Politics ad absurdam
From the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6897656.stm
Police spent £111,000 last year on a crackdown on an anti-war protest outside Westminster.
Brian Haw, 57, has held vigil in Parliament Square for six years, using a megaphone to attack the government policy on Iraq.
Up to 428 officer shifts were devoted to the overnight raid to scale back Mr Haw's encampment on 23 May 2006, according to Scotland Yard figures.
Mr Haw, of Redditch, Worcs, has blocked several attempts to have him removed.
The figure is more than four times greater than the £27,000 previously estimated.
Let's see, just on the basis of this exerpt, we see a man fighting against the fight against Islamofascism.
He'd've gotten along real fine with Oswald Mosely.
[neo] Please, just bomb Iran.[/con]
lol. I love it. Urbane, you are a tonic, you really are.
Do you not also see a government and police force which disallows public protest? Not to mention how ludicrous to spend £110,000 trying to stop a one man protest.
It is of course very sad, but too, I have no sympathy for the man either.
Interesting that what struck you first was his anti-war sentiment, and not the infringement of basic rights of expression.
As you know, I am so very, unbelievably, utterly, so fucking tired of the ones so myopic as to oppose the demolition of the undemocratic paradigm of sociopolitical order.
In shorter words, of the dummies who think killing fascists is a bad thing.
As opposed to the dummies who think that we should voluntarily dismantle our democratic freedoms rather than give houseroom to this man's anti-war philosphy?
In shorter words, of the dummies who think killing fascists is a bad thing.
Threatening your President is not wise since everything changed. You have time to edit.
Griff, I can't imagine where you got that: personally, I'm threatening the Democratic Party. George Bush's actions all show, and from day one, that he thinks killing fascists is quite a good thing. I heartily agree.
The Libertarian-activist habit of speaking of all the non-Libertarians (big L, I suppose) as "fascists" in the manner that astronomers and astrophysicists speak of all elements other than hydrogen and helium as the "metals" -- well, this seems to me only about that precise. As a libertarian, I doubt if I shall ever indulge in it.
DanaC, and somehow we should oppose only some dummies and not all dummies?? Avoid conning yourself with false dichotomies -- you certainly could not lead me thus astray.
DanaC, and somehow we should oppose only some dummies and not all dummies?? Avoid conning yourself with false dichotomies -- you certainly could not lead me thus astray.
For some reason I have an image of you wearing biblical robes somewhere in a desert.
[Holding hands over vessel of water] Hey, watch this! First I make the water part in two halves, then I change the left half into cabernet and the right into chardonnay!
"Vote for me and I won't touch you down there".
Was going to be mine.
For some reason I have an image of you wearing biblical robes somewhere in a desert.
While having sex with his camel.
So, Bruce, tell me: do I indulge in such remarks wrt you?
You're right, I apologize. Change camel to rocket launcher.
LoL
*now has image of whooping UG, astride a rocket, Dr Strangelove style*
No Dana, he'd rather send others off to die.
I've worn my country's uniform, Bruce. There was at least one day then where it looked like I'd get in a war -- with Iran. My moral position is quite secure, and I'd like you not to forget that again.
Please accept this finger -- with an orbital Whoop-peee motion.
I know you have, and although you didn't see combat I'm sure you would have done your duty. But, we're not talking about the past, are we.
We are talking about now, and the future, where you can promote fucking with the whole world because you don't approve of their socio-econimic systems.... while you are out safely fishing on your boat.
Therefore, I stand by my statement.
I'll see your finger and raise you one.
I can't believe the government would feel so threatened by a one man protest that they're willing to invest a years wages for probably 3 or 4 British families in order to try and shut him up - unsuccessfully apparently.
There's libertarian democracy, and then there's everything else, Bruce. The reason I disapprove of the everything else is because I'm paying attention. The way you'd like me to follow is unacceptable, for its fascist sympathies. This, it appears, is your comfort zone.
GET OUT OF THERE.
Let's see, just on the basis of this exerpt, we see a man fighting against the fight against Islamofascism.
Ah, if only the UK had
National Review Cruises, the solution would be as simple as all the others they offer.
I am getting used to these moments – when gentle holiday geniality bleeds into... what? I lie on the beach with Hillary-Ann, a chatty, scatty 35-year-old Californian designer. As she explains the perils of Republican dating, my mind drifts, watching the gentle tide. When I hear her say, " Of course, we need to execute some of these people," I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. "A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country," she says. "Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get." She squints at the sun and smiles. " Then things'll change."
After all, if they don't listen, there's going to be hell in a short number of years.
"Is he your only child?" I ask. "Yes," she says. "Do you have a child back in England?" she asks. No, I say. Her face darkens. "You'd better start," she says. "The Muslims are breeding. Soon, they'll have the whole of Europe."
...
Steyn's thesis in his new book, America Alone, is simple: The "European races" i.e., white people – "are too self-absorbed to breed," but the Muslims are multiplying quickly. The inevitable result will be " large-scale evacuation operations circa 2015" as Europe is ceded to al Qaeda and "Greater France remorselessly evolve[s] into Greater Bosnia."
There's libertarian democracy, and then there's everything else, Bruce.
Where is this libertarian democracy, you speak of? You seem to be so enamored with it, you fail to grasp the the people in "everything else" don't care what you want for them. They are even so brazen as to want to live under a system of their own choosing.
I know, I know, they're ingrates and ignoring your wishes is stupid on their part, but people being thinking creatures tend to be like that. Even your propensity for wanting to force them to do your bidding doesn't seem to deter them. They must be evil.
Whoring after a false god -- totalitarianism -- is evil by any definition, Bruce. Your attempt at pseudosophistication is a profound failure. Democracy works better for any human being than any other system; those pushing some other path are pushing oppression, intending to license themselves and those like themselves as oppressors. Such enemies of humankind should be hunted down and converted permanently or shot.
When the last dictator is strangled on the guts of the last chief of secret police, how much oppression and misery will have fled the world? You've never attempted an answer to that question, rhetorical or no.
I am using libertarian, with a small L, in a way you seem not to have educated yourself about -- as a general sociopolitical tendency, such as is largely done here in these United States, and was more done in past days. This libertarianism is what is expressed in the remark, "It's a free country."
My point here is you don't have to be an American citizen, nor even of the native English-speaking world, to enjoy the benefits of democracy. The only thing unique to us Americans is that we're doing it first. If we can have it, surely any human can have it. This seems an idea you're reluctant to accept; I cannot see why.
Kitsune, while The National Review can often put desiderata simply, they are never unaware of complexities that may transpire. I find them admirable for clarity.
I cannot see why.
That is the understatement of the century.
I am using libertarian, with a small L, in a way you seem not to have educated yourself about -- as a general sociopolitical tendency, such as is largely done here in these United States, and was more done in past days. This libertarianism is what is expressed in the remark, "It's a free country."
In much the same way, then, that I and many other british/europeans use the term 'socialism' with a small s, to describe a general socio-political tendency.
As a libertarian, I am as you can readily see an antisocialist.
That is the understatement of the century.
Which is NOT a help to getting me to see why you think any way, let alone your way -- was there ever anything there at all to see? C'mon, Bruce, you're supposed to be a smart guy, right? Make it clear. Elucidate: I'd like to see why you're so unhappy at the prospect of a great American/human success, in despite of anything the anti-American opposition could come up with (seems all they can do is kill people and burn up stuff), that you oppose it so determinedly.
What makes you think I'm trying to win you over, to change your mind?
I learned long ago it not only wastes my time, it annoys the pig^^^ duck.
Heh -- and yet still you type.
Well, so do I. Heh twice.
What I'm learning is that we type less in hope of persuasion than of staking our respective positions out. You could call it advertising.
Meanwhile, elucidate. If you actually have a good idea here, I'd be pleased to accept it; that's what I do, whatever appearances may say. If you don't have a good idea... well, we can predict how that will come out.
Why don't Europeans just make it illegal to speak from the Koran, wear a turban, or anything that "seems" like it is "Islamofascists"?
Isn't that how they handle this kind of thing? S-what they did with the BNP, skins and the like, right.
Just limit their speech.
Same thing.
As a libertarian, I am as you can readily see an antisocialist.
This would be fine if you didn't limit yourself to only looking to the left for threats to your freedom.
What do you call someone who only looks one way before crossing the street? Roadkill.
Why don't Europeans just make it illegal to speak from the Koran, wear a turban, or anything that "seems" like it is "Islamofascists"?
Isn't that how they handle this kind of thing? S-what they did with the BNP, skins and the like, right.
Just limit their speech.
Same thing.
Europeans or British? The BNP are a solely British affair. Even with Euro-wide agreements, the laws are actually very different from one European nation to another.
From BBC
European interior ministers have agreed to make incitement to racism an EU-wide crime, but have stopped short of a blanket ban on Holocaust denial.
The agreement makes it an offence to condone or grossly trivialise crimes of genocide - but only if the effect is incitement to violence or hatred.
The deal follows six years of talks, and will disappoint Germany, which pushed hard for a Holocaust-denial law.
Berlin has also had to drop a proposal for an EU-wide ban on Nazi symbols.
The European Network Against Racism said most European countries already had laws against incitement to racism, and the "weak text" would leave many national legal codes unchanged.
Films and plays
Under the agreement, incitement to hatred or violence against a group or a person based on colour, race, national or ethnic origin must be punishable by at least a year in jail.
However, member states can choose to limit prosecutions to cases likely to disturb public order.
Punishing incitement to hatred against religion will only be compulsory in cases where it amounts to inciting hatred against a national or ethnic group, race or colour.
Officials said the wording was carefully designed to avoid criminalising films or plays about genocide, or discouraging academic research.
But dissemination of "tracts, pictures or other material" is punishable if it is designed to incite violence or hatred.
The chief difficulty holding up an agreement, since the proposal was first put forward in 2001, was the concern of some states that it would impinge on freedom of speech.
The text of the decision says the new rules will not modify the obligation to respect fundamental legal principles, including freedom of expression and association.
Countries where it is already a crime to deny the Holocaust will stick to their existing rules, but other countries will not be obliged to help them with judicial investigations.
STATES WITH HOLOCAUST DENIAL LAWS
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
You'll notice Britain isn't on that list. The countries on that list, who operate wt holocaust denial laws, are mainly those who have a strong reason to seek to keep that history.
In Britain, our laws limiting what groups like the BNP can say/disseminate, are very specific. It is not ilegal for someone to say 'I hate all blacks'. It's not illegal to say 'all pakis are scum and we should send 'em all back'. It is illegal to address a rally, or deliver a bunch of leaflets saying 'the time is now, stand up for white rights, kick a paki today'.
Steyn's thesis in his new book, America Alone, is simple: The "European races" i.e., white people – "are too self-absorbed to breed," but the Muslims are multiplying quickly. The inevitable result will be " large-scale evacuation operations circa 2015" as Europe is ceded to al Qaeda and "Greater France remorselessly evolve[s] into Greater Bosnia."
I'd buy that, but soon they will have to fight the spanish speaking illegal immigrants in the US.
I'd buy that, but soon they will have to fight the spanish speaking illegal immigrants in the US.
We may be on the verge of a super-threat, here: what if some of those spanish speaking illegal immigrants happen to be spanish speaking
muslim illegal immigrants? I can't even imagine what threat level DHS would put us to if any of them were homosexuals, too.
Better get to breeding, whitey. Your rac-, err, way of life is dying!
Rich, it's simply that the Wrong Right doesn't have the clout, the organization, the numbers, the funds or the ear of the government to threaten my liberties the way the activists of the Loon Left can.
And too, you've noticed how much advice I take from the Loon and Loon-oid Left.
Unfortunately it's the Right that are taking them away as quickly as they can.
Europeans or British? The BNP are a solely British affair. Even with Euro-wide agreements, the laws are actually very different from one European nation to another.
From BBC
You'll notice Britain isn't on that list. The countries on that list, who operate wt holocaust denial laws, are mainly those who have a strong reason to seek to keep that history.
In Britain, our laws limiting what groups like the BNP can say/disseminate, are very specific. It is not ilegal for someone to say 'I hate all blacks'. It's not illegal to say 'all pakis are scum and we should send 'em all back'. It is illegal to address a rally, or deliver a bunch of leaflets saying 'the time is now, stand up for white rights, kick a paki today'.
Really, so the BNP can have a rally with White Law playing and the crowd giving the Nazi salute in the UK and no one says boo?
I don't think so.
Again, if they are going to do this, they might as well do it for Muslims... same thing.
Unfortunately it's the Right that are taking them away as quickly as they can.
That, rkzen, is what the Loon Left is saying -- they're saying, but I don't see anything happening. They base this upon anti-Republicanism, a most suspicious basis for anything.
My Bill of Rights is as intact as it always was, and better off than when that disgrace Clinton was in. If mine is all right, why is yours decaying?
So the Left is driving for the removal of our freedoms? Really?
Or it isn't happening?
Which one?
Since BushCo. has been in office they have been wiping their ass with the Constitution and Bill Of Rights and I can't wait to see them in prison for it.
Yeah, thanks, I added "Left", or are They gonna' come and get me for the last statement? LOL!
Really, so the BNP can have a rally with White Law playing and the crowd giving the Nazi salute in the UK and no one says boo?
I don't think so.
The BNP hold regular rallies, at which they may, should they wish to do so, raise their hands in nazi salutes and listen to white nationalist music.It's not illegal for them to do so as long as they have the relevant permissions for holding a rally. Just like any other political group. I know, because I've been there on the counter-demos, and have seen the police force protect their right to do so.
Individual local authorities, may refuse to grant permission for a rally/event to be held on council property (ie. the public park, or town centre) if they can reasonably show that it may lead to public disorder and risk. Individual authorities may also have a blanket ban on using their facilities for political purposes (my own authority refused permission to a group of Falun Gong monks who wished to raise awareness of human rights abuses in China, by rallyng in the centre of town)
Rage, I know you think Britain is just a few steps away from fascism because we have laws about inciting racial hatred, but really, I think you have an overblown sense of the limitations we impose on fascist parties. Far morwe worrying, to me, is the laws preventing demonstrations in Parliament square without prior written permisson from the Police. Now
that is worrying. That we don't allow people to call for the death and destruction of ethnic minorities within our country really doesn't worry me.
At least things have loosened-up some, perhaps you will get a leader that will stand-up to the EU and will support free-speech completely some day.
Nothing helps those groups & their messages more than legitimizing them with laws that are supposed to "limit" them.
At least things have loosened-up some, perhaps you will get a leader that will stand-up to the EU and will support free-speech completely some day.
Nothing helps those groups & their messages more than legitimizing them with laws that are supposed to "limit" them.
Things haven't loosened up. This is how it's been for years. I don't want a leader who will 'stand up to the EU', frankly, we've had enough anti-Euro politics in the UK in recent years.
As to Europe's 'anti-free speech' laws. I fully understand why some European nations would seek to make it illegal to use nazi salutes or propogate nazi propaganda. There are still many, many people across Europe whose lives were affected by real fascism. Not the stuff you're pointing at Rk, but the real fucking deal that led to the slaughtering of millions.
Nothing helps those groups & their messages more than legitimizing them with laws that are supposed to "limit" them.
Really? That wasn't what allowed them to take hold in Germany. They had the freedom to print what they wanted, about whom they wished, and they used that to prepare the ground well.
Nothing helps these groups more than the sheer complacency of people who think they wouldn't/couldn't gain power again.
Things haven't loosened up. This is how it's been for years. I don't want a leader who will 'stand up to the EU', frankly, we've had enough anti-Euro politics in the UK in recent years.
As to Europe's 'anti-free speech' laws. I fully understand why some European nations would seek to make it illegal to use nazi salutes or propogate nazi propaganda. There are still many, many people across Europe whose lives were affected by real fascism. Not the stuff you're pointing at Rk, but the real fucking deal that led to the slaughtering of millions.
Which is illegal in the US. Inciting to do harm is not speech it is assault, a clear distinction.
You would think if they hated it so much they would want to avoid
becoming that above all.
Once you adopt a tactic, that is what you are.
"We hate Nazis... let's be just like them!" yeah, makes perfect sense.
You would think if they hated it so much they would want to avoid becoming that above all.
Once you adopt a tactic, that is what you are.
You are oversimplifying a complex issue.
"We hate Nazis... let's be just like them!" yeah, makes perfect sense.
Yeah, I must have missed the part where we set up death camps and exterminated 6 and a half million Jews, not to mention assorted Gypsies, Mental patients, disabled children, communist party members and Trade Unionists.
Thankfully we all can look to America where freedom is enshrined in law and everybody's civil liberties are adequately protected.
The country that is more susceptible to propaganda, unquestions orders, and is blindly nationalistic will be the one that will go to fascism.
I doubt Europe will go to fascism because a big event is needed. In Germany it was the great depression, WWI, and Hitler's "war on terror" that gave him so much power and support.
Heh -- and yet still you type.
Well, so do I. Heh twice.
What I'm learning is that we type less in hope of persuasion than of staking our respective positions out. You could call it advertising.
Meanwhile, elucidate. If you actually have a good idea here, I'd be pleased to accept it; that's what I do, whatever appearances may say. If you don't have a good idea... well, we can predict how that will come out.
What the fuck are you babbling about? Idea about what?
Yeah, thanks, I added "Left", or are They gonna' come and get me for the last statement? LOL!
Well, maybe The Daily Kos, but that's just the risk you run, hey?:rolleyes:
What the fuck are you babbling about? Idea about what?
Pay attention, Bruce, and engage forebrain before operating fingers.
Try rereading this thread and I think you just may garner a clue what I'm "babbling" about. Right now the gibbering you're doing tells me you're not using all three digits of your IQ. Is it truly your goal in life that I regard you as an idiot, revising my opinion of your brainpower... downward?? Sounds preposterous.
Anyway, two things are clear. First, I have a certain political perspective and certain ideas of what should be done, both of which I've spoken on. Second, you think these ideas are just awful, the political perspective astigmatic.
What is far less than clear is just why Bruce should hold any such idea or objection to mine. There seems no visible basis for Bruce's supposition.
God damn, you sounded just like tw. Same style, claim superiority and attack me instead of a straight answer. Pathetic.
In other words, no visible basis for your suppositions, and too lazy to get one? That's how it looks from here, Bruce. If you're a good man, you can deliver. If you're not, you'll refuse to.
My straight answer is my third paragraph.
There's libertarian democracy, and then there's everything else, Bruce.
Such enemies of humankind should be hunted down and converted permanently or shot.
When the last dictator is strangled on the guts of the last chief of secret police, how much oppression and misery will have fled the world?
Make it clear. Elucidate: I'd like to see why you're so unhappy at the prospect of a great American/human success, in despite of anything the anti-American opposition could come up with (seems all they can do is kill people and burn up stuff), that you oppose it so determinedly.
Anyway, two things are clear. First, I have a certain political perspective and certain ideas of what should be done, both of which I've spoken on. Second, you think these ideas are just awful, the political perspective astigmatic.
What is far less than clear is just why Bruce should hold any such idea or objection to mine. There seems no visible basis for Bruce's supposition.
I'm struggling to decide which is more repulsive.
1-The fact that you advocate killing any, and all, that choose a different socio-economic system for themselves... people that are no threat to you other than the failure to work to make you richer.
Or 2- Your failure to comprehend why anyone would not wish to join your Big Game Hunt. Why anyone would disagree with your desire to force your choices on the whole world and murder any who resist.
Your 'fer me or agin me' attitude is most telling.... all the fascists have had that attitude.
Again, there's libertarian democracy, and there's everything else -- never something more, always something less. The something-less is not a matter of "choosing for themselves," but is forced upon the otherwise happily democratic by coercion, the old "you bow to us and give us your money or we shoot" paradigm. There lies the true fascism, or other objectionable-ism. They're all pretty much the same thing under the skin. To accept that it was "chosen for themselves" is to believe an official opinion poll -- from a dictatorship. Hardly wise.
These are the oppressors. They are the ones to be shot instead. Funny you'd rather let them perpetrate their oppressions just so you can stay comfortable, isn't it? Destroying evil isn't murder, Bruce. You seem to be unclear on the concept of murder if that's your argument.
Destroying evil and its practitioners is a beautiful thing, Bruce, even if you haven't the eyes to see. Calling a faith in democracy, one measurable even in the blood of tyrants, "repulsive" is not the action of a wise man. It does just great for a fascist shill, though.
And wouldn't the nasties I describe be just as ready to shoot you if you didn't cooperate with them? Why, therefore, should they continue to take up space, warm the globe, and breathe up oxygen? The undemocrats are in the main a waste of carbon-14 uptake. Their shills and lackeys... well...
Again, there's libertarian democracy, and there's everything else -- never something more, always something less. The something-less is not a matter of "choosing for themselves," but is forced upon the otherwise happily democratic by coercion, the old "you bow to us and give us your money or we shoot" paradigm. There lies the true fascism, or other objectionable-ism. They're all pretty much the same thing under the skin.
Funny how "give us your entire country or we shoot" is totally okay and nice and right, but "give us your money or we shoot" isn't.
Invading and taking over a sovereign nation, especially on a foundation of lies and misinformation, is never acceptable - just as unacceptable as ruling that nation undemocratically.
Interesting that what struck you first was his anti-war sentiment, and not the infringement of basic rights of expression.
Being the simpleton I am the only thing that struck me was that word
Absurdam.:p
Again, there's libertarian democracy, and there's everything else
NO, there's what people choose for themselves and what you choose for them. That's all, everything else, all the fancy names, is bullshit, hype, propaganda and excuses, for you imposing your choice on everyone.
But UG is the only smart one here who knows what's best for everyone else. Sooner or later you'll realize Bruce (and everyone else).
Given what passes for the competition in this forum, Aliantha's crack tempts me unduly. Perhaps I should shout Retro me, Alianthas?;) Really, I'm not hearing opposed ideas compelling enough to change my tune here. This is in large part because I'm hearing very few actual ideas at all -- just a passel of "No, no!" -- full stop.
Bruce is now showing (and shouting) frustration -- which isn't really my aim, not at all. We're still at Square One here: it is clear enough that he finds the active spreading of democracy and the balking of undemocrats' efforts to prevent it to be objectionable, on some grounds or other. What those grounds are remains so far opaque, unexpressed. Perhaps these grounds are hidden fascist sympathies, or perhaps he simply has no faith at all in democracy nor the possibility of government that is actually good.
In the troublesome parts of the world you've got a lot of places that are totalitarian or tyrannous -- too much government -- or places with too little government: failed or failing states.
Anybody want to call either condition a good one? While that government is best which governs least, or as it might be put, needs to govern least or needs least to govern -- still, anarchy may be characterized justly as entirely too much of a good thing.
You're desire to force your choice of socio/political system on other countries, makes you a bigger fascist than the despots that just force one on their own.
I think the part UG misses is that democracy claims it is valid because its power resides in the people. The power in Iraq resides in the gun.
Bruce, once you understand that post # 63 is the Platonic ideal of "utter hogwash," then and only then will you understand my world.
The victory in the European Theater of Operations stands in refutation of your every word there.
Were we "fascists" to defeat the Fascist nations of Italy and Germany and make democracies there? We were not. And taking that as an exemplar, I propose no other outcome.
Bruce, you just don't believe in democracy at all -- not enough, at any rate to want to see it spread further across the globe, in despite of any obstacle. Why should that be, of all the Godawful things to have taking over your mind? Note too that the grounds for this, philosophical or other, are yet unexpressed and unexplained. That's no good for your argument, Bruce -- for look just how free I am to speculate, and what suspicions the speculations engender.
The power in Iraq resides in the gun.
Well that's a real change.
Well that's a real change.
Obviously not, but as outsiders how do we represent democracy in which the power is supposed to reside in the people?
Obviously not, but as outsiders how do we represent democracy in which the power is supposed to reside in the people?
Good question. I don't have the answer. Personally I always thought it might have been a better plan to have a limited military action and just replace Sadaam with another brutal dictator who could have kept everyone in line through whatever means he wanted. As long as he was friendly with the US. But of course we could never have done that...
Yeah, we'd probably get another Iran. I guess we could have focused on Al Queda instead... but here we are. They buried another local kid over the weekend. The Patriot Guard came but thankfully no nutters would pull any crap around here.
Yeah, we'd probably get another Iran. I guess we could have focused on Al Queda instead... but here we are. They buried another local kid over the weekend. The Patriot Guard came but thankfully no nutters would pull any crap around here.
No doubt.
You are oversimplifying a complex issue.
Yeah, I must have missed the part where we set up death camps and exterminated 6 and a half million Jews, not to mention assorted Gypsies, Mental patients, disabled children, communist party members and Trade Unionists.
Thankfully we all can look to America where freedom is enshrined in law and everybody's civil liberties are adequately protected.
I did not say Nazi, I said Fascist.
Our freedom of speech is a damn-sight better protected than places where you can't speak your mind about race.
That IS Fascism's first step.
Your tactics are who you are. Why you do it does not matter.
In other words rk "the ends do not justify the means" - I got that, and I agree to a point. But I'm having trouble seeing the parallel between the two.
For example, If I kill a dog just for fun vs. killing a dog that is attacking a child there. Is there no difference?
rk, censorship is and has been a feature of many types of society and government. That it may also have been one of the tools utilitised by fascist regimes, does not mean any state where censorship is in place is fascistic. You practice censorship in America. You limit what can be seen, or heard, by whom. You also limit what can be printed and prosletysed by such groups as the KKK. You draw the line at the point that you believe words and actions have merged to become a threat of harm to someone. The difference in Europe, and also in Britain, is where we draw that line.
Censorship does not equate to fascism. Fascism is a great deal more than that. Not all systems employing censorship are fascist, but fascist states all use censorship.
You also limit what can be printed and prosletysed by such groups as the KKK.
No we don't. Not one iota.
What if they are calling for a mass action to lynch blacks?
It's protected speech, believe it or not. They can say whatever they want.
*Nods* I see. I find that scary.
*Nods* I see. I find that scary.
Me too - I guess this Freedom thing isn't free.
It all stems from the fact that the US was never governed by "betters" - no Kings, no dictators, no appointed experts to save us from ourselves.
No person's words or opinions can be more correct, under the law, than another's. We are all equal under the law.
When the KKK exercises their right to free speech, people understand and respond with more speech. These days counter-protests of the KKK are larger than the actual protest, at least in the northeast.
I much more fear the restriction of speech, than free people speaking on whatever they care to speak.
Explain that to the judge when he claps you in irons for contempt of court.
Which is only allowed to occur with a court, and not, say, getting clapped in irons for "contempt of diner restaurant."
When it is your turn to speak in court... speak.
You just may not interrupt proceedings. As long as you are recognized by the court, you are fine.
Something you can't say, someplaces.
It all stems from the fact that the US was never governed by "betters" - no Kings, no dictators, no appointed experts to save us from ourselves.
No person's words or opinions can be more correct, under the law, than another's. We are all equal under the law.
When the KKK exercises their right to free speech, people understand and respond with more speech. These days counter-protests of the KKK are larger than the actual protest, at least in the northeast.
I much more fear the restriction of speech, than free people speaking on whatever they care to speak.
I think that the existence of free speech zones implies that we have betters.
Griff, that's just Ringer's Paradox in action.
I don't know who Ringer is but Bubble Boys surrounded by yes men need to see protestors.
I don't know who Ringer is but Bubble Boys surrounded by yes men need to see protestors.
Whatcha talkin' bout Griffis?
When the protests are kept away from the venues where politicians are spinning it does not look like competition in the marketplace of ideas to me.
There is also the issue of politicians living inside the beltway seeing only their supporters losing touch with reality, despite or in spite of poll numbers.
Robert J. Ringer: Restoring the American Dream. He made the point that no right or liberty exists absolutely untrammeled in any society of more than one person, and put it A freedom restricted is a freedom preserved. Worthwhile reading.
So seeing Nazi propaganda will make me a nazi? If someone goosesteps past my front door in a hitler youth costume, does that change my opinions?
Well, if that's the case let's not allow Mein Kompf in libraries! Genius.
One of our oh-so-holy founding fathers here in the US (and along with Thomas Jefferson, or T-Jeff as I like to call him, one of my favorite political thinkers) by the name of Benjamin Franklin said "a society that is willing to trade a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security deserves neither and will lose both."
The reason it's a bad idea to limit anyone's freedom of speech (such as contempt of court... bleh) is that we might not always be in charge. In the US in particular we seem to float back and forth between very left and very right. When the left is in power they see fit to eliminate hate speech. I hate hearing 'fag' and 'spick' just as much as the next guy, but what about in ten years? You lost all your privileges to say "I can say god is dead all I want, free speech!" Wrong-o moose breath. That’s hate speech against Christians!
Give no allowances for limiting of speech so long as you’re not threatening bodily harm directly, or inciting others into bodily harm. It’s a dangerous slope to start on.
Give no allowances for limiting of speech so long as you’re not threatening bodily harm directly, or inciting others into bodily harm. It’s a dangerous slope to start on.
To bad the Supreme Court disagrees.
(So we're into the third page from posts 56 and 57, and no explanation of his views from Bruce. Guess he never will tell me why he thinks as he does; his reasons for arguing with me are in effect non-existent -- or else he's doing it to tell me that in spite of the fundamentals we've actually got common ground on (gun rights being fundamental), he opposes me in all else. Silly, really, and the reason why I think I'm dealing with dingdongs.)
I'm so fucking good, I responded to post 57, in post 56.
Not visibly, Bruce. I don't think you have any basis for finding regime-change from autocracy to democracy "repulsive."
I sure it's not "visible" to you.
You can't understand why you shouldn't go into your neighbors house and kill him, because you don't like the way he treats his family, home schools his kids and doesn't wash his car. Why he might even end his sentences with a preposition.
You can't understand why you shouldn't go to the PTA meeting and kill the president, they elected, because you don't like the way he runs the meetings.
You can't understand why you shouldn't go to the church and kill the pastor, the congregation chose, because you don't like the way he handles the collections.
You can't understand that you are the bully, not the savior.
Boy, are you standing everything on its head and wrong-end-to, Bruce. You'd no more happily live under the misrule of a dictatorship than I would, and where is your understanding of the Baghdad taxi driver who quietly told a reporter before the invasion, and I quote: "If the Americans don't come, I'll kill myself."
I think that counts for something. Every Iraqi knew and still knows it would take a major invasion to shift Saddam and end his dark night. Note there is no insurgent flying the Ba'ath flag, though this could well be a ruse on the part of some Sunni factions. Still, too much of Iraq doesn't want the bad old Ba'ath dictatorship's days to return for it ever to be managed, it seems to me.
I understand that I am among the saviors, and telling me I'm a bully can't make me other than a savior. Sorry. Fighting battles of liberation is hardly bullying, but more the effective solution to bullying, wouldn't you think? Why would you think otherwise? You do not explain this; you merely call names. That's not arguing your point, but further evidence that you either can't find your own point or that you are wholly lacking one. This must be frustrating.
You clearly have nil understanding just how nasty a nondemocratic social order is, if you're going to compare it to a rather grubby neighbor, a PTA meeting, or a church congregation. It's wrong to trivialize this. Jeez, I thought we got this sorted back in WW2 when we noted that the Nazi Party wasn't much comparable to Republican or Democratic membership back here in CONUS. Had to remind a few people of that, we did.
Given your fondness for leaving oppressors to oppress -- unconscionable, all things considered, no? -- do you really think yourself an enlightened being? Let's just say it's wide open to doubt, Bruce. You're tolerating an incredible amount of injustice, and refusing to see the value of administering justice to those needing it meted out, and for those who have suffered and suffer yet in the power squabble.
I've learned about the savior.
I've studied the savior.
You ain't no savior.
You are nothing but a real live "Church Lady", telling the whole world how they should live.
Ask any cop about the perils of a "domestic".
If you learned about the savior, then you aren't following his advice any too well -- you're not bringing the enlightenment to the places that don't have any. You'd rather just sit there, and in particular, you'd rather I just sit here. Bruce, I can't be a savior if I do what you want me to.
Thing is, human liberty is good for any human being, anywhere. Even in foreign parts. You seem not to consider this. All I'm telling anyone anywhere is you don't get to interfere in that in fascism's name or anything else's, and if you try, it's time for me to kill you. How could this be anything but the effective response to the bullying of the oppressor? Your rhetoric is suprisingly similar in tone to that of the Red Chinese during the Cultural Revolution, in communiques about "provocation." And it was pretty silly the first time around, too.
The whole world should live free -- except maybe xoxoxoBruce?
You're losing this argument, because you started from false first principles, and I started from true ones. What's more, I can articulate them.
Only in your mind, Don Quixote.
That's a seriously special brand of self-delusion ya got going on there Urbane. Pretty impressive.
Don't be so hard on poor old UG Dana. lol
He's young. He knows not what he says. Nor does anyone else...but...that doesn't matter. At least he's a happy chappy. ;)
Bruce is in the unhappy position of defending undemocracy from democracy. It's really quite an absurd position for someone of Bruce's fundamental understanding of human rights and civil liberties to take, I must say. He's out of ideas: he cannot show that non-democracy better suits certain peoples, whereas I can show that democracy suits every human living, and keeps them richer too. His last several posts have been ad-hominem only, and we all know what that means. Not only that, they're detumescing -- limper and limper and limper. No blood flowing, nourishing the substance.
I'm the partisan of democracy here -- he... well, he needs to become one. It's not exactly hard, but somehow for him it's uncomfortable. What, because he'd end up sitting near me? The wife tells me my physical frame is quite cuddly -- "cuddliscious" being her term.
Our chief difference, thee and me DanaC, is that we're working from different paradigms of government's proper sphere -- what, that is, it should be doing. There are philosophical and utilitarian arguments for either paradigm; for me the question is which arguments are the better. For twenty years plus I've been persuaded of the libertarian notion that government should be minimalist.
Now frankly, if you're going to call what I've written self-deluded, you are staggering under an enormous burden of proof. And so far, you've not done any proving. Since I am not self-deluded, you can't show I am, but I invite you to try anyway. Most of my opposition can't justify their stands -- some of them cannot justify themselves.
Bruce is in the unhappy position of defending undemocracy from democracy.
No I'm not.
Jebus, UG, it's almost like you're writing poetry. Lot's of them there college words.
What do you say to a society that thinks that democracy isn't right for them? Maybe they're brainwashed, maybe they're ignorant of democracy, but how do you give them democracy? Do you treat them as children that don't know what's best for them? And most importantly, isn't this contrary to democracy in and of itself?
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla View Post
Bruce is in the unhappy position of defending undemocracy from democracy.
No I'm not.
___________
Really? How then can your position possibly be
mistaken for defending undemocracy from democracy, rather than truly characterized as this? You too are staggering under a heavy burden of proof.
Jebus, UG, it's almost like you're writing poetry. Lots of them there college words.
What do you say to a society that thinks that democracy isn't right for them? Maybe they're brainwashed, maybe they're ignorant of democracy, but how do you give them democracy? Do you treat them as children that don't know what's best for them? And most importantly, isn't this contrary to democracy in and of itself?
You take the anti-democrats out of the picture, of course; listening to those guys is like taking at face value an official opinion poll from a dictatorship. And you keep removing antidemocrats as they pop up -- Whack-A-Mole with pruning shears, if you like. This does not necessarily have to be done by external forces or American soldiery, either -- but that is no argument for
never doing it with American soldiery. The international problems presented, aggravated, and fevered by social discontent and turbulence within the Gap and its undemocratic social orders are reduced by reducing the Gap -- bridging the gap in economic and societal connectivity between Gap nations and the developed economies of the global Core -- that is, developing social and trade connection and with it the size of the economies therein.
Higher economic expectations amounts to a demand for more options in life than a nondemocracy offers: economic liberty drags political liberty along with it, increasing both as they go. Play the cards right, and non-democracy becomes superseded by democracy -- though not infrequently, it needs a push to topple the
ancien regime. Both wars between states and revolutions within them present possibilities this way. The revolutions may avoid being at all bloody, though I avoid pinning my hopes on that. Slow social revolutions waste fewer lives, but faster ones are paid for in blood.
A very big part of this (and very inexpensive for outside agencies) is
educate the women. Educated women influence their society's intellectual lives and their men's mindsets. Distaff education is among the chief social lacks to be found in Gap nations, and it is notably prevalent there. Nations not in the Gap -- Old Core (the developed world) and New Core (China, India, Brazil -- nations strongly developing) nations -- don't have such an educational separation by gender.
Nobody not a fascist says no to democracy -- even the most isolated sort of foreigners have some notion of just what we've wrought with it, and like me, they understand that if they too were to enjoy it, they'd be in much better shape than they are now. The fascist objecters object primarily because they think they'll lose their license to pillage or to oppress and be reduced to living in cardboard boxes in rainy alleys. They are not thinking of the opportunities actually present, and how ethical transactions rather than pillage in the end make everyone much wealthier and living much more stably.
Really? How then can your position possibly be mistaken for defending undemocracy from democracy, rather than truly characterized as this? You too are staggering under a heavy burden of proof.
Mistaken because you can't understand you have no right to impose
anything on a sovereign nation. You can reason with them, or offer incentives, but the ultimate choice is their's, not yours.
Mistaken because you can't understand you have no right to impose anything on a sovereign nation
.......what not even if they are 'the most isolated sort of foreigners'?
Mistaken because you can't understand you have no right to impose anything on a sovereign nation. You can reason with them, or offer incentives, but the ultimate choice is theirs, not yours.
Are you hinting
they have that right to impose, then -- and that we shouldn't? One of your errors is in expecting to reason with the current batch of "them," you know. Or you should.
If they claim that "right," it is hardly sensible to deny us the right of correcting their misapprehension by any persuasive means required. Nations' behavior is really more akin to street gangs than to teams of lawyers, and like street gangs, they have to lose a lot of power and motivation before they give up -- dead guys and destroyed headquarters. It is strange how you're ignoring this, or implying to me you never understood it. Thus I conclude your arguments are brummagem, your reasoning beyond specious. Why do you expect me to respect such as that?
I don't expect you to respect such as that. You have proven repeatedly you don't. Nor am I trying to change your mind.
I could respect a good idea out of you. I'd like to see some on this thread; you've done better elsewhere. I could respect an honest disagreement -- but I'm not seeing that out of you. I asked you a couple pages back why you think the way you do, and you immediately clammed up. I cannot respect that, and I suspect on consideration you cannot either. Nonetheless, you're the one who did it.
Somehow all this looks like a reaction to when I remarked you were on my side in the gun rights argument with Spexx. You told me you were not on my side at all; I replied you ought really to think more flexibly -- now we come to this thread where you seem determined to prove once and for all you're not on my side. Though mere contrarianism isn't reasoned argument, or deep thought.
You've spent the last couple of pages telling me how awful you think I am -- for being a partisan of democracy, of all things! I, by contrast, have continued to expatiate on how much better democracy is than other social orders, reinforcing my contention.
Why can't you understand the debate was not democracy vs all the other choices?
What I am contrary to, is your insistence that you have the right to force your choice (our choice) on people of other nations.
World War Two says I'm right, Bruce. You have no contrary evidence to adduce, let alone have anything
near that weight.
What I am contrary to, is your insistence that you have the right to force your choice . . .
Then you had Goddamned well better be as hotly opposed to al-Quaeda's claim of that right also -- for their actions are in pursuit of exactly that, no? Perhaps you thought this goes without saying, but acknowledgement would clarify your position quite a bit. Lack of such acknowledgement, though, would make you look quite the fascist-symp jerk.
That'd be a pretty bad thing, if you aren't one.
You already know I regard isolationism as an impossibility, a nonstarter.
And at bottom, democracy versus all other choices is the core of the matter -- for the democracies live better than the anything-elses. The reason I can't understand this is because it would be incorrect so to understand the matter. Why you cannot see this, I do not know, and doubt you could explain, you being more than a little short on explanations for your life's philosophy. That's the record so far.
Once again, it's a good thing we invaded Iraq to stop al-Qa'ida from imposing their will on us. They were so close before that. How can you possibly draw that connection after all that's been said?
Then you had Goddamned well better be as hotly opposed to al-Quaeda's claim of that right also -- for their actions are in pursuit of exactly that, no?
The part you keep missing is that before your people turned this into a war, it was a policing issue. Al Queda was/is pretty small potatoes, but giving fundamentalist Islam something to rally around is a big deal and that is what you fuckers have done. Instead of letting the fundies dry up and blow away you people gave them comfort. You attack our Constitution, destroy our position in the world, give aid to the enemies of humanity, and expect our support? That is madness.
Once again, it's a good thing we invaded Iraq to stop al-Qa'ida from imposing their will on us. They were so close before that. How can you possibly draw that connection after all that's been said?
He is very good at rewriting history - complete with big words. You ought to see his manuscript for the Pentagon Papers.
World War Two says I'm right, Bruce. You have no contrary evidence to adduce, let alone have anything near that weight.
Ah yes, the Big One, WW II. That's when we geared up and kicked the ass of people trying to do, exactly what you want to do.
Then you had Goddamned well better be as hotly opposed to al-Quaeda's claim of that right also -- for their actions are in pursuit of exactly that, no?
For the upteenth time, NOBODY is allowed to impose their choice of government on another sovereign nation. BUT, Griff explained why al Q was not an issue, that required extending any effort outside of Afghanistan.
And at bottom, democracy versus all other choices is the core of the matter -- for the democracies live better than the anything-elses. The reason I can't understand this is because it would be incorrect so to understand the matter. Why you cannot see this, I do not know, and doubt you could explain, you being more than a little short on explanations for your life's philosophy. That's the record so far.
Yes, I think democracy is better
choice. But that's my
choice and others should have their
choice.
And my point, for the umpteenth-plus-first time is that fascism and other autocracies do not come about through choices, but through deception and imposition. This is why your efforts to argue otherwise fall so flat.
Humans in general would run their own affairs. Some humans are of a mind to rule. Too much of the latter makes for fascism and other objectionableisms, and I've had enough of all of them. I've had enough of them since I was about nine years old -- and absolutely no one has nor has devised any convincing argument that I'm wrong about this. Not now, not in times past, and very likely not in the future. Sometimes you latch on to the right idea early in life.
Active opposition to nondemocracy will help to shrink the Gap. This is necessary. Some unwise people object to my endorsing this.
The part you keep missing is that before your people turned this into a war, it was a policing issue. Al Queda was/is pretty small potatoes, but giving fundamentalist Islam something to rally around is a big deal and that is what you fuckers have done. Instead of letting the fundies dry up and blow away you people gave them comfort. You attack our Constitution, destroy our position in the world, give aid to the enemies of humanity, and expect our support? That is madness.
Rally around? They were rallied and rallying steadily already. When you've got something as well-funded and enthusiastic as al-Qaeda, I put it to you a distinction between policing and warfare becomes pretty blurry. What will dry up the fundies to blow them away will be when the rest of Islam is actively turned against them, and we are seeing this now -- the fundies have only the disconnectedness of the Gap to offer, whereas the rest of the Islamic world would rather not get disconnected from the developed and developing world. This is particularly true of the oil states, and truest of the small ones like Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the Emirates. There is a pull to integration with the globalized economy here that will draw the bulk of Islam away from these seekers after their own notion of the neo-Caliphate. But to make this successful will take effort on our part also.
I look on this present conflict as smoking out the troublemakers to where they can be destroyed -- or given some pressing reasons to convert from their current unsatisfactory state: stop being shitheads or lose those shit heads. The one handsomely conserves lives, fortunes, and resources; the second is an acceptable alternative that no democratic partisan should shrink from, on the grounds that undemocracies are far more likely to behave inhumanly than democracies. Democracies get more people rich, too. There's basically nothing not to like, yet there are people right here who think they shouldn't like it, and these yell at me. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, you guys?
Attack our Constitution? No, Griff, that was the Clinton Administration, which did it on instinct. This is not one of the Bush Administration's failings, in truth. Their instinct goes quite the other way, and is quite in keeping with the seldom-realized Republican ideal of minimization of the Federal government -- they are far better on gun rights than Clinton's bunch ever were, and that is more important than most posters here realize: upon the citizens' gun rights hangs all the force of the Constitution and the liberalized structure of the Republic. Even noted sociopath Mao Tse-Tung indirectly grasped this when he noted "political power grows out of the muzzle of a gun."
Destroy our position in the world? This is what the Left would like you to believe is true. They certainly repeat it often enough in hopes of hypnotizing everyone -- and frankly, if you want democracy to win out, be resolute in ignoring this idea. Tell its purveyors to go pound sand into all available orifices and sundry ratholes, for this is an attempt at undermining our determination, and I for one won't put up with it. I can't imagine why anyone who likes democracy would, yet there are sightless democrats who do.
The enemies of humanity? Well, there are the Islamofascists and other Gappers. The Republicans aren't in that category at all, for they are acting in opposition to these enemies of humanity -- which isn't what the Democrats are doing by a long chalk, though they do show some signs that they've just found their glasses and can see beyond their donkey noses for the first time in six years. But really, the only way the Dems can redeem their longstanding fault is to devise a better strategy to win the War and make the Islamofascists lose the War than the Republicans can. What do you think the likelihood of that is? They have to date shown zero inclination this way, have they not?
Tell me, Griff: do you think the bad guys would like to cut your head off, either because of something specific or on general principles?
Those guys might just qualify as your enemy. They'd certainly be mine.
Once again, it's a good thing we invaded Iraq to stop al-Qa'ida from imposing their will on us. They were so close before that. How can you possibly draw that connection after all that's been said?
You came to scoff, but you've stayed to raise an excellent point.
For the foreseeable future, the troubles in the global body politic will spring from the Gap nations, not the Old nor the New Core nations. Iraq and Afghanistan are two of the Gap nations. To reduce troubles from Gap nations, you reduce the Gap.
As a practical matter, Gap reduction is likely to take place one nation-state (failed state or not) at a time -- in the hope of keeping any conflicts manageable by the forces available. This is not a process solely of military conquest, but one of social and economic development. That development must take place for the reduction of the Gap to be real and permanent. Military campaigns are only an adjunct to this, but there will be circumstances where they are a necessary adjunct. We have to expect that factions opposing global connectivity will resort to exerting force, human unenlightenment being what it is, and human fondness for exerting power likewise.
And my point, for the umpteenth-plus-first time is that fascism and other autocracies do not come about through choices, but through deception and imposition.
Your people did a nice job on this btw.
Tell me, Griff: do you think the bad guys would like to cut your head off, either because of something specific or on general principles?
Those guys might just qualify as your enemy. They'd certainly be mine.
Funny how I don't fear them, living in America as I do. I'm going to let you fail to extrapolate a righteous foreign policy from that.
The Republicans aren't in that category at all, for they are acting in opposition to these enemies of humanity
Well, speaking as a fully paid up member of humanity, can I ask that the Republicans fuck off and concentrate purely on the enemies of America ? Please? It's not like we (humanity) voted republicans in and asked them to protect us. Seriously, I'd have remembered that election.
Jurisdictions being the things they are, Dana, it's your responsibility to stop your own homi-/suicide bombers. This isn't a party thing, either: democracy wins or undemocracy wins. I know which I pick. Entirely too fucking many flaccid whiners apparently can't bear the load of freedom, to judge by the way they carry on. Disgraceful, fascist, and communist -- how execrable. How necessary for the global body politic to excrete them.
Read up on Barnett, and decide if it's really righteous to leave anyone in the Gap. Decide if it's really righteous never to let a society enter into a libertarian social order because the antilibertarians have enough guns to keep a people chained. Is that not unconscionable? Is a libertarian social philosophy somehow solely the property of the United States? Just where is that written, Griff? Just where is that proven? Nowhere.
The disputants in this thread are in a large measure talking past each other. Each one is consumed by concerns that barely register with the other.
Well, speaking as a fully paid up member of humanity, can I ask that the Republicans fuck off and concentrate purely on the enemies of America ? Please? It's not like we (humanity) voted republicans in and asked them to protect us. Seriously, I'd have remembered that election.
I didn't realize that you voted in American elections, Dana.
I think that's her point classic. That she didn't get to vote, but she still has to live with the consequences of those who did.
Oh yeah, I see that now - guess I was more tired than I thought last night. My apologies
did you hear something?
Would that perhaps be a flaccid whining moan from you, V?
I do not disgrace myself so, and think it would be a bad habit for you to start.
Come on, kid; you know I don't put up with any prospect for undemocracy but its extinction.