2 ms·
Fair enough; I would say that I actually agree with you on all counts. I would suggest instead that there's an armistice of sorts that keeps the damage to a mi
by SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
Fair enough; I would say that I actually agree with you on all counts.
I would suggest instead that there's an armistice of sorts that keeps the damage to a minimum. If the gloves come off and everyone starts doing it, then there will be a (virtual) bloodbath.
It's also worth pointing out that if politicians started getting trashed by "vigilante groups" on a regular basis, it would further the current (stated) Tea Party agenda of discrediting government (in an effort to shrink the federal government to a point where it can be "drowned in a bathtub"). I KNOW there are supporters of this concept on HN; I don't really care to debate it, and I'm neither looking for a show of support or protest of the idea. I just want to make sure that it's an understood side-effect of discrediting politicians.
- buff-a 15y agoBloodbath is in nobody's interest. There will be renegotiation. As for discrediting corrupt government, I think that's everybody's agenda.