Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Crimes committed by those who represent the Government or States
Are called Tyranny!
I don't mean to interfere in a dispute you're having with Jim, but your notion of tyranny is excessively original, or at least fairly unique, or maybe a bit ignorant.
Tyranny, as applied to government, is not a crime. "Crimes committed by those who represent the Government or States," as you put it, are, indeed, called crimes.
The government determines what it considers a crime.
A tyrannical government is under the authority of a tyrant or some form of absolute rule. Such government would not consider any actions it took as crimes, but would be considered its prerogative.
A "fair" or "just" government would not consider criminal actions of its officers as tyranny (unless it was speaking very loosely or sloppily, that is, inaccurately). To do so would be accusing itself of tyranny.
The offending officer, in committing a crime would be acting outside of the laws of that government. So, it would consider and call the offending officer's action a crime--not tyranny.
funny Conservatives and yourself must think the use of this word is only reserved for gun owner and causes on you feel worthy or those who dont want to wear a mask or want the state to reopen due to this hoax ?
Oppressive, unjust, or despotic government is a form of absolutist government (a tyranny). And when a "fair" or "just" government does at times act oppressively or unjustly, it then degrades into despotism. In those cases when our government imposes authoritarian strictures on us that are outside of its Constitutional limitations, we can rightly call that tyranny. Calling it merely a crime is minimizing the serious implications and consequences of breaching the constitutional order and setting a precedent for doing so.
And by the way, to what are you referring when you say "this hoax"?
Martin Luther King is dead... killed by a white guy he is not here to ask and I think they have tried his example ,, yet here we are
l
|
Actually, King's example led to a lot of civil rights reform, as well as the overall improvement in white perspective of black people. King's example was very fruitful in race relations. It's only negative might have been in unintentionally persuading the government to eventually go too far in trying to make up for past racial injustice.
And the example of destructive rioting has been tried . . . yet here we are. It destroys King's dream and maintains and fans the flame of hateful divisions that have been become "justified" and entrenched in our country.