.so it is easy to feel good about him getting a "comeupance".

because we hate him and what he represents.so it is easy to ignore the larger picture and the implications of social warriors taking things too far.which i could literally type all day laying out scenarios where this form of PC police/social warriors could easily be abused (and already HAS in some instances).

and that should have us all standing up and taking notice,because it is those very implications and the relative silence that is disturbing me the most.

so yeah,this turdnugget is an easy target and easily dismissed as getting what he deserved,but what happens when it is YOUR behavior being villified? something you were doing ,maybe in the privacy of your own home or out with friends that made its way to youtube,and someone found offensive.what if you were taken out of context? or the video was edited?

how would you defend yourself?
better yet,WHY would you have to defend yourself when you were not harming anyone,but some overly-sensitive fuckwit was offended and decided you should be punished?

there is a plethora of historical examples i could use where tyrannical governments,despots and police states have literally quashed dissent,differing opinions and abhorrent behavior by simply creating fear..not of the government per se,but rather by their own neighbors.

which is EXACTLY what the PC police and social warriors use to silence their opponents.fear.

you are totally within your right to disagree with me,but my main argument is how easily this tactic can be abused and if we dont start paying attention now.we may not get a chance later.

it has happened before.
it can happen again.

*intent to harm is an actual legal charge,and can be prosecuted.

there was no harm here.except for feelings and racist/derogatory language.

i guess you could make the "emotional distress' argument,but in a 5 minute video you would be hard pressed to prove actual,irreparable harm.

i am rambling again,and probably lost the plot somewhere,but i hope i at least got my main point across.

there is a real and present danger here my man,and it threatens some of this countries core ideas and is ripe for abuse.

because the truth is:this tactic works and it works extremely well.

Chill out, dog. Watch a cat video. Obey. Procreate.

Job 4:18-19

If God places no trust in his servants, if he charges his angels with error, How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?

Satan perfectly obeyed God until he developed a desire to have the worship that God had for himself. How that developed, I don't know, but it isn't a sin to be tempted; it's a sin to act on it, thought or deed. Jesus was tempted in every way, yet without sin.

there many forms of enslavement,to wit most people are wholly unaware,either unwittingly or unwillingly.

"none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free" van goethe.

consider this my friends:
if you accept currency for your labors,where you toil for anothers financial gain.you are literally renting yourself.trading your time,creativity and labors for coin.you are a wage slave and a hundred years ago our ancestors were very aware of this and found it detestable.they literally saw it as a form of slavery.

now as @Lawdeedaw pointed out,there are some protections put forth by our government,along with other governments,but those were not just handed out.they had to be fought for,and many died for those protections.by whom? wage slaves,but in those days they KNEW thats what they were,and proceeded from that premise.

the philosophy of the matrix even addressed this very idea of slavery (yep,i went there).that the majority of the people had become so entrenched and immersed in the system,that to even question the system would illicit a violent and defensive response.they would fight to remain in the system.

just look at our friend @Barbar 's reaction.
even the term "slave" was enough for a visceral reaction.

i am reminded of a doug stanhope routine in where he states " at least i KNOW i am a slave,YOU,however..remain clueless".

so let us take the term "slave" off the table and instead use the dynamic of "power vs powerlessness".

the current systems of power have the majority of people running on hamster wheel of desperation.may it be "pay check to paycheck" or "mortgage and credit cards" or the subtle doctrine of "conform and obey".this could also be "all of the above".

the real question is this:
do you consider yourself free?
because a comfortable slave.....is still a slave.
the term may be dramatic,but it is accurate.

I agree with everything else you said, but I have to take issue with this.

The two are not comparable at all. A cop is not an abusive spouse, they are the people who society grants a monopoly on force to. Their explicit purpose is enforce the law. If a cop issues a lawful request and you do not comply with it, they are BY DEFINITION, allowed to use force.

Now, I'm not saying that all police do this correctly, or that there aren't serious issues with racial bias.

But it comes down to rights and responsibilities.
An abuser has no right to abuse their spouse/children and their victims have no responsibility to capitulate or be perfect.
Whereas again, a cop explicitly has the right to use force and a citizen has the responsibility to obey a lawfully issued command from a police officer.