Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
America: Where A Bumper Sticker Gets You Banned

By ayoung in Op-Ed
Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:51:05 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

A bumper sticker? It can't be. Who would care about a bumper sticker?

As I sat across the table from three stoic Secret Service agents, I started to think about the country I live in. We were always told growing up that what separated America from everywhere else is the First Amendment and it's protection of free speech.

But these agents painted a very different picture. They said that unnamed Republican operatives had removed my friends and me from a meeting with the President for a slogan on my friend's car.


A week ago, Monday, March 21, 2005, in Denver, Colorado, President Bush hosted a "Conversation on Strengthening Social Security" (These are events where the President is attempting to sway public opinion on Social Security privatization). Two good friends and I wanted to participate in this Town Hall-style meeting, and we acquired tickets through the office of Rep. Bob Beauprez (R-CO). After being seated, we were forcibly removed before the President arrived.

We requested a reason for our dismissal but were given none.

When we got to the event all of us were asked for photo identification at the door, which was compared with a computer printout. Was this a blacklist, like the one in Fargo?

My friends Karen (a marketing professional) and Leslie (an environmental lawyer) were both stopped, while I was allowed in. They were informed that they had been "ID'd" and warned "Don't try to pull anything, or you'll be arrested and sent to jail".

They were, however, allowed into the hall.

After being seated in the audience, we were forcibly removed before the President arrived, even though we had not been disruptive. A man, who had talked to my friends outside, came up and demanded that we come with him.

This guy, wearing a wire, with lapel pin that looked the same as those worn by the Secret Service, shoved me forward and led us to the door.   He refused to answer any question, although I kept asking "Who are you?", "What's going on?", and "Where are you taking us?"

He later grabbed my friend Karen, who was returning from the restroom, led her out forcefully as well.

At the meeting with the Secret Service (03/28/05), Lon Garner, special agent in charge of the Secret Service district office in Denver talked about the fact that these people imitate Secret Service agents.

Speaking about people who present themselves as Secret Service agents, Garner said "This is a common problem we have encountered." "We are bothered as an agency."

Why were we removed? Not for creating a disturbance. We were sitting there quietly. Not for looking like radicals. We were dressed in business attire; I was wearing a tie. It was for a sticker on a lawyer's car.

That bumper sticker says "No More Blood For Oil". I must have seen this slogan a million times, and never once did I consider it dangerous. Apparently, someone does.

Others have had similar experiences around the world at these events.

When Bush was in Arizona that morning, Steven Gerner was turned away at the door because of a t-shirt he wore.

Maybe someone else would just sit back and take this treatment, but we're not.

These people, people who control the executive and legislative branches of our government, apparently think they can silence their critics by spying on them and hiding behind unnamed operatives who intentionally present themselves as Secret Service agents.

Obviously, this is not working.     If they wanted to keep people quiet, they should have let us stay.   Surely this is not the reaction they were expecting.

Progressives aren't the only ones complaining about the Administration's crackdown on free speech. Even The American Conservative is concerned to the point that they think Hiliary could make it a campaign issue.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o bumper sticker
o Secret Service
o painted
o forcibly removed
o one in Fargo
o similar
o around the world
o Steven Gerner was turned away at the door because of a t-shirt he wore.
o Obviously
o this
o Hiliary could make it a campaign issue
o Also by ayoung


Display: Sort:
America: Where A Bumper Sticker Gets You Banned | 485 comments (442 topical, 43 editorial, 0 hidden)
i love this shit (1.00 / 47) (#7)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:26:06 AM EST

how out of fucking touch you fucking morons are

it fills me with glee to see how clueless some fucktwits are

they obsess about how the usa is turning into a fascist state

or a fundamentalist state

meanwhile, we recently just destroyed a fascist state (the real kind, not the paranoid scizophrenic fantasy kind)

and we're hunting a fundamentalist terrorist (the real kind, not the braindead propaganda slogan kind)

the usa is a stable secular democracy

no, really fruitcake, listen again: it's a stable secular democracy

sorry if this doesn't jive with your stupid propaganda

but that's what it really is

(snicker)

i love how you obsess over the usa is fascist and fundamentalist

meanwhile, you're so fucking smart, you don't have ANY words of criticism for actual living breathing fascists and fundamentalists in the world

it proves how shallow and empty and dumb you are

it reveals that you don't REALLY care about fascism and fundamentalism in the end, you only care about those terms as far as they can be used for buzzwords, not in the essence of their true meaning and how REAL people are actually suffering int his world under the boot of real fundamentalists and fascists

you fight fundamentalism and fascism?

really?

no, fruitcake, you spoiled rich western moronic child: you have no words of criticism about real fundamentalism and fascism in this world at all, because you don't fucking understand the world beyond your soft western coccoon

you're clueless spoiled rich children

pointless nihilisitic morons


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

You're getting stale... (none / 1) (#9)
by BJH on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:32:52 AM EST

Didn't I see this same rant a few months ago?
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
you got it backwards (1.10 / 10) (#15)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:08:05 PM EST

i see the same tired shit in the article above

for the same tired crap from the teenagers, i dish out my same tired crap in reply

makes sense to me

you think the tired crap in the article above deserves better from me? more thought? a different approach?

well then then you ought to ask the fucking rich spoiled western clueless teenagers to say something different in the first place


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

So... (3.00 / 2) (#29)
by BJH on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:33:06 PM EST

...your response to meaningless noise is to create more?

Well done, you have succeeded in redefining k5 as the site for pointless posers.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

well duh (1.00 / 4) (#43)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:31:43 PM EST

you're posting under an inflammatory remark under an inflammatory story on a user editted website open to the public

it couldn't possibly get any more pointless poser than this bub


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

For someone who hates buzzwords.. (none / 0) (#12)
by kamera on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:43:10 AM EST

you sure use a lot of them.

P.S. Someone who is concerned with liberty (an ideal) isn't a nihilist.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
[ Parent ]

liberty? (none / 1) (#17)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:13:58 PM EST

you mean liberty as in women's rights, freedom of the press, the right to vote, freedom of religion, freedom of expression?

i'm all for fighting for that

where would it make sense to start fighting for that, to focus our criticism?

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You seem to use nihilism a lot as an insult. (none / 1) (#20)
by kamera on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:25:17 PM EST

I'd like to inform you what it means, that is, if you don't mind.

The OED defines it as such, "1. the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless." This sounds about right to me.

If someone doesn't agree with you on what does have meaning and importance, this does not make them a nihilist. So please, try a little harder with your insults; they are getting rather repetitive.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
[ Parent ]

well it's a simple test then (1.00 / 3) (#23)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:28:55 PM EST

it is my assertion that the teenagers i am talking about could tell you a whole host of things they don't believe in and disagree with, but couldn't articulate a belief system that is positive and stands all on its own (as opposed to being aranged in reference to another set of beliefs)

so this is nihilistic: if the pile of statements you stand for is simply in opposition and in negative reference to someone else's beliefs, then the people i am talking about are, indeed, in agreement with your oxford dictionary's definition, nihilists.

next, you will say they believe in "liberty"

that they believe in "freedom", that they believe in "justice"

well, so does gw bush and osama bin laden

these ideal abstract concepts, these buzzwords, don't account for much do they?

it's a simple test: take the bulk of the story above our thread here

analyze it for negative reactionary comments in regard to another beliefs (or rather paranoid schizophrenic fantasies about such)

analyze it for positivistic statements of independent thought and action

what do you find?

in short, it's nihilistic

it's uttelry useless, it's classic teenaged psychology

to change the world, you make a positive statement about it, and bring people to your cause based on the positive hopeful set of beliefs you articulate: you attract people to your cause

this is called leadership

but in the words above, we see submission: a stating of your beliefs in reaction to and in reference to something else (to fantasies and fears about reality in fact). no independent thought here. no intellgence. simply nihilism.

merely the same psychology and the same frame of reference as a spoiled teenager whining because his parents took away his car keys

you don't change the world, you don't change the usa, by working within a framework where you subjugate yourself to the us government and react to it like you are it's child

an angry nihilistic righteously indignant teenager is still a child

not a leader

not a true revolutionary

just a loud spoiled dumb empty brat

there are a lot of loud rich western children who only know life in their western coccoon, and know little of the world beyond the borders of their rich countries

and they are utterly useless because of their nihilisim and their ignorance of the real world


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

a few questions (2.66 / 3) (#25)
by kamera on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:08:25 PM EST

What the fuck do you have against teenagers? And why is everyone you disagree with automatically a teenager, or possibly a naive college student?

Everything you just wrote was meaningless backtracking. Nihilism is the rejection of all morality and religion, a belief in nothing. If the author finds it immoral or even a matter of concern that his/her perceived rights are being infringed, that's a sign of morality. A nihilist doesn't believe in rights, well because a nihilist doesn't believe in anything. I can be the biggest iconoclast in the world, take Nietszche for example, and not be a nihilist because I find meaning in something, anything. It doesn't matter whether you think there is meaning behind it CTS, your belief doesn't come into play.

Can't you just join up in the army and go fight "Evil" around the world so we wouldn't have ot see your vituperative rants anymore? Seriously, "He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence." Go join the army, I'm sure they would love to have you. What do you have to lose? Your spoiled western cocoon? The K5 crew might even chip in to buy you some body armor.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
[ Parent ]

i struck a nerve ;-) (1.00 / 4) (#30)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:54:10 PM EST

there are 9 year olds who are morally adults

there are 54 year olds who think and act like teenagers

a psychologyical teenager, for lack of a better word, is simply someone stuck in that psychological place, most easily identifiable with chronological teenagers, where they are angry and self-righteously indignant at a parental authority figure, and all of their anger and vitriole is directed at defining themselves and their words in reference to, and against, whatever that authority figure represents

a psychological adult meanwhile is able to view the world and their relationship to it positively, engaging it without some mystical authority figure defining how they should shape their beliefs. because they are an independent adult, they are not a child, there is no authority save their own moral compass. they respect other adults.

now this psychological state makes sense for a chronological teenager: a teenager is preparing for adulthood by breaking the bonds with his parents. this requires destruction of social bonds. this requires nihilism. there is nothing essentially wrong with this, it is in fact a process we all go through on our journey to adulthood. we have to break everything down, in order to build everything up again as adults. the process of going from dependent child to independent adult.

but what is wrong is thinking that this nihilistic state of mind is somehow politically useful. that a teenaged indignant caustic negativity is somehow instructive as to how to have a better world. that the way to defeat an unsound authority figure is to subordinate your beliefs to it in a dependent fashion: just because it's a negative reflection doesn't mean it is independent. true independence has no positve or negative view of "the man", true independence starts with positive engaging statements on its own, to build a better world as a true leader, a true revolutionary, a true idealist.

furthermore you say to me about nihilism that "It doesn't matter whether you think there is meaning behind it CTS, your belief doesn't come into play." which is rather dubious, because you are doing the same thing: asserting your defintion of nihilism as superior to mine, when you have no more sound footing than i, save in your own arrogance. so you've gone off into the world of semantics to prove me wrong, where you think that by proving that i don't have the meaning of a word exactly square with your understanding of the word, then that this is somehow proof that the ESSENCE of what i am saying is wrong

no, all you've proved yourself to be is a hypocrite, because you play the same word-definition game, to be brittle in your ability to conceptualize, and that you are either purposefully or blindly avoiding the essence of the concepts, for the sake of simple-minded wordplay

do you see where i am coming from? what have you proven except that when challenged, you sputter and cling to a brittle definition of a word, even though my use of the word is perfectly acceptable. simply because you don't like the concept i am posing to you. this is no defense from the essence of what i am saying. this is merely a distraction, and perhaps only instructive to the rest of us in how your particular brand of denial works

go to google and look for definitions of nihilism:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+nihilism

there are various definitions. my use of the word does not stand in ridiculous contrast to any particular definition. i have done nothing absurd. but meanwhile, the basis for your finding fault with what i am saying is absurd: semantic haggling as opposed to engaging me on the concepts i have placed before you.

if something is red, and i call it blue, then i am wrong

but if something is pink, and i say that it is reddish, i am not wrong, you stupid fuck. but here you are, sputtering and hawing and questioning my proper use of the word "reddish", and therefore thinking that that allows you to find fault with the essence of what i am saying

(snicker)

and then you say:

Can't you just join up in the army and go fight "Evil" around the world so we wouldn't have ot see your vituperative rants anymore? Seriously, "He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence." Go join the army, I'm sure they would love to have you. What do you have to lose? Your spoiled western cocoon? The K5 crew might even chip in to buy you some body armor.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

i LOVE it when i hear someone say this to me ;-)

because what you are doing in essence is declaring rhetorical bankruptcy

you're like "ok, i can't or won't debate you on substance, so i'll just doubt your faith in the words you say and think that proves something"

not happy with semantic word definition wrangling anymore, you've moved right on to the last stubborn hold out: doubting someone's conviction

which is interesting, isn't it? because you are no longer questioning the SUBSTANCE of what i am saying, you are doubting my ability at FOLLOW THROUGH

so does that mean you can't find any fault with the substance of what i am saying? LOL

look dude, you don't know who i am, or what i am doing, or what i am about, or what i am capable of, or where my life will go, or where i have already been, or what i am planning on doing, or what i have already done.

so please, by all means, you sit there and question my conviction, you go ahead and doubt me ;-)

the lynchpin of your last holdout argument against me: doubting my own faith in my own words

you go with that, you leave this conversation with that certainty that i won't or haven't already acted on the basis of my own words ;-)

you have no idea ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Be all you can be (3.00 / 3) (#33)
by kamera on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 03:35:45 PM EST

How do you get from someone writing about being upset that they were removed from a town-hall meeting to the long, drawn out psychological analysis which states that they only exist to rebel against established ideas. That's rather presumptuous, don't you think?

As for the nihilism stint, my point still stands. Within the generally accepted version of nihilism as confirmed by all of the definitions in the google query, not your psychobabel nihilism imposed unwarranted on an ambiguous target, your opinion on whether something has meaning does not matter. That is up for the subject to decide. Even if your "nihilistic" concept held any weight--not everyone goes through a rebellion stage in their teen years, I didn't and neither did many of my friends--it still doesn't apply to the subject. For fuck's sake, the author wrote that he/she didn't like being thrown out of a meeting, how can you possibly assume anything you said about him/her? That's not only and intellectually lazy, but fucking rude and uncalled for.

As for the request for you to join the army, that was simply a plea that you leave. It was by no means an argument, as should have been apparent by its disjunction with the subject at hand. But since it seems you are staying, we'll have to postpone the party.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
[ Parent ]

*grin* (1.12 / 8) (#44)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:45:07 PM EST

i live to bother people just like you, and i obviously have bothered you, you small-minded arrogant twit

thanks for the kudos... you're probably not aware that you gave me that, but you have no idea how much i value withering contempt from people like you... i thrive on it

the worst someone like you could ever do to me is to praise me, for getting arrogant condemnation from the likes of you lets me know i haven't become someone like you

small-minded (arguing about dictionary definitions has value somehow), arrogant (asking me to leave... who is that supposed to impress?), easily ruffled (this whole stupid thread)

in short, you're a classic twit

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

toodles, twit ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

cts, you are a legend (1.50 / 2) (#71)
by gdanjo on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 01:53:49 AM EST

in your own feeble mind.

Congratulations on your rhetorical victory ("toodles" -- what a classic!). Another one bites the dust, eh? Just be sure to wipe down the doona before beddie time.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

You are very good at (none / 0) (#114)
by kamera on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:31:45 AM EST

never responding to anyone's points.

"For fuck's sake, the author wrote that he/she didn't like being thrown out of a meeting, how can you possibly assume anything you said about him/her? That's not only and intellectually lazy, but fucking rude and uncalled for."

There is definitely no arrogance in assuming that much about someone, none at all.

And for asking you to leave, it seems by you comment ratings, most users consider you a nuisance.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
[ Parent ]

i'll let the hypocrisy of your words (none / 1) (#122)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 12:01:41 PM EST

sink in by themselves, if you can understand your hypocrisy encapsulated above


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Re: Get some PRIORITIES! (none / 0) (#24)
by a perfect world on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:06:34 PM EST

I'm amazed by the versatility of this venerable piece of trollery.

(http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=2387510&sid=22130)

[ Parent ]

well (1.50 / 2) (#45)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:50:12 PM EST

there's talking about a bit of humor when a major tragic event happens as your link refers to

then there is talking about the evils of fascism and fundamentalism... when 1. what you label as such is not, and 2. you completely ignore actual examples of such

so you're right, it's kinda stupid to try to steer the subject matter in a manner as your link suggests

but it's not stupid to point out an actual example of the subject matter when someone has the wrong example

you're staying within the original subject matter


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone... (none / 0) (#34)
by PowerPimp on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 03:58:41 PM EST

Look, I'm not one to throw words like 'fascist' or 'fundamentalist' around lightly, but perhaps you won't mind if I'm a little more concerned with what's going on in my own kitchen than I am about the guys across the street. Let other people take care of their own nation-states. I see plenty to work at right here at home before we start running around wiping out countries and igniting sectarian turmoil.

Iraq was a dictatorship, and a cruel one that wasn't going anywhere fast, but at least before that the US wasn't a pariah, trapped in a quagmire with no way out. We are squandering our last few 'get ahead of China' years, and all that money spent in Iraq might be better spent putting the US in a position to compete globally with the rest of the world. There are two billion Chinese and Indians who would love to take our spot at number one, and they're working hard to do it.

I don't know about you, but I don't like foreign debts, and I don't like the fact that the US is hemorrhaging money and jobs and manufacturing capability, without anything new here to replace the lost industrial and economic capacity.

We need to be doing revolutionary research here. We want the best and brightest in the world to be coming here to work on the cutting edge in new technology and science, but instead we are making it harder for qualified people to get visas and study here, and we're just sending our dirty work out.

I don't like to sound alarmist, but these are not positive trends. Like I said before: these are CRITICAL years. In a decade, India and China will be the industrial powerhouses of the world. We need to have the next big thing growing right here, right now, or we're boned.

That's why I worry about the State of the Union, not because I get a kick out of ragging on Bush, but because I genuinely fear for the future of a great country which is, like it or not, my home.




You'd better take care of me God; otherwise, you'll have me on your hands...
[ Parent ]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (1.33 / 3) (#47)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:52:25 PM EST

to paraphrase what you just said:

"it's not right to talk about international issues"

then

"let me talk about some international issues"

work it out buddy, then get back to us


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

OK, put words in my mouth. (none / 0) (#183)
by PowerPimp on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:43:18 AM EST

I'm talking about fixing policies that will make a difference here.

I'm not saying don't talk about other issues, I'm saying I'd rather focus on the issues that directly affect my country first, and more importantly, the issues that I can take direct action on, both personally, and through my representative government. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

When you get tired of endlessly repeating the same inane drivel, maybe you should try paying attention some comments and stories before going off on baseless assumptions and pointless namecalling.

There are other ideas out there besides yours, and maybe they have merit, but you are unwilling to test your ideas against them, and so you cannot improve either yourself or your thought. Just because you assume every post is a personal attack and browbeat anyone challenger into submission doesn't mean your ideas withstood the argument.

We will never know if you're completely insane, or a brilliant thinker until you let go of your stale sound-bites and recycled jabs, and actually write a considered response to something.

Or continue the way you are going and find something in this to pull out of context and rake me over the coals for, and that's fine, but you're not convincing anyone until you actually engage in some intellectual give and take.

But don't lose the vertical spam formatting. I can see why you like it so much.

it makes it easy to order your thoughts



You'd better take care of me God; otherwise, you'll have me on your hands...
[ Parent ]
welcome to the new world (none / 0) (#186)
by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 08:41:24 AM EST

there are no domestic and foreign affairs anymore, just affairs period

globalization is making sure of that

and that's a good thing: if all humans are equal, nationalism should mean squat

human rights don't end at the rio grande

9/11 also proves that: what happens in kandahar matters in manhattan

in fact, the only morally and intellectually defensible position you can take is a global one on issues nowadays

jet air travel, the internet... you add it up and tell me what it means


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Now you get it. Very Good. (none / 0) (#193)
by PowerPimp on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:26:06 AM EST

At some level, most domestic issues are international, and there is a fuzzy line where the two meet, but at some point policies in other countries do stop affecting me directly, and thats where I think most people are biting off more than they can chew.

Regardless: how do I influence policy, be it domestic or foreign?

A: Through my own government.

Which is why I choose to start closer to home and work my way out. Rather than worrying about what China is doing right now. We can worry about China's civil rights when we're done dealing with say, Iraq, where unilateral action by our government has caused, and should be the solution to a lot of trouble.

Or you want a less tired example? How about our policy towards foreign students? We are turning away thousand more applications a year than we used to, and now students are thinking its better not to go through the hassle at the embassy. That has a FAR more direct effect on our life here than China's civil rights.

China will sort itself out, I have faith in the Chinese. But if I leave them to take care of themselves, implicit in that agreement is that we take care of our own problems ourselves. Maybe that means dealing with international policy, but if you want to be specific, there are other issues in our relationship with China that could probably be sorted out first, say the fact that we send a few million dollars a day there, adding to our unsustainable trade deficit.

Besides, I know you see things being done wrong in the US, by our representative government. Who is going to fix those things? The Chinese? The French? The UN?

No. You and I are. I think it was Tip O'Neil who said "All Politics is Local." I would add: especially international politics.

So stop ranting at people, It doesn't help. Give and take. You can't get what you want if you can't get other people to want it with you.

That's what compromise is for, and that's why screaming at kurobots doesn't help.

Now go and listen to some people, maybe you'll learn something, and if not, maybe they'll return the favor of listening, and learn something from you. Its not hard, its the way things work.



You'd better take care of me God; otherwise, you'll have me on your hands...
[ Parent ]
so what about sudan? (none / 1) (#201)
by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:47:58 AM EST

we do nothing about it because it's south of the rio grande?

and it was ok to let hutus and tutsis kill each other by the hundreds of thousands in 1994 because "it's not my problem"?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

every time... (3.00 / 2) (#41)
by the ghost of rmg on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:14:41 PM EST

some homeless guy will always come up to me and i'll always ask him what he needs and i'll always give him the change in my pocket.

here i am again, giving your sorry ass a three.

well, i have to stand up for myself. i will not be the dutiful benefactor forever. if you wish to continue receiving my threes, you will stop using the word "snicker." and you need them. you barely manage to keep your crap unhidden.

no more. i demand a modicrum of pride here. no more of this "snicker" garbage.


rmg: comments better than yours.
[ Parent ]

what? (nt) (none / 0) (#46)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:51:15 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
there's nothing worse than a backtalking hobo. (3.00 / 3) (#63)
by the ghost of rmg on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:35:56 PM EST




rmg: comments better than yours.
[ Parent ]
no man (none / 0) (#65)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:20:16 PM EST

i just honestly had no idea what you were talking about

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA! (1.50 / 6) (#57)
by Adiabatic Expansion on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:31:58 PM EST

you suck cocks in hell, motherfucker!

fuck fuck fuckity fuck tits cunt shit.

[ Parent ]

Hi, cts (none / 1) (#69)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 01:43:14 AM EST

It's always a pleasure conversing with you.

I agree that we're doing battle with real monsters right now, and arguably we're having a net benefit on the world (time will tell). But that doesn't mean that everything's hunkey dorey. I would just like to share a quote:

Be careful when you wrestle with monsters, lest you become one. For if you stare long into the abyss, the abyss also stares into you.

There have been many times in our history when we do great works of good with one hand while performing great evil with another. The Civil War led to the freeing of the slaves, but it also brought Reconstruction and Sherman's March to the Sea. In WWI we defended national sovereignty against foreign invasion, but we eliminated free speech at home (even imprisoning presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson). After WWII, we had the pleasure of freeing the Jews and others from Nazi concentration camps, and the shame of releasing Japanese Americans from our own.

The argument that we should ignore domestic issues because we're doing good abroad is a morally bankrupt one. You're smarter than that, cts.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]

welcome to the new world (1.33 / 3) (#72)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 02:51:45 AM EST

there are no domestic and foreign affairs anymore, just affairs period

globalization is making sure of that

and that's a good thing: if all humans are equal, nationalism should mean squat

human rights don't end at the rio grande

9/11 also proves that: what happens in kandahar matters in manhattan

in fact, the only morally and intellectually defensible position you can take is a global one on issues nowadays

jet air travel, the internet... you add it up and tell me what it means

it means pandemocracy


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Thanks for not addressing my point at all (3.00 / 2) (#73)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 02:59:06 AM EST

Doing some good stuff does not make it OK to do bad stuff.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]
in the real world (1.00 / 3) (#75)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 03:15:25 AM EST

there is no good you can do that doesn't also have some bad

but keep up with your criticism of realists from the pov of an idealist

it's really helpful and useful

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm not talking about entangled consequences (none / 1) (#77)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 03:32:36 AM EST

I'm talking about turning a blind eye to bad because some good is also being done.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]
what is the difference? (none / 1) (#78)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 04:07:58 AM EST

what is the difference between turning a blind eye, and being fully cognizant of the bad you will do as well as the good, but still going ahead, because you are a realist?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Functionally, none (none / 0) (#80)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 04:12:24 AM EST

Morally, a lot. If you truly are a realist, I suppose that distinction doesn't mean a whole lot to you, though.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]
morality means everything to me (1.33 / 3) (#81)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 04:26:39 AM EST

such as the need to act in a responsible manner despite risks

there is no moral difference between "turning a blind eye" to the bad you might do when the good outweighs that bad, and simply wighing the good and the bad and find the good to be more significant

so "turning a blind eye" is a dubious description to what is really happening


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Here's the difference (none / 1) (#84)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 04:42:56 AM EST

The "blind eye" person insists that nothing is wrong with the state of affairs in the US and tries to redirect the discussion to the good we're doing in other arenas.

The realist notes that the US is adopting some policies that are more in-line with a fascist philosophy, but he argues that they are necessary in that the benefits outweigh the problems.

IMO, your initial comment is more along the lines of the former (which is what I consider morally bankrupt), while your follow-ups tend more toward the latter (which is fine, but I disagree with it).

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]

this is ridiculous (1.00 / 3) (#85)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 04:54:47 AM EST

tell me how the us is becoming fascist

this isn't me turning a blind eye to something being bad, this is a request for a qualification and quantification of the bad that is being done, because i doubt any is being done

i assert to you that there is no blind eye being turned, there is instead an eye looking at what is being called "the bad that is being done domestically" and instead seeing a paranoid schizophrenic fantasy life

see the difference?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I didn't say it was becoming fascist (none / 0) (#86)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 05:01:57 AM EST

I said it was adopting some policies that are more toward the fascist end of the spectrum (ie: governmental control of individuals) than the old policies they're replacing.

How can you disagree? From some of your comments, it seems like you feel that nothing has changed versus four years ago.

Just because it's not an extreme change doesn't mean it's not bad.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]

wtf?! (1.00 / 3) (#88)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 05:10:41 AM EST

do we have a tree toppled over, a bush shoved down, a branch bent, a blade of grass moved?

because you'll excuse me if i say so, but no: in fact, past a certain size threshold, everything you are indicating to me as important even though it is vanishingly small is a complete bullshit argument

oh no! a small town in new jersey ended it's community outreach meeting early without an explanation!

clearly, the usa is leaning towards fascism!

give me a fucking break you hysterical twit

show me somethign that rises above the background noise, and you have something

otherwise, admit that you're drowning in FUD


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

ffs (none / 1) (#89)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 05:19:39 AM EST

Have you tried to take a plane trip recently?

In December of 2001, I left the country for three months, and when I got back, there were military personnel carrying M-16s all over the place. (Not that I have anything against military personnel -- I am one -- but I don't want them in the airport.)

Yes, we pulled back from that, but things are definitely different, and not in the "omg, someone cancelled a communist party meeting" kind of way.

We had US citizens being held indefinitely without being charged or put to trial.

No, these things don't make us fascist, but it's certainly a lot closer than we used to be.

But go ahead, keep turning that blind eye.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]

you really are drowning in fud! (1.00 / 3) (#90)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 05:23:14 AM EST

oh great swami, from yonder ivory tower, please instruct us deluded fascist-leaning mortals on the proper response to something like 9/11

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Fear? No (none / 0) (#91)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 05:32:19 AM EST

Uncertainty and doubt, yes. But that's a good thing in a democracy.

And you're drowning in that sand you've stuck your head in.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]

ummm... (1.33 / 3) (#92)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 05:36:32 AM EST

please, i beg of you, after something like 9/11, what problem do you have exactly with increasing airport security?

you seemed to indicate this is rising fascism

so in your mind if someone gets robbed and so puts locks on their windows they are tending towards fascism?

somewhere in your understanding of what increased airport security means is the concept of "sticking your head in the sand"

i would really, really, like to hear you articulate that


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

None (none / 0) (#93)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 05:54:34 AM EST

I have a problem with using the military to do it. I also have a problem with the particular way we're doing the rest of it.

You're sticking your head in the sand by pretending that these changes don't have non-localized consequences, and that it is representative of an overall increase in the strenghtening of the central gov'ts authority at the expense of the individual (ie, a tendency in in direction of fascism).

If you want to defend it, fine. But pretending it doesn't exist is laughable.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]

you have a problem with perspective and context (1.33 / 3) (#94)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:06:44 AM EST

let me demonstrate your problem:

1. a man is in his house

one day, for no reason, he puts locks on all of his windows

on that basis you criticize his actions, and you would be correct to do so

2. here is another man in his house

one day, a guy crawls in through his window and takes his laptop

for that reason, he puts locks on all his windows

and you criticize him... but with the exact same rationale as you criticized the first guy

see the problem?

so exactly what does 9/11 mean to you?

i think you're still in denial about that event, because you seem unable to inform your opinion taking that event into perspective and context


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Crappy analogy (none / 0) (#95)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:26:05 AM EST

Yeah, cause all we did was put locks on our windows.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]
well then correct me (none / 1) (#96)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:29:56 AM EST

correct my analogy

and also describe an appropriate respone to 9/11 and airport security

this should be interesting...


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

OK, here it is (none / 0) (#97)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:38:50 AM EST

It's like when a country gets attacked, gets really scared, and doesn't know what the fuck to do. So they start doing a whole bunch of new stuff in order to protect themselves, some of it is good and works, and some of it is bad or doesn't work.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]
so where's the fascism? ;-) (nt) (none / 0) (#99)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:44:42 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
We're not there yet (none / 1) (#100)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:53:25 AM EST

But some things are moving in that direction. They mostly fall under the "bad" heading; others under the "good" heading, I suppose, though I can't think of any off the top of my head.

This new "enemy combatant" status (no trial -- straight to prison), especially for US citizens captured in the US, is awefully fascist, for one. I'm also not a big fan of "free speech zones", but that started pre-9/11 (under Clinton). There's not a whole lot, really, but there are a few things.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]

you said it yourself (1.20 / 5) (#102)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:01:08 AM EST

"There's not a whole lot, really"

your concerns are hysteria

it's like someone lights match and you go "OMG the whole house is going to burn down!"

hello?

dude, you're drowning in FUD

your concerns are not valid

really, you're paranoid

no... REALLY

think it over, examine your hysterics, calm the fuck down, you're not helping anyone or anything

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Get a grip (3.00 / 2) (#104)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:18:42 AM EST

I never said we were becoming a fascist state. All I've been saying through this whole thread is that some of the recent changes have indicate a gradual move in the direction the fascist end of the spectrum.

In the spirit of a cts analogy, you're like a person who, when the car starts making a funny clicking noise, just turns the radio up.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]

i salute you (none / 1) (#105)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:38:42 AM EST

i have never known anyone to scream bloody murder as loudly as you at the sight of a dead bug

all of your signs about moving towards fascism doesn't rise above background white noise

your tiny signs are insignificant, and by obsessing over them, you've made yourself insignificant as well

enjoy your smallminded chicken little existence

it bears no resemblence to reality


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

When did I scream bloody murder? (none / 0) (#106)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:48:02 AM EST

Just out of curiosity.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]
scream bloody murder= (1.00 / 3) (#107)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:06:33 AM EST

talking about fascism and thinking that ridiculous extreme is topical

IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU WROTE LIKE THIS

it was the inflammatory nature of your thoughts

kind of like: "my dad won't lend me the car keys, he's like hitler"

that's screaming bloody murder over nothing

i would suggest you calm down

the substance of your thoughts is that of a hypochondriac lightheaded nitwit


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Learn to read. (none / 0) (#112)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:27:39 AM EST

Then come back.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]
whatever dude (none / 1) (#115)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:32:14 AM EST

learn that hyperventilation does not equal thought

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
jesus christ, you two (none / 1) (#128)
by marksetzer on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 02:26:50 PM EST

stop fucking up my screen, already.

If a smoking ban will actually cause Houston to fold up and disappear, then I'm all for it. -rusty
[ Parent ]
Hey, face it: (2.00 / 5) (#13)
by Kenneth Burke on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:48:48 AM EST

the U.S. is only marginally a democracy and free speech is only practised as a right, meaning what you are allowed to do.  

I would think you were told all sorts of things growing up.

The shock! The horror! The indifference! (1.80 / 10) (#14)
by The Jewish Liberal Media Conspiracy on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:51:43 AM EST


This account has been anonymized.
Silence your critics! (2.44 / 9) (#18)
by karb on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:18:29 PM EST

This painfully stretches the expression. Governments around the world routinely imprison, torture, and kill people who dare to speak out against them. It doesn't seem like you are being silenced so much as you are unable to tell the difference between a government that actually silences critics and one that merely polices public appearances to prevent disruptions.

I fail to see why the rights of potential disruptors trump the rights of people who actually want to be at an event, not to mention the speakers and organizers themselves.

Although I'm a fairly partisan american conservative, this same thing applies to anybody. I didn't have a problem when John Kerry's people prevented some pro-life catholics from getting in to one of his rallies. If greens prevent rabid corporate executives from getting into their rallies, I'll have no problems. If pro-lifers prevent angry feminists from disrupting their meetings, I'm fine with that too.

I doesn't change things if the people involved are elected officials. Public officials should be able to make appearances that aren't ready-made PR spectacles for their opponents.

I'm also surprised, frankly, that people do not realize that this protection against thug-rule is far more beneficial to the fringe than it is to the mainstream.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?

You know, (none / 1) (#76)
by wageslave on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 03:17:12 AM EST

I hadn't thought about it that way. You've made some really good points, albiet a few I don't agree with. But, alas, I'm not much for debate right now.
--- Wage Slave
[ Parent ]
Kerry's rally paid for by tax dollars? (3.00 / 5) (#124)
by Mr.Surly on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 12:44:52 PM EST

Was it?

[ Parent ]
yes (none / 0) (#241)
by karb on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 02:50:15 PM EST

In part, at least. As far as I know, campaigns do not pay for Secret Service protection nor for local and state police that provide security. The rally was dependent on taxpayer funding.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
[ Parent ]
Bush gathering had protection, too. (none / 0) (#260)
by Mr.Surly on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 05:25:23 PM EST

As does anyone who's running for president.  Your point?

[ Parent ]
running for President? (none / 0) (#331)
by wygit on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:55:17 AM EST

um... I thought President Bush was already in his second term, and is, therefore, not running for anything...

[ Parent ]
The two sentences aren't directly linked. (none / 0) (#342)
by Mr.Surly on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 11:21:31 AM EST

My point being that all presidents and candidates get the protection.  The difference is that Kerry's campaign paid for the rally while tax dollars paid for the event from which taxpayers were ousted.

[ Parent ]
potential disruptors? (3.00 / 2) (#163)
by wygit on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 11:44:15 PM EST

You're kidding, right?

Anyone with anything other than an "I love Bush" bumper sticker on their vehicle is a potential disruptor?
...and protection against thug-rule means preventing anyone who might have a different opinion from attending a public meeting?

I'm sorry, but Freedom of speech wasn't meant to protect the majority opinion...

Public officials should be able to make appearances that aren't ready-made PR spectacles for their opponents.

...but shouldn't they also have to occasionally hear anything but "we love you, Mr. President. Your policies are wonderful!"

and the comments about Kerry, the greens, etc...none of those are OUR GOVERNMENT, which is supposed to have some mild interest in the opinions of our citizens, or what's the point of a public-input type of meeting...unless it's a ready-made PR spectacle...



[ Parent ]
Horse puckey... (none / 0) (#197)
by mikelist on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:49:35 AM EST


Public officials should be able to make appearances that aren't ready-made PR spectacles for their opponents.

No they shouldn't, OTOH they have the same right to hijack their opponent's show, though. that's justice, free speech, and equity, all rolled up into a little ball of hecklers. Of course, it could be argued that they can show their lack of support by not attending, but there's nothing to differentiate the cause driven non-attendees from the apathetic.

[ Parent ]

Hmm (none / 0) (#246)
by karb on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 03:09:58 PM EST

Well, Bush's speech's were getting disrupted fairly frequently, so this isn't some sort of stunt concocted for fun.

I'm sorry, but Freedom of speech wasn't meant to protect the majority opinion...

Free speech was meant to protect the people from the government. This is not about free speech, it is about democracy, dialogue, and civility. Heckling the president during a speech promotes none of those ideals.

and the comments about Kerry, the greens, etc...none of those are OUR GOVERNMENT, which is supposed to have some mild interest in the opinions of our citizens, or what's the point of a public-input type of meeting

It would be difficult to find people less interested in dialogue than those who choose to disrupt meetings of their political opponents. This is, understandably, not altered by the funding source of the gathering.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
[ Parent ]

This isn't a fucking speech (none / 1) (#298)
by damiam on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:16:01 PM EST

It's a "town-hall meeting". Banning non-disruptive people with dissenting views is not acceptable in a taxpayer-funded public forum.

[ Parent ]
re:hmmmmm... (none / 0) (#332)
by wygit on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:00:32 AM EST

But they hadn't done ANY of these things...

Isn't this kind of a "presumption of guilt" thing?

"We're going to remove you from this place because we think you MIGHT do something bad? Not that you've done anything except have an anti-war bumper sticker on your car, but we still think you might..."

[ Parent ]

Dissent is an integral part of politics... (none / 1) (#195)
by mikelist on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:36:28 AM EST

...and disruption is always frowned upon by the disrupted party. I would suggest that when challenged by blue-suited, shade wearing men with no discernable sense of humor, you ask to see credentials other than their wardrobe and attendant electronics. They MAY be able to arrest you for such impertinence, but at least you will know whether he was qualified to run you off. And if you create no disturbance (embarassing questions are not a disruption, any more than non-controversial ones are) they can't prosecute/persecute you in a public arena.

Free Speech Zones are a disturbing idea, and yeah I know Dems have used them too, although not like the current administration has. Where does the ACLU stand on this subversion of our rights?

[ Parent ]

What is dissent? (none / 0) (#245)
by karb on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 02:56:44 PM EST

There are ten thousand better ways to express dissent than making a scene at an appearance of a politician you dislike.

Not coincidentally, each of these ten thousand ways is also constitutionally protected, unlike disrupting a speech, which, free speech-wise, is the equivalent of streaking.

'Free-speech zones' refer to two different things, I believe. One refers to moving protests away from event locations. The other refers to a policy at many universities of limiting political speech and activism to a specific portion of campus. The former practice (I believe) has been upheld, or at least not overturned in court. The latter (if I recall correctly) has been overturned in court. I'm not that sure this paragraph is too correct, I'm not remembering things as clearly as I should.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
[ Parent ]

Re: Free Speech Zones (3.00 / 2) (#280)
by unitron on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 08:56:14 PM EST

I like what I heard some guy I saw on C-SPAN during the conventions say:

"Free speech zone? I'm an American. Anywhere I'm standing is a free speech zone."

[ Parent ]

It depends (none / 0) (#320)
by nobrowser on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 03:36:57 AM EST

I've been to Green events.  I dress
fairly conservatively, at least compared to many of
them, so I looked quite out of place - I could have
been your "rabid corporate executive".  Never - ever
was I asked to justify myself, let alone ID.

So, your exclusionary philosophy -=could be=-
beneficial to Greens -=if=- they were prepared to
adopt it.  They are not, because they are idealists
to whom ends do not justify means.  That is a more
relevant distinction in this context than fringe
versus mainstream.

Also, it seems the derived benefits are
purely negative, just helping minorities stay
where they are.  But, strangely, some of them
hope to have their opinion -=heard=- by others,
and some day influencing public policy.

[ Parent ]

No More Blood For Oil? (1.14 / 21) (#19)
by NaCh0 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:22:55 PM EST

Liberal propaganda is very dangerous. It is designed to weaken the will of the people in the homeland. So now the military has to push aside the primary mission of killing bad guys to appease the extremist commies marching on the Washington DC lawns. And commies they are. Who do you think prints those nice large-print "Bush is teh Hitler" signs? The American Communist Party.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
Those damn commies (3.00 / 2) (#40)
by CodeWright on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:43:58 PM EST

We should create some sort of alliance against international communism and call it the Anti-Comintern Pact or something...

After that, we can start dealing with all these malcontents in our own country.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Great book you should read: (none / 0) (#170)
by KrispyKringle on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:43:41 AM EST

"Communism, Hypnotism, and The Beatles." This backs everything you said.

(kidding!)

[ Parent ]

You haven't heard it all (none / 1) (#370)
by trezor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 06:52:04 PM EST

    Liberal propaganda is very dangerous. It is designed to weaken the will of the people in the homeland. So now the military has to push aside the primary mission of killing bad guys to appease the extremist commies marching on the Washington DC lawns.

You see, that's where you are wrong. You grosely underestimate the liberal, hippie commie conspiracy. You think that all they are capable of is generating a little bit of propaganda? No siree! Not only do they manage to remain organized worldwide like magic without any (visable) organisation. They are all divided into cells so if someone gets a hunch of the liberal commie cell-network, they can all regroup and rearrange and spot out the traitors. They are like the fucking Al-Qaida on this one, if not even trained by them.

Not to mention that for each and every time you say "I love you" the liberals rape your children. Im not going into details how they can actually get this done succesfully, but let me tell you this: Their goal is to make your children think the word "love" means "rape" and that they should rape the homeland! This is important to them, so they make sure this is done accurate to the mark. Again: dark communist witchcraft.

Ofcourse there are more to the commie liberal hippie conspiracy, but I dear not reveal to much in this forum in fear of them developing even more evil schemes.

That no-one has ever seen any of this in action and that no-one ever will, is irellevant. It certainly doesn't prove it is not the case. More so it proves the immense and imminent threat the liberals pose to our country.

The sooner Bush can have all the people not following him blindy sent for torture and interrigation, the better. God bless this free nation.


--
Richard Dean Anderson porn? - Now spread the news

[ Parent ]
Great stuff! (none / 0) (#374)
by ayoung on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:21:56 PM EST

I love it. You made me laugh, and with all the stress of dealing with this thing, that is no small accomplishment.

Thanks!

[ Parent ]

About free speech (Remarks from a stranger) (2.64 / 14) (#26)
by tmalo on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:13:04 PM EST

what separated America from everywhere else is the First Amendment and it's protection of free speech

Many countries around the world has free speech in their constitution. Moreover, this one of the Universal Human Rights promoted by the United Nations.

It is not clear to me if the meeting was organised by Republic Party or by the White House. However, to be accepted in an audience is not a matter of free speech. You are not denied in your right to say what you want. You are denied to do it in this very place, at that very moment. Not beeing authorize to talk on a phone in a plane is not a free speech violation.

Remember that your right to speak freely should not interfer with the right of other not to listen to you. For instance, you cannot invoke free speech to use a speakerphone in the street of a quiet neighbourhood at 2 AM.

So, after considering your article without the free speech introduction, it appears to me that you've just been kick out of a party.

Considering human rights, one could easily feel more concern about people beeing put in jail without knowing what they are accused of, no trial and no lawyer (talking about Guantanamo Bay).
Or about the duty for every citizen to tell the police about anyone that have "strange" behaviour and could be a terrorist (does someone know the common behaviour of a terrorist ?)

Many Western countries don't (2.16 / 6) (#70)
by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 01:50:51 AM EST

The UK, France, and Germany do not have Free Speech... certainly not the broad protections that Americans have. I'm ignorant as to the protections other republics have for it.

Addressing your main point, I understand that the event was funded with taxpayer dollars: it was a public event. As such, removing individuals for political reasons is unacceptable.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]

French does since 1789 (3.00 / 3) (#109)
by tmalo on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:24:54 AM EST

The UK, France, and Germany do not have Free Speech...

I disagree, the "Citizen and Human rights Declaration" made in France in 1789 clearly say that "free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of Humanity most precious rights. Therefore any citizen can talk, rite and print freely as long as they don't abuse that right" (translation is by me, original here).

Then the preamble of the constitution cleary and explicitely reffer to that text (as explained here).

Regarding the latter point. I tought it may have been a private event payed with public money; which is AFAIK an offence but not a fundamental human right violation.

[ Parent ]
Well they are shutting down newspapers. (3.00 / 2) (#117)
by dudsen on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:49:46 AM EST

It's actually quite common for the german authorities to shut down and persecute publishers who distributes materien considered dangerous, nazi or terrorists propaganda are the most common reason for shutting down newspapers in germany.
I dont really know about France, and i only got som vague idea that The UK has banned some neonazi publications.

[ Parent ]
No it's not commeon. (2.50 / 2) (#272)
by wobblywizard on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:31:56 PM EST

I'd like to see some evidence of this. Because it happens about once a decade. So your comment is quite ignorant.

--
You never win an argument with anyone who fucks you or signs your paychecks. I just smile, bite my lip and sip my drink. --Philalawyer
[ Parent ]

The question is (none / 1) (#127)
by trane on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 02:02:10 PM EST

what constitutes "abuse" of that right? The argument is that the US grants significantly more freedom than France does. Prior restraint would be one example; another is the recent case France brought against Yahoo for allowing searches of Nazi-related terms, etc.

[ Parent ]
what constitutes "abuse" of that right? (3.00 / 3) (#137)
by tmalo on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 04:18:26 PM EST

Are considered abuse by the french law :

  • claiming and/or publishing that would provoke hate or violence toward some people because of their ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, sexual orientation or handicap.

  • inviting people to commit crime and/or offence

  • directly provoke terrorism

  • deniying existence of what had been recognized as a crime against Humanity by French or International Juridiction.

    Considering the French regulations, racism is not an opinion, it's an offence.

    [ Parent ]
  • yeah (3.00 / 2) (#143)
    by trane on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:44:03 PM EST

    well that's where i guess i disagree with the French (incidentally i've spent 8 years of my life in France). In my opinion, banning some thought or idea is not the best way to prevent it from doing harm; let the racists have their say, then use education and logic and science and whatever to disprove or discount them.

    "i may not agree with what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it"...(often attributed to Voltaire but apparently it's from a book ABOUT Voltaire)

    [ Parent ]

    Two points (3.00 / 2) (#179)
    by bob6 on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 03:33:02 AM EST

    I do have doubts about banning racist speech. However:
    then use education and logic and science and whatever to disprove or discount them
    1. Racism, Nazism, Fascism and such are political projects. There is nothing (or little) that logic and science can help about it. For instance, a common idea in France (which is not banned btw) is that they were perfectly rational choices for Germany and Italy in the 1930s. The main goal of the ban is to remove them once for all from the current political project.
    2. Science, logic and education are speeches. What the law says is, for instance, that you cannot teach Holocaust revisionism, schools have to teach the reality of the Holocaust. I guess it's more or less what you are advancing.


    Cheers.
    [ Parent ]
    Disagree. (none / 0) (#308)
    by trane on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 12:09:20 AM EST

    "Racism, Nazism, Fascism and such are political projects. There is nothing (or little) that logic and science can help about it."

    Logic and science can help you achieve your political goals more efficiently. For instance, the Nazis promoted eugenics. But eugenics can be shown, scientifically, to be a non-optimal way to improve a race's fitness. So let the Nazis talk about eugenics, and let others put forth the science that shows it will ultimately be ineffective at achieving its own goals.

    Similarly with racism, you can demonstrate based on science or logic or experience that the claims of racists ("blacks are less intelligent" - what about Coltrane?) are not valid.

    Banning speech about racism or eugenics or anything is not as effective as explicitly saying why you think it is so awful that you want to ban it.

    [ Parent ]

    Devil's Advocacy (none / 0) (#319)
    by nobrowser on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 02:48:27 AM EST

    But could it be that at least in some cases, a hateful opinion or policy is actually very rational? Are you really prepared to say that our emotions and our reason are always perfectly aligned? I have often thought that in some sense, despite losing the war, Nazism actually worked for Germany. It homogenized their society, leaving only a supermajority of worker bees who then powered the economic miracle. Even if one rejects that notion, it seems absolutely clear to me that Nazism is not wrong for any logical or scientific reason but for the injustice and suffering it inflicted.

    [ Parent ]
    I have a whole theory worked out (none / 0) (#401)
    by trane on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 10:14:20 PM EST

    explaining why more just and compassionate societies are more evolutionarily fit than less just societies. I've detailed it elsewhere - if you are really interested i can find some links. For now, just ask yourself why the concept of justice and equality exists at all, and why it's still around, and why democratic Athens was such a power in its time, and the US is now. If you grant that the theory is plausible, you can see how it follows that Germany (and the world) would be much better off now if Nazism had been never been voted in.

    [ Parent ]
    Re (none / 1) (#323)
    by bob6 on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 05:07:33 AM EST

    Logic and science can help you achieve your political goals more efficiently. For instance, the Nazis promoted eugenics. But eugenics can be shown, scientifically, to be a non-optimal way to improve a race's fitness. So let the Nazis talk about eugenics, and let others put forth the science that shows it will ultimately be ineffective at achieving its own goals.
    Wow! The perfect counter-example. Fitness is a biological concept that applies to population/genetic pools under very restricted circumstances, while Nazism is still a political project for a nation's society. I don't think using one to argument on the other is rational: too much strech (and it can possibly feed the opposite arguments actually). I'd try something simpler and more rational like: Nazism will kill you or, at best, make you dirt poor.

    Anyway I completelly agree that education is the best weapon. Generally education programs are decided on the state level (by means of law, decree, whatever) , so deciding that arguments against Nazism will be taught de facto bans the opposing arguments. That's why I endorse this kind of ban when the speech is explicitely meant to be educative and informative.

    Cheers.
    [ Parent ]
    France may have less "free speech"... (3.00 / 2) (#235)
    by Russell Dovey on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 02:04:53 PM EST

    But in which country are the citizens more free; France or the USA? In which country are more citizens locked up for challenging popular opinion, or challenging authority?

    "Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
    [ Parent ]

    I think (none / 0) (#309)
    by trane on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 12:14:26 AM EST

    that's more a question of the implementation of the respective constitutions, than the doctrines put forth in the constitutions themselves.

    And I don't have any figures, do you?

    [ Parent ]

    Let me know what happens (none / 1) (#130)
    by curien on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 03:17:48 PM EST

    when you publish that pamphlet about how the Holocaust never happened.

    --
    This sig is umop apisdn.
    [ Parent ]
    when you publish that pamphlet... (3.00 / 2) (#138)
    by tmalo on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 04:29:36 PM EST

    You get sued.

    The publisher get sued.

    The bookstores who sold it get sued.

    Your pamphlet is banned.

    You, the publisher and the bookstore may spend  5 years in jail and pay 45000€.

    [ Parent ]

    See, in the US.... (none / 1) (#267)
    by DavidTC on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:12:50 PM EST

    ...you can talk and print freely even if you abuse that right.

    Or, at least, you're supposed to be able to.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    Finland does since independence (3.00 / 3) (#204)
    by msmikkol on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 11:33:48 AM EST

    1917, that is. Section 12 from the Finnish constitution:

    Section 12 - Freedom of expression and right of access to information
    "Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone. More detailed provisions on the exercise of the freedom of expression are laid down by an Act. Provisions on restrictions relating to pictorial programmes that are necessary for the protection of children may be laid down by an Act.
    Documents and recordings in the possession of the authorities are public, unless their publication has for compelling reasons been specifically restricted by an Act. Everyone has the right of access to public documents and recordings."

    Below is the 1st amendment of U.S. Constitution:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


    --
    Existence in progress - do not disturb.


    [ Parent ]
    Germany has free speech (2.50 / 2) (#271)
    by wobblywizard on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:29:25 PM EST

    Unless this is a troll, I have to correct you: Germany has the right to free speech in its constitution.

    You may want to pursue this: Basic Rights in Germany.

    There are limitations to free speech, true. It's limited where it impedes the exercise of other constitutional rights. This is, in principle, as it should be. Of course, there's an ever ongoing debate about when and how it impedes on other rights and when and how it can be limited. This is what the legal community does all the time. But, and this you have to keep in mind, these limitations are very few and far between. Free speech is Art. 5 in the German Constitution, indication the relative importance over other constitutional rights which are mentioned later on. So, in a sense, free speech is, like all constitutional rights, evolving. No Constitution can forever remain unchanged; changes in society, morales and values as well as technical progress demand that the interpretation of the constitutional rights be updatet.

    Furthermore, with a little reflection this should have become obvious, after all, it was the US who OKed the German Constitution...

    Considering all this, the statement that Germany doesn't have the right to free speech is obviously skewed by ignorance...

    --
    You never win an argument with anyone who fucks you or signs your paychecks. I just smile, bite my lip and sip my drink. --Philalawyer
    [ Parent ]

    Really? (none / 0) (#296)
    by FieryTaco on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:13:13 PM EST

    Try holding a meeting of your local Nazi party in Berlin. Good luck. Hope you enjoy your time in jail.

    [ Parent ]
    That's exactly what I wrote about in my comment (none / 1) (#336)
    by wobblywizard on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:43:36 AM EST

    The weighing of basic constitutional rights against each other. For example the human dignity of the victims and their families of the holocaust against free speech. Or the defence of freedom and democracy aganst totalitarian tendencies. See?

    --
    You never win an argument with anyone who fucks you or signs your paychecks. I just smile, bite my lip and sip my drink. --Philalawyer
    [ Parent ]

    Only (none / 0) (#394)
    by FieryTaco on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:09:22 PM EST

    Human dignity is not a right. Nor is "defence of freedom and democracy aganst totalitarian tendencies." Free speech includes saying something that really really offends someone else. To say Germany has free speech, except when talking about something that offends us or we're embarrassed about, is to say that Germany doesn't have free speech.

    [ Parent ]
    And that's where you're ignorant (none / 1) (#422)
    by wobblywizard on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 09:38:04 AM EST

    Both examples cited by me *are* constitutional rights. Human dignity, the most important right in the German Constitution: Art. 1. The defence of deomcracy and freedom: Art. 20. See, if you have no inkling of german constitutional law and the main concepts behind that constitution, it's hardly surprising if you fail to see that.

    Finally, allow me to clarify: basically, what you're saying is, that free speech supersedes every other basic/constitutional right. That is, there's only free speech, if you can say what you like no matter what other right or whom you injure by doing so. What I am trying to say is, that Germany has a system of checks and balances regarding constitutional rights. Every right (with the exception of human dignity, which is absolute) has boundaries defined by other rights. The exact definition of which is the task of the Federal Constitutional Court.

    I hope that clears things up a bit.

    --
    You never win an argument with anyone who fucks you or signs your paychecks. I just smile, bite my lip and sip my drink. --Philalawyer
    [ Parent ]

    Sure. (none / 1) (#425)
    by FieryTaco on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 12:25:40 PM EST

    I just disagree with the German constitution apparently. Free speech isn't infringed when the limitations are to prevent an immediate danger to others. However it is infringed when you prevent speech you just don't like, for example speech relating to a form of government you disagree with.

    [ Parent ]
    Well... (none / 0) (#438)
    by wobblywizard on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 04:50:12 PM EST

    I can't really argue with that position other than saying I don't agree with it. The view espoused by the German Constitution (as well as by most European constitutions btw.) is that voicing public support in favour of a form of government which has caused the violent death of literally dozens of millions around the world only some decades past is not really something you want to allow.

    Why?

    Because, the risk for repetition has been judged too high. Hey, it happened once, it could happen again, if we're not vigilant. Of course, then you have additional considerations, such as shame or dignity of the survivors/families thereof. Those, I would concede, are negotiable insofar as they're being used as justifications for imposing limitations on free speech. But I disgress...

    The real problem with judging what constitutes abuse of free speech is that you cannot readily tell the damage wrought by any one speech. Does opinion A or B incite people to violence against others? To some sort of discrimination which flows under the surface of society? I freely admit there are countless problems here.

    In closing, I'd like to point out that the typical USian knee-jerk comment "France and Germany don't have free speech" is about as true as saying "Americans have no culture". Prejudices, basically.

    Thanks for listening, please tune in again next week, when we investigate the truth of "African people are all lazy bastards". ;-)

    --
    You never win an argument with anyone who fucks you or signs your paychecks. I just smile, bite my lip and sip my drink. --Philalawyer
    [ Parent ]

    I don't understand this argument (2.66 / 3) (#142)
    by speek on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:27:37 PM EST

    There's a difference between a political leader blocking access and participation and private groups doing likewise. It may not be technically illegal, but we ought to frown upon it.

    --
    al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
    [ Parent ]

    The author used the phrase (3.00 / 6) (#145)
    by BottleRocket on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:06:27 PM EST

    "Town Hall-style meeting"

    The idea is, this a chance for members of the community to come out and voice their thoughts and concerns. This is a public meeting, not a fucking cheerleading practice.

    $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
    . ₩ . . . . . ¥ . . . . . € . . . . . § . . . . . £
    . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
    $ . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
    Yes I do download [child pornography], but I don't keep it any longer than I need to, so it can yield insight as to how to find more. --MDC
    $ . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
    . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
    . ₩ . . . . . ¥ . . . . . € . . . . . § . . . . . £
    $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
    $B R Σ III$

    [ Parent ]

    Qualifiers (3.00 / 2) (#159)
    by gehrehmee on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:23:56 PM EST

    You are not denied in your right to say what you want. You are denied to do it in this very place, at that very moment. Not beeing authorize to talk on a phone in a plane is not a free speech violation.
    So what, you're allowed to say whatever you want as long as.... you do it where we tell you? Where no one will hear you? As long as no one gets offended? As long as we like what you say? These kinds of qualifiers on freedom at government events sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    Two things: (3.00 / 4) (#194)
    by lumpenprole on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:31:19 AM EST

    One, since this qualifies as a media event, I think it's pretty clear that denying access to someone who might disagree with you qualifies as prior restraint. Here's a nice article about prior restraint for those who aren't familiar:

    http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/constitutionscourtsandlaw/priorrestraint.html

    The poster was not kicked out of a 'party'. The poster was removed from a public meeting by an agent of the government because he might express dissenting views. The expression of dissent is supposed to be one of the core values this country was founded on, and is supposedly protected by the first amendment. If you can't disagree with the government in a public meeting, you are effectively barred from public discourse.

    Second, this was put together with public money. The person who got kicked out paid taxes (I presume) and some fraction of that money went towards putting together public meetings ostensibly so the public could interact with the people who govern them. The rallying cry of some of the founding fathers was 'No taxation without representation'. I fail to see where the taxpayer is being represented if they are barred from meeting with their representative. Keep in mind, no danger or disruption was implied or expected here. The only implication is that somebody might disagree.

    Disagreement is the new terrorism.

    [ Parent ]

    Soon to be sigged (none / 0) (#433)
    by mikepence on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 04:24:25 PM EST

    "Disagreement is the new terrorism."

    [ Parent ]
    Why do you hate America so much? (1.45 / 22) (#27)
    by FreeBSD on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:14:19 PM EST

    It's a free country.

    Ever heard of private property? It's the foundation of all civilized societies. Do you think the federal government should have violated these rights and stepped in to let you stay? Just so you could spy on republicans to learn their evil plans?

    I guess this is just another typical example of liberals wanting to use the power of the state against their enemies to further their ridiculous little causes.

    Liberals love to complain about government intervention when it involves their culture of death issues, like abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, and gay marriage... but when a private group assembles that liberals disagree with, they flip out and their true inner fascist comes out.

    This is the edit queue. (2.00 / 3) (#32)
    by lowkey on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 03:04:53 PM EST

    Unless you are suggesting that he change the title to "America: Why do I hate it so much?", please wait at least until it comes to vote before trolling.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not a private event (2.60 / 10) (#35)
    by Benny Cemoli on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:01:46 PM EST

    It's not a campaign rally or a private function. The event is paid for by American taxpayers, and is billed as "non-political". Apparently the GOP doesn't want to pay for such events, either because they don't want to associate too closely with Bush's Social Security scam, or - more likely - because they think they're entitled to spend our money on whatever damn foolishness they wish.

    Conservatives love to make wildly inaccurate statements and then draw outrageous conclusions. They love to lie. They love that nearly as much as they love to feed at the public trough and siphon our hard-earned tax dollars to pay for their flimflammery. All conservatives are like that.


    "the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."
    [ Parent ]

    Wow, a liberal shows his true colors (1.12 / 8) (#37)
    by FreeBSD on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:25:52 PM EST

    Looks like more hate-speech from the left demonizing conservatives. You're like a racist, except against conservatives (i.e., Christians)

    [ Parent ]
    Typical conservative misdirection (2.20 / 5) (#38)
    by Benny Cemoli on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:38:22 PM EST

    Want to wrap yourself in the flag a bit while you're at it? Maybe bring religion into the picture to muddy the waters? God and Country and pay no attention while we indulge in wholesale corruption?

    More lies. When do you get tired of lying and stealing our tax dollars? Do we have to run out of money first?


    "the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."
    [ Parent ]

    admit it, you were pwned nt. (2.66 / 3) (#48)
    by trane on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:02:36 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Bwahahahaha (1.50 / 2) (#180)
    by Legion303 on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 04:49:32 AM EST

    Go suck a leper, Jesus-Boy.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow! Classy response. (none / 1) (#420)
    by trezor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 06:44:05 AM EST

      Why do you hate America so much?

    Because whoever disagrees with a conservative just have to hate America.


    --
    Richard Dean Anderson porn? - Now spread the news

    [ Parent ]
    Is this behavior helpful? (none / 0) (#471)
    by triddle on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:17:22 PM EST

    Instead of spending so much time trying to cram your opinion of the opposing political side down their throat why don't you try to work together and understand the other person's position. Why does someone who thinks their rights should be protected need to be labeled as hating america. Why would you say that only conservatives love to lie (hint: so do liberals, and so does every politician, so that sure seems like a moot point). Instead of hating each other lets try to understand what we have to say. Everyone knows that something is wrong we just don't know what. Fighting amongst ourselves isn't going to help us fix it.

    [ Parent ]
    Question (2.87 / 8) (#28)
    by Benny Cemoli on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:15:11 PM EST

    Did the person who asked you to leave represent himself as a Secret Service agent?

    Any private security yutz can shine his shoes, put on a dark suit, and slap on an earpiece. Nothing illegal unless he's running around pretending to be an agent when he isn't.

    The administration's prediliction for holding publicly-funded events and refusing admittance to people who simply fail a certain political litmus test is a different matter. That's arrogance and cowardice and a testimony to the sickness of our political process. But it isn't illegal, AFAIK.

    As a side note, ever since the lee malatesta thing we've probably had a secret service guy who is assigned to monitor K5 ... be nice if he'd post something.


    "the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."

    when you produce a body, we'll talk. (1.71 / 14) (#42)
    by the ghost of rmg on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:27:42 PM EST

    fascist this, fascist that. look, when you can tell me which of bush's political adversaries he's had killed, then we'll talk about fascism. i have a feeling that's not a question you're prepared to answer though.

    maybe that's not the outrage you were looking for, but that's just my opinion. all i'm saying is that, as a patriotic individual, i cannot take someone who's complaining about the real world consequences of their inflammatory bumper sticker all that seriously when the same guy you're accusing of fascism single handedly removed a guy who really was a fascist. i mean, let's not forget that saddam hussein did, in fact, gas his own people.

    now i'm just a simple man and like most people, i'm sometimes accused of trolling, but that's just how i feel about this kind of thing. you just need to get some perspective.


    rmg: comments better than yours.

    Free clue (1.08 / 25) (#53)
    by Perpetual Newbie on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:19:06 PM EST

    THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM (COMPLETE TEXT)

    BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)

     (This article, co-written by Giovanni Gentile is considered the most complete articulation of Mussolini's political views.  This is the only complete translation we know of on the web, copied directly from an official Fascist government publication of 1935, Fascism Doctrine and Institutions, pages 7-42.  This translation includes all the footnotes from the original.)

    NOTE:  BRIEF STATEMENT OF PUBLICATIONS PRINCIPLES

    The World Future Fund serves as a source of documentary material, reading lists and internet links from different points of view that we believe have historical significance.  The publication of this material is in no way whatsoever an endorsement of these viewpoints by the World Future Fund, unless explicitly stated by us.  As our web site makes very clear, we are totally opposed to ideas such as racism, religious intolerance and communism.  However, in order to combat such evils, it is necessary to understand them by means of the study of key documentary material.  For a more detailed statement of our publications standards click here.

     Like all sound political conceptions, Fascism is action and it is thought; action in which doctrine is immanent, and doctrine arising from a given system of historical forces in which it is inserted, and working on them from within (1). It has therefore a form correlated to contingencies of time and space; but it has also an ideal content which makes it an expression of truth in the higher region of the history of thought (2). There is no way of exercising a spiritual influence in the world as a human will dominating the will of others, unless one has a conception both of the transient and the specific reality on which that action is to be exercised, and of the permanent and universal reality in which the transient dwells and has its being. To know men one must know man; and to know man one must be acquainted with reality and its laws. There can be no conception of the State which is not fundamentally a conception of life: philosophy or intuition, system of ideas evolving within the framework of logic or concentrated in a vision or a faith, but always, at least potentially, an organic conception of the world.

    Thus many of the practical expressions of Fascism such as party organization, system of education, and discipline can only be understood when considered in relation to its general attitude toward life. A spiritual attitude (3). Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission which suppressing the instinct for life closed in a brief circle of pleasure, builds up a higher life, founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of time and space, in which the individual, by self-sacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death itself, can achieve that purely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists.

     The conception is therefore a spiritual one, arising from the general reaction of the century against the materialistic positivism of the XIXth century. Anti-positivistic but positive; neither skeptical nor agnostic; neither pessimistic nor supinely optimistic as are, generally speaking, the doctrines (all negative) which place the center of life outside man; whereas, by the exercise of his free will, man can and must create his own world.

      Fascism wants man to be active and to engage in action with all his energies; it wants him to be manfully aware of the difficulties besetting him and ready to face them. It conceives of life as a struggle in which it behooves a man to win for himself a really worthy place, first of all by fitting himself (physically, morally, intellectually) to become the implement required for winning it. As for the individual, so for the nation, and so for mankind (4). Hence the high value of culture in all its forms (artistic, religious, scientific) (5) and the outstanding importance of education. Hence also the essential value of work, by which man subjugates nature and creates the human world (economic, political, ethical, and intellectual).

    This positive conception of life is obviously an ethical one. It invests the whole field of reality as well as the human activities which master it. No action is exempt from moral judgment; no activity can be despoiled of the value which a moral purpose confers on all things. Therefore life, as conceived of by the Fascist, is serious, austere, and religious; all its manifestations are poised in a world sustained by moral forces and subject to spiritual responsibilities. The Fascist disdains an ?easy " life (6).

     The Fascist conception of life is a religious one (7), in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the in­dividual and raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. "Those who perceive nothing beyond opportunistic considerations in the religious policy of the Fascist regime fail to realize that Fascism is not only a system of government but also and above all a system of thought.

     In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in function of history to which all nations bring their contribution. Hence the great value of tradition in records, in language, in customs, in the rules of social life (8). Outside history man is a nonentity. Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism; and it is opposed to all Jacobinistic utopias and innovations. It does not believe in the possibility of "happiness" on earth as conceived by the economistic literature of the XVIIIth century, and it therefore rejects the theological notion that at some future time the human family will secure a final settlement of all its difficulties. This notion runs counter to experience which teaches that life is in continual flux and in process of evolution. In politics Fascism aims at realism; in practice it desires to deal only with those problems which are the spontaneous product of historic conditions and which find or suggest their own solutions (9). Only by entering in to the process of reality and taking possession of the forces at work within it, can man act on man and on nature (10).

     Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts

     The rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual (12). And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State (13). The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14).

     No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16).

     Grouped according to their several interests, individuals form classes; they form trade-unions when organized according to their several economic activities; but first and foremost they form the State, which is no mere matter of numbers, the suns of the individuals forming the majority. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number (17); but it is the purest form of  democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual formation (18). Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality (19).

     In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation. It is not the nation which generates the State; that is an antiquated naturalistic concept which afforded a basis for XIXth century publicity in favor of national governments. Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity.

     The right to national independence does not arise from any merely literary and idealistic form of self-consciousness; still less from a more or less passive and unconscious de facto situation, but from an active, self-conscious, political will expressing itself in action and ready to prove its rights. It arises, in short, from the existence, at least in fieri, of a State. Indeed, it is the State which, as the expression of a universal ethical will, creates the right to national independence (20).

     A nation, as expressed in the State, is a living, ethical entity only in so far as it is progressive. Inactivity is death. Therefore the State is not only Authority which governs and confers legal form and spiritual value on indi­vidual, Hills, but it is also Power which makes its will felt and respected beyond its own frontiers, thus affording practical proof of the universal character of the decisions necessary to ensure its development. This implies organization and expansion, potential if not actual. Thus the State equates itself to the will of man, whose development cannot he checked by obstacles and which, by achieving self-expression, demonstrates its infinity (21).

     The Fascist State , as a higher and more powerful expression of personality, is a force, but a spiritual one. It sums up all the manifestations of the moral and intellectual life of man. Its functions cannot therefore be limited to those of enforcing order and keeping the peace, as the liberal doctrine had it. It is no mere mechanical device for defining the sphere within which the individual may duly exercise his supposed rights. The Fascist State is an inwardly accepted standard and rule of conduct, a discipline of the whole person; it permeates the will no less than the intellect. It stands for a principle which becomes the central motive of man as a member of civilized society, sinking deep down into his personality; it dwells in the heart of the man of action and of the thinker, of the artist and of the man of science: soul of the soul (22).

     Fascism, in short, is not only a law-giver and a founder of institutions, but an educator and a promoter of spiritual life. It aims at refashioning not only the forms of life but their content - man, his character, and his faith. To achieve this propose it enforces discipline and uses authority, entering into the soul and ruling with undisputed sway. Therefore it has chosen as its emblem the Lictor?s rods, the symbol of unity, strength, and justice.

     POLITICAL AND SOCIAL DOCTRINE

     When in the now distant March of  1919, speaking through the columns of the Popolo d'Italia I summoned to Milan the surviving interventionists who had intervened, and who had followed me ever since the foundation of the Fasci of revolutionary action in January 1915, I had in mind no specific doctrinal program. The only doctrine of which I had practical experience was that of socialism, from 1903-04 until the winter of 1914 - nearly a decade. My experience was that both of a follower and a leader - but it was not doctrinal experience. My doctrine during that period had been the doctrine of action. A uniform, universally accepted doctrine of Socialism had not existed since 1905, when the revisionist movement, headed by Bernstein, arose in Germany, countered by the formation, in the see-saw of tendencies, of a left revolutionary movement which in Italy never quitted the field of phrases, whereas, in the case of Russian so­cialism, it became the prelude to Bolshevism.

     Reformism, revolutionism, centrism, the very echo of that terminology is dead, while in the great river of Fascism one can trace currents which had their source in Sorel, Peguy, Lagardelle of the Movement Socialists, and in the cohort of Italian syndicalist who from 1904 to 1914 brought a new note into the Italian socialist environment - previously emasculated and chloroformed by fornicating with Giolitti's party - a note sounded in Olivetti's Pagine Libere, Orano's Lupa, Enrico Leone's Divenirs Socials.

     When the war ended in 1919 Socialism, as a doctrine, was already dead; it continued to exist only as a grudge, especially in Italy where its only chance lay in inciting to reprisals against the men who had willed the war and who were to be made to pay for it.

     The Popolo d'Italia described itself in its subtitle as the daily organ of fighters and producers. The word producer was already the expression of a mental trend. Fascism was not the nursling of a doctrine previously drafted at a desk; it was born of the need of action, and was action; it was not a party but, in the first two years, an anti-party and a movement. The name I gave the organization fixed its character.

     Yet if anyone cares to reread the now crumpled sheets of those days giving an account of the meeting at which the Italian Fasci di combattimento were founded, he will find not a doctrine but a series of pointers, forecasts, hints which, when freed from the inevitable matrix of contingencies, were to develop in a few years time into a series of doctrinal positions entitling Fascism to rank as a political doctrine differing from all others, past or present.

     ?If the bourgeoisie - I then said - believe that they have found in us their lightening-conductors, they arc mistaken. We must go towards the people... We wish the working classes to accustom themselves to the responsibilities of management so that they may realize that it is no easy matter to run a business... We will fight both technical and spiritual rear-guirdism... Now that the succession of the re­gime is open we must not be fainthearted. We must rush forward; if the present regime is to be superseded we must take its place. The right of succession is ours, for we urged the country to enter the war and we led it to victory... The existing forms of political representation cannot satisfy us; we want direst representation of the several interests... It' may be objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No matter!. I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims advanced by national syndicalism ?

     Is it not strange that from the very first day, at Piazza San Sepolcro, the word "guild" (corporazione) was pronounced, a word which, as the Revolution developed, was to express one of the basic legislative and social creations of the regime?

     The years preceding the March on Rome cover a period during which the need of action forbade delay and careful doctrinal elaborations. Fighting was going on in the towns and villages. There were discussions but... there was some­thing more sacred and more important... death... Fascists knew how to die. A doctrine - fully elaborated, divided up into chapters and paragraphs with annotations, may have been lacking, but it was replaced by something far m :) re decisive, - by a faith. All the same, if with the help of books, articles, resolutions passed at congresses, major and minor speeches, anyone should care to revive the memory of those days, he will find, provided he knows how to seek and select, that the doctrinal foundations were laid while the battle was still raging. Indeed, it was during those years that Fascist thought armed, refined itself, and proceeded ahead with its organization. The problems of the individual and the State; the problems of authority and liberty; political, social, and more especially national problems were discussed; the conflict with liberal, democratic, socialistic, Masonic doctrines and with those of the Partito Popolare, was carried on at the same time as the punitive expeditions. Nevertheless, the lack of a formal system was used by disingenuous adversaries as an argument for proclaiming Fascism incapable of elaborating a doctrine at the very time when that doctrine was being formulated - no matter how tumultuously, - first, as is the case with all new ideas, in the guise of violent dogmatic negations; then in the more positive guise of constructive theories, subsequently incorporated, in 1926, 1927, and 1928, in the laws and institutions of the regime.

     Fascism is now clearly defined not only as a regime but as a doctrine. This means that Fascism, exercising its critical faculties on itself and on others, has studied from its own special standpoint and judged by its own standards all the problems affecting the material and intellectual interests now causing such grave anxiety to the nations of the world, and is ready to deal with them by its own policies.

     First of all, as regards the future development of mankind, and quite apart from all present political considerations. Fascism does not, generally speaking, believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace. It therefore discards pacifism as a cloak for cowardly supine renuncia­tion in contradistinction to self-sacrifice. War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it. All other tests are substitutes which never place a man face to face with himself before the alternative of life or death. Therefore all doctrines which postulate peace at all costs are incompatible with Fascism. Equally foreign to the spirit of Fascism, even if accepted as useful in meeting special political situations -- are all internationalistic or League superstructures which, as history shows, crumble to the ground whenever the heart of nations is deeply stirred by sentimental, idealistic or practical considerations. Fascism carries this anti-pacifistic attitude into the life of the individual. " I don't care a damn ? (me ne frego) - the proud motto of the fighting squads scrawled by a wounded man on his bandages, is not only an act of philosophic stoicism, it sums up a doctrine which is not merely poli­tical: it is evidence of a fighting spirit which accepts all risks. It signifies new style of Italian life. The Fascist accepts and loves life; he rejects and despises suicide as cowardly. Life as he understands it means duty, elevation, conquest; life must be lofty and full, it must be lived for oneself but above all for others, both near bye and far off, present and future.

     The population policy of the regime is the consequence of these premises. The Fascist loves his neighbor, but the word neighbor ?does not stand for some vague and unseizable conception. Love of one's neighbor does not exclude necessary educational severity; still less does it exclude differentiation and rank. Fascism will have nothing to do with universal embraces; as a member of the community of nations it looks other peoples straight in the eyes; it is vigilant and on its guard; it follows others in all their manifestations and notes any changes in their interests; and it does not allow itself to be deceived by mutable and fallacious appearances.

    Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism, the doctrine of historic materialism which would explain the history of mankind in terms of the class struggle and by changes in the processes and instruments of production, to the exclusion of all else.

     That the vicissitudes of economic life - discoveries of raw materials, new technical processes, and scientific inventions - have their importance, no one denies; but that they suffice to explain human history to the exclusion of other factors is absurd. Fascism believes now and always in sanctity and heroism, that is to say in acts in which no economic motive - remote or immediate - is at work. Having denied historic materialism, which sees in men mere puppets on the surface of history, appearing and disappearing on the crest of the waves while in the depths the real directing forces move and work, Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable character of the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this economic conception of history; above all it denies that the class struggle is the preponderating agent in social transformations. Having thus struck a blow at socialism in the two main points of its doctrine, all that remains of it is the sentimental aspiration-old as humanity itself-toward social relations in which the sufferings and sorrows of the humbler folk will be alleviated. But here again Fascism rejects the economic interpretation of felicity as something to be secured socialistically, almost automatically, at a given stage of economic evolution when all will be assured a maximum of material comfort. Fascism denies the materialistic conception of happiness as a possibility, and abandons it to the economists of the mid-eighteenth century. This means that Fascism denies the equation: well-being = happiness, which sees in men mere animals, content when they can feed and fatten, thus reducing them to a vegetative existence pure and simple.

     After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements. Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society; it denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodical consultations; it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage. Democratic regimes may be described as those under which the people are, from time to time, deluded into the belief that they exercise sovereignty, while all the time real sovereignty resides in and is exercised by other and sometimes irresponsible and secret forces. Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical, and destructive than one, even if he be a tyrant. This explains why Fascism - although, for contingent reasons, it was republican in tendency prior to 1922 - abandoned that stand before the March on Rome, convinced that the form of government is no longer a matter of preeminent importance, and because the study of past and present monarchies and past and present republics shows that neither monarchy nor republic can be judged sub specie aeternitatis, but that each stands for a form of government expressing the political evolution, the history, the traditions, and the psychology of a given country.

     Fascism has outgrown the dilemma: monarchy v. republic, over which democratic regimes too long dallied, attributing all insufficiencies to the former and proning the latter as a regime of perfection, whereas experience teaches that some republics are inherently reactionary and absolut­ist while some monarchies accept the most daring political and social experiments.

     In one of his philosophic Meditations Renan - who had prefascist intuitions remarks, "Reason and science are the products of mankind, but it is chimerical to seek reason directly for the people and through the people. It is not essential to the existence of reason that all should be familiar with it; and even if all had to be initiated, this could not be achieved through democracy which seems fated to lead to the extinction of all arduous forms of culture and all highest forms of learning. The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans, which care only for the species and seem ready to sacrifice the individual. It is much to be feared that the last word of democracy thus understood (and let me hasten to add that it is susceptible of a different interpretation) would be a form of society in which a degenerate mass would have no thought beyond that of enjoying the ignoble pleasures of the vulgar ".

            In rejecting democracy Fascism rejects the absurd conventional lie of political equalitarianism, the habit of collective irresponsibility, the myth of felicity and indefinite progress. But if democracy be understood as meaning a regime in which the masses are not driven back to the margin of the State, and then the writer of these pages has already defined Fascism as an organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy.

     Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere. The importance of liberalism in the XIXth century should not be exaggerated for present day polemical purposes, nor should we make of one of the many doctrines which flourished in that century a religion for mankind for the present and for all time to come. Liberalism really flourished for fifteen years only. It arose in 1830 as a reaction to the Holy Alliance which tried to force Europe to recede further back than 1789; it touched its zenith in 1848 when even Pius IXth was a liberal. Its decline began immediately after that year. If 1848 was a year of light and poetry, 1849 was a year of darkness and tragedy. The Roman Republic was killed by a sister republic, that of France . In that same year Marx, in his famous Communist Manifesto, launched the gospel of socialism.

     In 1851 Napoleon III made his illiberal coup d'etat and ruled France until 1870 when he was turned out by a popular rising following one of the severest military defeats known to history. The victor was Bismarck who never even knew the whereabouts of liberalism and its prophets. It is symptomatic that throughout the XIXth century the religion of liberalism was completely unknown to so highly civilized a people as the Germans but for one parenthesis which has been described as the ?ridiculous parliament of Frankfort " which lasted just one season. Germany attained her national unity outside liberalism and in opposition to liberalism, a doctrine which seems foreign to the German temperament, essentially monarchical, whereas liberalism is the historic and logical anteroom to anarchy. The three stages in the making of German unity were the three wars of 1864, 1866, and 1870, led by such  "liberals" as Moltke and Bismarck. And in the upbuilding of Italian unity liberalism played a very minor part when compared to the contribution made by Mazzini and Garibaldi who were not liberals. But for the intervention of the illiberal Napoleon III we should not have had Lombardy, and without that of the illiberal Bismarck at Sadowa and at Sedan very probably we should not have had Venetia in 1866 and in 1870 we should not have entered Rome. The years going from 1870 to 1915 cover a period which marked, even in the opinion of the high priests of the new creed, the twilight of their religion, attacked by decadentism in literature and by activism in practice. Activism: that is to say nationalism, futurism, fascism.

        The liberal century, after piling up innumerable Gordian Knots, tried to cut them with the sword of the world war. Never has any religion claimed so cruel a sacrifice. Were the Gods of liberalism thirsting for blood?

            Now liberalism is preparing to close the doors of its temples, deserted by the peoples who feel that the agnosticism it professed in the sphere of economics and the indifferentism of which it has given proof in the sphere of politics and morals, would lead the world to ruin in the future as they have done in the past.

        This explains why all the political experiments of our day are anti-liberal, and it is supremely ridiculous to endeavor on this account to put them outside the pale of history, as though history were a preserve set aside for liberalism and its adepts; as though liberalism were the last word in civilization beyond which no one can go.

        The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century. History does not travel backwards. The Fascist doctrine has not taken De Maistre as its prophet. Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry. Dead and done for are feudal privileges and the division of society into closed, uncommunicating castes. Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State.

        A party governing a nation ?totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State. It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, it only historically, with those which preceded it and those which will follow it. Thus the scientific socialism of Marx links up to the utopian socialism of the Fouriers, the Owens, the Saint-Simons ; thus the liberalism of the XIXth century traces its origin back to the illuministic movement of the XVIIIth, and the doctrines of democracy to those of the Encyclopaedists. All doctrines aim at directing the activities of men towards a given objective; but these activities in their turn react on the doctrine, modifying and adjusting it to new needs, or outstripping it. A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, it?s will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.

        The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. Instead of directing the game and guiding the material and moral progress of the community, the liberal State restricts its activities to recording results. The Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own. For this reason it can be described as " ethical ".

     At the first quinquennial assembly of the regime, in 1929, I said  ?The Fascist State is not a night watchman, solicitous only of the personal safety of the citizens; not is it organized exclusively for the purpose of guarantying a certain degree of material prosperity and relatively peaceful conditions of life, a board of directors would do as much. Neither is it exclusively political, divorced from practical realities and holding itself aloof from the multifarious activities of the citizens and the nation. The State, as conceived and realized by Fascism, is a spiritual and ethical entity for securing the political, juridical, and economic organization of the nation, an organization which in its origin and growth is a manifestation of the spirit. The State guarantees the internal and external safety of the country, but it also safeguards and transmits the spirit of the people, elaborated down the ages in its language, its customs, its faith. The State is not only the present; it is also the past and above all the future. Transcending the individual's brief spell of life, the State stands for the immanent conscience of the nation. The forms in which it finds expression change, but the need for it remains. The State educates the citizens to civism, makes them aware of their mission, urges them to unity; its justice harmonizes their divergent interests; it transmits to future generations the conquests of the mind in the fields of science, art, law, human solidarity; it leads men up from primitive tribal life to that highest manifes­tation of human power, imperial rule. The State hands down to future generations the memory of those who laid down their lives to ensure its safety or to obey its laws; it sets up as examples and records for future ages the names of the captains who enlarged its territory and of the men of genius who have made it famous. Whenever respect for the State declines and the disintegrating and centrifugal tendencies of individuals and groups prevail, nations are headed for decay".

        Since 1929 economic and political development have everywhere emphasized these truths. The importance of the State is rapidly growing. The so-called crisis can only be settled by State action and within the orbit of the State. Where are the shades of the Jules Simons who, in the early days of liberalism proclaimed that the "State should endeavor to render itself useless and prepare to hand in its resignation "? Or of the MacCullochs who, in the second half of last century, urged that the State should desist from governing too much? And what of the English Bentham who considered that all industry asked of govern­ment was to be left alone, and of the German Humbolt who expressed the opinion that the best government was a lazy " one? What would they say now to the unceasing, inevitable, and urgently requested interventions of government in business? It is true that the second generation of economists was less uncompromising in this respect than the first, and that even Adam Smith left the door ajar - however cautiously - for government intervention in business.

        If liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government. The Fascist State is, however, a unique and original creation. It is not reactionary but revolutionary, for it anticipates the solution of certain universal problems which have been raised elsewhere, in the political field by the splitting up of parties, the usurpation of power by parliaments, the irresponsibility of assemblies; in the economic field by the increasingly numerous and important functions discharged by trade unions and trade associations with their disputes and ententes, affecting both capital and labor; in the ethical field by the need felt for order, discipline, obedience to the moral dictates of patriotism.

        Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular support. The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporative, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their res­pective associations, circulate within the State.  A State based on millions of individuals who recognize its authority, feel its action, and are ready to serve its ends is not the tyrannical state of a mediaeval lordling. It has nothing in common with the despotic States existing prior to or subsequent to 1789. Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers.

        The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves the individual adequate elbow room. It has curtailed useless or harmful liberties while preserving those which are essential. In such matters the individual cannot be the judge, but the State only.

     The Fascist State is not indifferent to religious phenomena in general nor does it maintain an attitude of indif­ference to Roman Catholicism, the special, positive religion of Italians. The State has not got a theology but it has a moral code. The Fascist State sees in religion one of the deepest of spiritual manifestations and for this reason it not only respects religion but defends and protects it. The Fascist State does not attempt, as did Robespierre at the height of the revolutionary delirium of the Convention, to set up a "god? of its own; nor does it vainly seek, as does Bolshevism, to efface God from the soul of man. Fascism respects the God of ascetics, saints, and heroes, and it also respects God as conceived by the ingenuous and primitive heart of the people, the God to whom their prayers are raised.

     The Fascist State expresses the will to exercise power and to command. Here the Roman tradition is embodied in a conception of strength. Imperial power, as understood by the Fascist doctrine, is not only territorial, or military, or commercial; it is also spiritual and ethical. An imperial nation, that is to say a nation a which directly or indirectly is a leader of others, can exist without the need of conquering a single square mile of territory. Fascism sees in the imperialistic spirit -- i.e. in the tendency of nations to expand - a manifestation of their vitality. In the op­posite tendency, which would limit their interests to the home country, it sees a symptom of decadence. Peoples who rise or rearise are imperialistic; renunciation is characteristic of dying peoples. The Fascist doctrine is that best suited to the tendencies and feelings of a people which, like the Italian, after lying fallow during centuries of foreign servitude, are now reasserting itself in the world.

        But imperialism implies discipline, the coordination of efforts, a deep sense of duty and a spirit of self-sacrifice. This explains many aspects of the practical activity of the regime, and the direction taken by many of the forces of the State, as also the severity which has to be exercised towards those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of XXth century Italy by agitating outgrown ideologies of the XIXth century, ideologies rejected wherever great experiments in political and social transfor­mations are being dared.

        Never before have the peoples thirsted for authority, direction, order, as they do now. If each age has its doctrine, then innumerable symptoms indicate that the doctrine of our age is the Fascist. That it is vital is shown by the fact that it has aroused a faith; that this faith has conquered souls is shown by the fact that Fascism can point to its fallen heroes and its martyrs.

        Fascism has now acquired throughout the world that universally which belongs to all doctrines which by achieving self-expression represent a moment in the history of human thought.

     APPENDIX

    1.  Philosophic conception

     (1) If Fascism does not wish to die or, worse still, commit suicide, it must now provide itself with a doctrine. Yet this shall not and must not be a robe of Nessus clinging to us for all eternity, for tomorrow is some thing mysterious and unforeseen. This doctrine shall be a norm to guide political and individual action in our daily life.

     I who have I dictated this doctrine, am the first to realize that the modest tables of our laws and program the theoretical and practical guidance of Fascism should be revised, corrected, enlarged, developed, because already in parts they have suffered injury at the hand of time. I believe the essence and fundamentals of the doctrine are still to be found in the postulates which throughout two years have acted as a call to arms for the recruits of Italian Fascism. However, in taking those first fundamental assumptions for a starting point, we must proceed to carry our program into a vaster field.

     Italian Fascists, one and all, should cooperate in this task, one of vital importance to Fascism, and more especially those who belong to regions where with and without agreement peaceful coexistence has been achieved between two antagonistic movements.

     The word I am about to use is a great one, but indeed I do wish that during the two months which are still to elapse before our National Assembly meets, the philosophy of Fascism could be created. Milan is already contributing with the first Fascist school of propaganda.

        It is not merely a question of gathering elements for a program, to be used as a solid foundation for the constitution of a party which must inevitably arise from the Fascist movement; it is also a question of denying the silly tale that Fascism is all made up of violent men. In point of fact among Fascists there are many men who belong to the restless but meditative class.

     The new course taken by Fascist activity will in no way diminish the fighting spirit typical of Fascism. To furnish the mind with doctrines and creeds does not mean to disarm, rather it signifies to strength­en our power of action, and make us ever more conscious of our work. Soldiers who fight fully conscious of the cause make the best of warriors. Fascism takes for its own the twofold device of Mazzini : Thought and Action u. (Letter to Michele Bianchi, written on August 27, 1921, for the opening of the School of Fascist Culture and Propaganda in Milan, in Messaggi e Proclami, Milano, Libreria d'Italia, 1929, P. 39).

     Fascists must be placed in contact with one another; their activity must be an activity of doctrine, an activity of the spirit and of thought

     Had our adversaries been present at our meeting, they would have been convinced that Fascism is not only action, but thought as well  (Speech before the National Council of the Fascist Party, August 8, 1924, in La Nuova Politica dell'Italia, Milano, Alpes, 1928, p. 267).

     (2) Today I hold that Fascism as an idea, a doctrine, a realization, is universal; it is Italian in its particular institutions, but it is universal in the spirit, nor could it be otherwise. The spirit is universal by reason of its nature. Therefore anyone may foresee a Fascist Europe. Drawing inspiration for her institutions from the doctrine and practice of Fascism; Europe , in other words, giving a Fascist turn to the solution of problems which beset the modern State, the Twentieth Century State which is very different from the States existing before 1789, and the States formed immediately after. Today Fascism fills universal requirements; Fascism solves the threefold problem of relations between State and individual, between State and associations, between associations and organized associations. (Message for the year 1 October 27, 1930, in Discorsi del 1930, Milano, Alpes, 1931, p. 211).

     2. Spiritualized conception

     (3)  This political process is flanked by a philosophic process.  If it be true that matter was on the altars for one century, today it is the spirit which takes its place. All manifestations peculiar to the democratic spirit are consequently repudiated: easygoingness, improvisation, the lack of a personal sense of responsibility, the exaltation of numbers and of that mysterious divinity called n The People a. All creations of the spirit starting with that religious are coming to the fore, and nobody dare keep up the attitude of anticlericalism which, for several decades, was a favorite with Democracy in the Western world. By saying that God is returning, we mean that spiritual values are returning. (Da the parte va it mondo, in Tempi della Rivoluzione Fascista, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 34).

        There is a field reserved more to meditation upon the supreme ends of life than to a research of these ends. Consequently science starts from experience, but breaks out fatally into philosophy and, in my opinion, philosophy alone can enlighten science and lead to the universal idea. (To the Congress of Science at Bologna , October 31, 19,26, in Discorsi del 1926. Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 268).

     In order to understand the Fascist movement one must first appre­ciate the underlying spiritual phenomenon in all its vastness and depth. The manifestations of the movement have been of a powerful and decisive nature, but one should go further. In point of fact Italian Fascism has not only been a political revolt against weak and incapable governments who had allowed State authority to decay and were threatening to arrest the progress of the country, but also a spiritual revolt against old ideas which had corrupted the sacred principles of religion, of faith, of country. Fascism, therefore, has been a revolt of the people. (Message to the British people; January 5, 1924, in Mes­saggi e Proclami, Milano, Libreria d' Italia, 1929, p. 107).

     (3) Positive conception of life as a struggle

     (4) Struggle is at the origin of all things, for life is full of contrasts: there is love and hatred, white and black, day and night, good and evil; and until these contrasts achieve balance, struggle fatefully remains at the root of human nature. However, it is good for it to be so. Today we can indulge in wars, economic battles, conflicts of ideas, but if a day came to pass when struggle ceased to exist, that day would be tinged with melancholy; it would be a day of ruin, the day of ending. But that day will not come, because history ever discloses new horizons. By attempting to restore calm, peace, tranquility, or. A would be fighting the tendencies of the present period of dynamism. Ore must be prepared for other struggles and for other surprises. Peace will only come when people surrender to a Christian dream of universal brotherhood, when they can hold out hands across the ocean and over the mountains. Personally I do not believe very much in these idealisms, but I do not exclude them for I exclude nothing. (At the Politeama Rossetti, Trieste , September 20, 1920 ; in Discorsi Politici, Milano, Stab. Tipografico del « Popolo d' Italia » , 1921, p. 107).

     (5) For me the honor of nations consists in the contribution they have severally made to human civilization. (E. Ludwig, Talks with Mussolini, London, Allen and Unwin, 1932, p. 199)­

    4. Ethical conception

    I called the organization Fasci Italiani Di combat tin onto. This hard metallic name compromised the whole program of Fascism as I dreamed it. Comrades, this is still our program: fight.

         Life for the Fascist is a continuous, ceaseless fight, which we accept with ease, with great courage, with the necessary intrepidity. (C n the VIIth anniversary of the Foundation of the Fasci, March 2E, 1926, in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, P. 98).

         You touch the core of Fascist philosophy. When recently a Finnish philosopher asked me to expound to him the significance of Fascism in one sentence, I wrote in German: ((We are against the ?easy, lift! a. (E. Ludwig: Talks with Mussolini, London, Allen and Unwin, 1932, p. 190).

     5. Religious conception

     (7) If Fascism were not a creed how could it endow its followers with courage and stoicism only a creed which has soared to the heights of religion can inspire such words as passed the lips, now lifeless alas, of Federico Florio. (Legami di Sangue, in Diuturna, Mi­lano, Alpes, 1930, p. 256).

     6. Historical and realistic conception

     (8) Tradition certainly is one of the greatest spiritual forces of a people, inasmuch as it is a successive and constant creation of their soul. (Breve Preludio, in Tempi della Rivoluzione Fascista, Milano, Alpes, 1930, P- 13)­

    (9) Our temperament leads us to appraise the concrete aspect of problems, rather than their ideological or mystical sublimation. There­fore we easily regain our balance. (Aspetti del Dramma, in Diuturna, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 86).

         Our battle is an ungrateful one, yet it is a beautiful battle since it compels us to count only upon our own forces. Revealed truths we have torn to shreds, dogmas we have spat upon, we have rejected all theories of paradise, we have baffled charlatans white, red, black charlatans who placed miraculous drugs on the market to give a happiness n to mankind. We do not believe in program, in plans, in saints or apostles, above all we believe not in happiness, in salvation, in the Promised Land. (Diuturna, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 223).

         We do not believe in a single solution, be it economical, political or moral, a linear solution of the problems of life, because of illustrious choristers from all the sacristies life is not linear and can never be reduced to a segment traced by primordial needs. (Navigare necesse, in Diuturna, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 233).

     (10) We are not and do not wish to be motionless mummies, with faces perpetually turned towards the same horizon, nor do we wish to shut ourselves up within the narrow hedges of subversive bigotry, where formulas, like prayers of a professed religion, are muttered mechanically. We are men, living men, who wish to give our contribution, however 'modest, to the creation of history. (Audacia, in Diu­ turna, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. ')­

     We uphold moral and traditional values which Socialism neglects or despises; but, above all, Fascism has a horror of anything implying an arbitrary mortgage on the mysterious future. (Dopo due anni, in  Diuturna, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 242).

     In spite of the theories of conservation and renovation, of tradition and progress expounded by the right and the left, we do not cling desperately to the past as to a last board of salvation: yet we do not dash headlong into the seductive mists of the future. (Breve preludio, in Diuturna, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 14). `negation, eternal immobility, mean damnation. I am all for motion. I am, one who marches on   (E. Ludwig, Talks with Mussolini, Lot Jon, Allen and Unwin, 1932, p. 203).

    7. The individual and liberty

     (11) We were the first to state, in the face of demo liberal individualism, that the individual exists only in so far as he is within the State and subjected to the requirements of the state and that, as civilization assumes aspects which grow more and more complicated, individual freedom becomes more and more restricted. (To the General staff Conference of Fascism, in Discorsi del 1929, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 280).

     The sense of the state grows within the consciousness of Italians, for they feel that the state alone is the irreplaceable safeguard of their unit and independence; that the state alone represents continuity into the future of their stock and their history. (Message on the VIIth all anniversary, October 25, 1929, Discorsi del 1929, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 3oo).

     If, in the course of the past eight years, we have made such astounding progress, you may well think suppose and foresee that in the course of the next fifty or eighty years the onward trend of Italy , of this Italy we feel to be so powerful, so full of vital fluid, will really be grandiose. It will be so especially if concord lasts among citizens, if the State continues to be sole arbitrator in political and social conflicts, if all remains within the state and nothing outside the State, because it is impossible to conceive any individual existing outside the State unless he be a savage whose home is in the solitude of she sandy desert. (Speech before the Senate, May 12, 1928, in Discorsi del 1928, Milano, Alpes, 1929, p. 109).

     Fascism has restored to the State its sovereign functions by claiming its absolute ethical meaning, against the egotism of classes and categories; to the Government of the state, which was reduced to a mere instrument of electoral assemblies, it has restored dignity, as representing the personality of the state and its power of Empire. It has rescued State administration from the weight of factions and party interests (To the council of state, December 22, 1928, in Discorsi Del 1928, Milano, Alpes, 1929 p.328).

     (12) Let no one think of denying the moral character of Fascism. For I should be ashamed to speak from this tribune if I did not feel that I represent the moral and spiritual powers of the state. What would the state be if it did not possess a spirit of its own, and a morality of its own, which lend power to the laws in virtue of which the state is obeyed by its citizens?

     The Fascist state claims its ethical character: it is Catholic but above all it is Fascist, in fact it is exclusively and essentially Fascist. Catholicism completes Fascism, and this we openly declare, but let no one think they can turn the tables on us, under cover of metaphysics or philosophy. (To the Chamber of Deputies, May 13, 1929, in Discorsi del 1929, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 182).

         A State which is fully aware of its mission and represents a people which are marching on; a state which necessarily transforms the people even in their physical aspect. In order to be something more than a mere administrator, the State must utter great words, expound great ideas and place great problems before this people (Di­ scorsi del 1929, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 183).

     (13) The concept of freedom is not absolute because nothing is ever absolute in life. Freedom is not a right, it is a duty. It is not a gift, it is a conquest; it is not equality, it is a privilege. The concept of freedom changes with the passing of time. There is a freedom in times of peace which is not the freedom of times of war. There is a freedom in times of prosperity which is not a freedom to be allowed in times of poverty. (Fifth anniversary of the foundation of the Fasci di Contbattimento, March 24, 1924, in La nuova politica dell'Italia, vol. III, Milano, Alpes, 1925, p. 30).

         In our state the individual is not deprived of freedom. In fact, he has greater liberty than an isolated man, because the state protects him and he is part of the State. Isolated man is without defence. (E. Ludwig, Talks with Mussolini, London, Allen and Unwin, 1932, P. 129).

     (14) Today we may tell the world of the creation of the powerful united State of Italy, ranging from the Alps to Sicily; this State is expressed by a well-organized, centralized, Unitarian democracy, where people circulate at case. Indeed, gentlemen, you admit the people into the citadel of the State and the people will defend it, if you close them out, the people will assault it. (speech before the Chamber of Deputies, May 26, 1927 , in Discorsi del 1927, Milano, Alpes, 1928, p. 159).

     In the Fascist regime the unity of classes, the political, social and coral unity of the Italian people is realized within the state, and only within the Fascist state. (speech before the Chamber of Deputies, December 9, 1928 , in Discorsi del 1928, Milano, Alpes, 1929, p. 333).

     8. Conception of a corporative state

     (15) We have created the united state of Italy remember that since the Empire Italy had not been a united state. Here I wish to reaffirm solemnly our doctrine of the State. Here I wish to reaffirm with no weaker energy, the formula I expounded at the scala in Milan everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state. (speech before the Chamber of Deputies, May 26, 1927 , Discorsi del 1927, Milano, Alpes, 1928, p. t57).

     (16) We are, in other words, a state which controls all forces acting in nature. We control political forces, we control moral forces we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state. We stand for a new principle in the world, we stand for sheer, categorical, definitive antithesis to the world of democracy, plutocracy, free-masonry, to the world which still abides by the fundamental principles laid down in 1789. (Speech before the new Na­tional Directory of the Party, April 7, 1926, in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 120).

     The Ministry of Corporations is not a bureaucratic organ, nor does it wish to exercise the functions of syndical organizations which are necessarily independent, since they aim at organizing, selecting and improving the members of syndicates. The Ministry of Corporations is an institution in virtue of which, in the centre and outside, integral corporation becomes an accomplished fact, where balance is achieved between interests and forces of the economic world. Such a glance is only possible within the sphere of the state, because the state alone transcends the contrasting interests of groups and individuals, in view of co-coordinating them to achieve higher aims. The achievement of these aims is speeded up by the fact that all economic organizations, acknowledged, safeguarded and supported by the Corpo­rative State, exist within the orbit of Fascism; in other terms they accept the conception of Fascism in theory and in practice. (speech at the opening of the Ministry of Corporations, July 31, 1926, in Di­scorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 250).

     We have constituted a Corporative and Fascist state, the state of national society, a State which concentrates, controls, harmonizes and tempers the interests of all social classes, which are thereby protected in equal measure. Whereas, during the years of demo-liberal regime, labour looked with diffidence upon the state, was, in fact, outside the State and against the state, and considered the state an enemy of every day and every hour, there is not one working Italian today who does not seek a place in his Corporation or federation, who does not wish to be a living atom of that great, immense, living organization which is the national Corporate State of Fascism. (On the Fourth Anniversary of the March on Rome, October 28, 1926, in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 340).

     9. Democracy

     (17) The war was revolutionary, in the sense that with streams of blood it did away with the century of Democracy, the century of number, the century of majorities and of quantities. (Da the pane va it Mondo, in Tempi della Rivoluzione Fascista, Milano, Alpes, 1930,  p. 37)­

     (18) Cf. note 13.

     (19) Race: it is a feeling and not a reality; 95 %, a feeling. (E. Ludwig, Talks with Mussolini, London, Allen and Unwin, 1932, p. 75).

    10. Conception of the state

    (20) A nation exists inasmuch as it is a people. A people rise inasmuch as they are numerous, hard working and well regulated. Power is the outcome of this threefold principle. (To the General Assembly of the Party, March lo, 1929, in Discorsi del 1929, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 24).

        Fascism does not deny the State; Fascism maintains that a civic society, national or imperial, cannot be conceived unless in the form of a State (Stab, anti-Slato, Fascismo, in Tempi della Rivoluzione Fa­scista, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 94).

              For us the Nation is mainly spirit and not only territory. There are States which owned immense territories and yet left no trace in the history of mankind. Neither is it a question of number, because there have been, in history, small, microscopic States, which left immortal, imperishable documents in art and philosophy.

           The greatness of a nation is the compound of all these virtues and conditions. A nation is great when the power of the spirit is translated into reality. (Speech at Naples, October 24, 1922, in Discorsi della Rivoluzione, Milano, Alpes, 1928, p. 103). We wish to unity the nation within the sovereign State, which is above everyone arid can afford to be against everyone, since it represents the moral continuity of the nation in history. Without the State there is no nation. There are, merely. human aggregations. subject to all the disintegration's which history may inflict upon them. (Speech before the National Council of the Fascist Party, August 8, 1924, in La Nuova Politica dell'Italia, vol. III; Milano, Alpes, 1928, p. 269).

      Dynamic reality

     (21) I believe that if a people wish to live they should develop a will to power, otherwise they vegetate, live miserably and become prey to a stronger people, in whom this will to power is developed to a higher degree. (Speech to the Senate, May 28, 1926).

     (22) It is Fascism which has refashioned the character of the Italians, removing impurity from our souls, tempering us to all sacrifices, restoring the true aspect of strength and beauty to our Italian face. (Speech delivered at Pisa , May 25, 1926 , in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 193).

             It is not out of place to illustrate the intrinsic character and profound significance of the Fascist Levy. It is not merely a ceremony, but a very important stage in the system of education and integral preparation of Italian men which the Fascist revolution considers one of the fundamental duties of the State: fundamental indeed, for if the State does not fulfill this duty or in any way accepts to place it under discussion, the State merely and simply forfeits its right to exist. (Speech before the Chamber of Deputies, May 28, 1928, in  Discorsi del 1928, Milano, Alpes, 1929, p. 68).

     

    [ Parent ]

    I must have missed it (none / 0) (#55)
    by khallow on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:30:20 PM EST

    Where's the clue?

    Stating the obvious since 1969.
    [ Parent ]

    note to readers using nested mode: (none / 0) (#56)
    by the ghost of rmg on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:31:03 PM EST

    you can switch to the threaded or my personal favorite, dynamic threaded modes by using the menu box labelled "Display:" below.

    and for those of you still using threaded (the default), you can improve your kuro5hin reading experience considerably by throwing a plus sign in the "nested" box in your comment preferences.


    rmg: comments better than yours.
    [ Parent ]

    Fag (none / 1) (#174)
    by Harvey Anderson on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:02:49 AM EST

    .

    [ Parent ]
    That's a rather a long way of (none / 0) (#59)
    by Kenneth Burke on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:14:41 PM EST

    being wrong/not answering the question, wouldn't you say?

    [ Parent ]
    Beautiful. (none / 0) (#74)
    by wageslave on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 03:12:40 AM EST

    You are my hero.
    --- Wage Slave
    [ Parent ]
    Holy shit. (none / 1) (#79)
    by Empedocles on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 04:11:05 AM EST

    If that doesn't qualify as a crapflood, I don't know what does.

    ---
    And I think it's gonna be a long long time
    'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
    I'm not the man they think I am at home

    [ Parent ]
    Hercules cleaning out Augeias's stables? nt (none / 1) (#120)
    by spasticfraggle on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 11:25:35 AM EST



    --
    I'm the straw that broke the camel's back!
    [ Parent ]
    we'd need discursive content for your analogy to (none / 0) (#135)
    by Battle Troll on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 04:00:51 PM EST

    be valuable.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    You are not (none / 1) (#173)
    by Harvey Anderson on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:02:25 AM EST

    as smart as you want to be.

    [ Parent ]
    no one is as smart as I want to be (none / 0) (#244)
    by Battle Troll on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 02:56:17 PM EST

    Especially not you.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    That may be, but irrelevant. (none / 0) (#330)
    by Harvey Anderson on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:36:47 AM EST

    The point was (as you well know) that you are a poseur, a ninny and a total sucker.

    [ Parent ]
    a poseur? (none / 0) (#333)
    by Battle Troll on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:29:49 AM EST

    Fuck off.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    hahaahha (none / 0) (#335)
    by Harvey Anderson on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:38:27 AM EST

    nerd.

    [ Parent ]
    a nerd? (none / 0) (#337)
    by Battle Troll on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:56:52 AM EST

    Fuck off.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    Such a potty mouth! (none / 0) (#341)
    by Harvey Anderson on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 10:25:24 AM EST

    Do you make out with your mother with that mouth?

    [ Parent ]
    my mother? (none / 0) (#347)
    by Battle Troll on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 12:31:18 PM EST

    Fuck off.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    The seeds of a hip-hop hit are born. (none / 0) (#353)
    by Harvey Anderson on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:14:06 PM EST

    .

    [ Parent ]
    hip-hop? (none / 0) (#356)
    by Battle Troll on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 02:40:55 PM EST

    Fuck off.

    Also, your metaphor is mixed.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    meta hip-hop song.. (none / 0) (#358)
    by Harvey Anderson on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 02:57:57 PM EST

    ..

    [ Parent ]
    meta? (none / 0) (#365)
    by Battle Troll on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 05:40:25 PM EST

    Fuck off.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    weeee! (none / 0) (#376)
    by Harvey Anderson on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:23:58 PM EST

    Hit me baby one more time

    [ Parent ]
    free clue (none / 1) (#83)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 04:32:38 AM EST

    cut and paste is not a replacement for thought


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    ditto re babbling. nt ^_^ (3.00 / 5) (#119)
    by spasticfraggle on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 11:20:53 AM EST



    --
    I'm the straw that broke the camel's back!
    [ Parent ]
    ditto re emoticons :-P 8-) ;-> 8-0 nt (none / 0) (#202)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:50:50 AM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    PRoduce a body??? (1.50 / 2) (#147)
    by freemumia on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:12:34 PM EST

    Unlike you and Alan Greenspan, I am not in love with saber-rattling. The truth is at disadvantagedveteransforfreemoney.org. What about gay marriage? What about free chocolate? What about dental insurance and the ecosystem for the 3,069 pristine puppies who are molested in Iraq every single day by our Liar-in-Chief and his cult of homophobic bagmen? As a vegetarian owl, indeed I am mopey. In fact, I am not one of Oral Roberts's congregation of Nazi zombies. Power to the gays. Like I've said a million times before, it's like 1983 all over again. For that matter, when the Rambos say "no child left behind," they really mean "sleaze". When they say "one nation under God," as I've said before it is just a code word for "violence".

    [ Parent ]
    hmmm (none / 0) (#155)
    by shokk on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:14:32 PM EST

    I wonder if they ever found out what really happened to Vince Foster. But lets ignore that, because it's not a Republican that might have committed that one, right? Hypocrits. You whiners wouldn't know what a real threat to democracy was until it came slamming down on you. You don't realize that every time you cry about one of these minor bumps and bruises you're setting yourself up as the boy who cried wolf when/if something ever really does happen. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: Once upon a time we knew the evil of Adolf Hitler. Hitler was an enemy of ours. George Bush is no Adolf Hitler. Save it for Hitler.
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    [ Parent ]
    You're Right (3.00 / 2) (#359)
    by czolgosz on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 03:01:18 PM EST

    George Bush is no Adolf Hitler.
    I agree, he's much more like Mussolini. For one thing, he lacks Hitler's maniacal drive. He's more a jumped-up clown hiding behind thugs than a full-on psychopath. And he adheres more to Mussolini's definition of fascism as the fusion of corporate and state power.

    And I would argue that a system that allows a malevolent mediocrity like Bush to rise to the presidency is just as broken as the Weimar Republic was.

    Anyway, let's talk about threats to democracy. If you honestly think that ANY Al-Qaida attack is a real threat to our "democracy" (it's really a republic, at least nominally, and a plutocracy in practice-- the Founding Fathers feared genuine democracy), you've been watching too much Fox and too many action movies. How were they going to overthrow our system: invade us and convert us to Wahhabism at sword-point? And how many bearded nutcases would need to be trained, armed and ready to deploy for that enterprise to have even a remote likelihood of success? Any number under a million would not be sufficient. And even then they would require substantial support within the US, which they very clearly do not have. So: they can disrupt, they can commit mass murder, but they don't have the means to change the system. They weren't even able to hold onto Afghanistan, and haven't yet been able to take over Saudi Arabia, which is far more fertile ground for their brand of idiocy. So the threat is far less than, say, WWII where highly-organized states, with demographic and economic resources to sustain a war, were attacking us using a strategy that could, potentially, have succeeded.

    If you look at history, republics are far more often undermined from within than overthrown by exogenous terrorists. Rising authoritarianism and corrpution are the more immediate threats. Increasing repression leading to loss of legitimacy is not an uncommon failure mode.

    Bush's fear of being confronted by real Americans who don't agree with him is symptomatic of his lack of confidence in his own legitimacy. He can't answer criticism; he can only suppress it. This is also shown in the willingness of the Republican leadership to embrace tyranny of the majority by dumping long-standing Senate rules that are meant to ensure consensus.

    This arrogance is not unique to Bush: I recall a wonderful instance when Madelyn Albright was roasted by some university students, and her discomfiture that mere students dared to question her was hilarious. But Bush is an order of magnitude more arrogant, perhaps because he is so inarticulate that he is incapable of responding meaningfully to any challenge without a well-rehearsed script.

    That's why I regard Bush and his ilk as a greater long-term threat, in the same way that cancer is far more likely to be your cause of death than a mugging is. I'm not saying you should abandon your street smarts, but you should focus your energy on managing the real risks in proportion to their likelihood. Much of the appeal of leaders like Bush is a result of their deliberate misrepresentation of the magnitude of these relative risks, and their exploitation of the resulting hysteria to enrich and empower their backers.


    Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
    [ Parent ]
    You are really getting sloppy. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Harvey Anderson on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:01:41 AM EST

    You are a pitiable bitch, no better than Ben Folds Five or whatever indie rock whiner of the week.

    [ Parent ]
    The story... (2.83 / 6) (#61)
    by cburke on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:25:30 PM EST

    ... in as much as there is one*, seems to be Republicans posing as Secret Service agents.  That's interesting, possibly a real story, and of course not gone into in very much depth because the story as far as the author was concerned was the violation of their 1st Ammendment Rights.  Oh well.

    * We all know the admin. doesn't like people around who don't agree.  As far as 1st Ammendment Rights go, you need look no farther than "Free Speech Zones" (which, for the sake of rabid partisans, I'll point out the DNC was using as well), where Bush supporters were allowed to line his motorcade paths while Bush detractors were forced blocks away.  This is really a minor story in comparison.

    A rising tide carries all ships... (3.00 / 6) (#66)
    by Mason on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:39:47 PM EST

    ...and a sinking one lowers us all.

    If your political opponent was carefully managing every bit of their public image, to the point of collaring and removing anyone who might cause a scene at one of their appearances, it'd be a potential disaster to not do the same.

    I'd respect DC Dems more if they took a stand on this sort of issue, but then you can't fault them for not letting Protest Warriors throw pies at Dem events while anti-war protestors are always a mile or two away from Bush.

    Mimicking disgraceful behavior is a bad thing.  Then again, rewarding disgraceful behavior by letting it give your opponent an advantage is also bad.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll always encourage an interresting comment (none / 1) (#144)
    by BottleRocket on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:58:14 PM EST

    ...but which of the laws and constitutional provisions broken by the republicans would you like the Democrats to seize on? Torture? The Patriot Act? Purjury before a Senate hearing? Illegal wars? Uncontested government contracts? Here we have republicans posing as Secret Service agents, which is also illegal.

    Perhaps you only want the dems to start using the methods of the GOP that, while not exactly illegal, are probably immoral. Sending out phony press releases, declaring "Mission Accomplished," making issues out of trivia, &c.

    Fine. What's the difference? In the end, it's all the same whether you prefer GOP or GOP lite. The two parties are barely distinguishable already, so when they're actually the same, maybe there will be a chance for another party to jump in.

    $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
    . ₩ . . . . . ¥ . . . . . € . . . . . § . . . . . £
    . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
    $ . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
    Yes I do download [child pornography], but I don't keep it any longer than I need to, so it can yield insight as to how to find more. --MDC
    $ . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
    . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
    . ₩ . . . . . ¥ . . . . . € . . . . . § . . . . . £
    $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
    $B R Σ III$

    [ Parent ]

    Why aren't you suing the guy who shoved you? (1.36 / 11) (#103)
    by Anonymous Howards End on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:10:11 AM EST

    At the moment, it's your word against nobody's, because nobody on the other side gives a rat's ass about your claims.

    Maybe you could get back to us when you have a court filing to link to.
    --
    CodeWright, you are one cowardly hypocritical motherfucker.

    A couple of reasons (3.00 / 3) (#110)
    by ayoung on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:49:40 AM EST

    1. He is hiding. No one will give us a name. We are working on that.
    2. He is working for someone. That's the real story here. If it's the Administration, we go after them. If it's the Republican Party, we go after them.


    [ Parent ]
    Nice (none / 1) (#132)
    by CodeWright on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 03:22:58 PM EST

    If people had done this early enough with the Bavarian freiwilligen korps or the Bersiglieri, the 20th century might have been a nicer place.

    --
    A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
    Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, it's real hush hush (none / 1) (#187)
    by Anonymous Howards End on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 08:43:51 AM EST

    Have you served anyone over this yet, and if so, who?
    --
    CodeWright, you are one cowardly hypocritical motherfucker.
    [ Parent ]
    Goddam Terrorists (1.77 / 9) (#108)
    by The Central Committee on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:14:36 AM EST

    I'm not surprised that you forget to mention these people had "Stop the Lies" T-Shirts hidden under their business attire. They came with the purpose of disrupting the event and were duly ejected.

    You personaly are the reason I cannot believe in a compassionate god, a creature of ineffable itelligence would surely know better than to let someone like you exist. - dorc

    Why reason? (3.00 / 3) (#111)
    by ayoung on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:53:43 AM EST

    I have reservations about responding to this post, but I thought I'd clarify the shirt thing if it came up.

    We had no intention of using the shirts, and even if we had worn them over everything else should that have gotten us kicked out? Is that a crime worthy of suspension of the First Amendment?

    [ Parent ]

    Why? (2.50 / 2) (#121)
    by TheWake on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 11:27:03 AM EST

    Then why did you wear them? If the whole point was to keep them hidden, why did you wear matching T-Shirts? I find your assertion that you had no intention of using the shirts very specious.

    [ Parent ]
    it's true (none / 1) (#149)
    by WetherMan on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:21:31 PM EST

    this story would have been much better if you hadn't  given the conservative press a nice crossfire-style response to anyone that brings this up.
    ---
    fluorescent lights make me look like old hot dogs
    [ Parent ]
    I've thought about that... (2.40 / 5) (#153)
    by ayoung on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:52:39 PM EST

    And I think this is an interesting question anyway.   Let's pretend that we did intend to display the shirts (we didn't, but let's pretend).

    In what way would that change things? Did Steve Gerner deserve to be barred? These events are public.

    I know that it has been reported that they were private. I don't accept that. These were paid for with my tax dollar, there was no disclaimer, no indication that all were not invited.

    Do we really want to live in that world? A world where people feel like they have to hide even their thoughts? That's not my world. That's why I'm speaking out.

    In a media sense, I agree that I probably should not have disclosed this to the press. It does little to help my argument, and it suggests something that is not the case.

    However, I think that the public has a right to know the true facts and all the facts. The fact is that I wore a shirt. Sure, it was silly, but was it a crime? Should a t-shirt strike out my right to speak?

    Also, if I hide things, mislead people, and push an agenda while abusing the ethics I expect from my leaders, how does that reflect on me?

    So wear a t-shirt to a rally. Bush is continuing this tour, I encourage each of you to come with a t-shirt. Put it on under your dress shirt like me, or for better effect wear it on top. Hell, I'd even give one to the guy at the door if I had it to do again.

    [ Parent ]

    My thoughts (none / 1) (#188)
    by TheWake on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 08:58:57 AM EST

    I got the impression from reading both the story and the linked material that someone somewhere believed that you and your freinds were going to attempt to disrupt the meeting. Your T-Shirts were a prop for the plot and that you and the others were going to intentionally cause a disruption while exposing the shirts.

    By acting in such a manner you give the impression that you belong to a fringe element not the core of the opposition. Being seen as on the fringe of society is not the way to get people to change thier views.

    The first ammendment does not give you the right to disrupt the meeting. Your right of free speech does not trump the rights of others. I find this argument very self centered and concieted every time it is brought up. Next time this opportunity comes up, don't plan to disrupt, but plan to listen and try to get the opportunity to participate. It is not too late, write some letters and send them via the U.S. postal service. You should get better results.

    [ Parent ]

    Presto! Change-o! (3.00 / 2) (#199)
    by MrMikey on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:16:30 AM EST

    You magically go from "The first ammendment does not give you the right to disrupt the meeting" to "The first ammendment does not give you the right to give someone, somewhere the impression that you might attempt to disrupt the meeting." Oh, and with a side order of "The first ammendment doesn't apply if you appear to belong to a "fringe element."

    What the hell!?!

    [ Parent ]

    You misunderstood... (none / 1) (#205)
    by TheWake on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 11:43:49 AM EST

    The three of them where asked to leave the meeting because the organizers thought that they would disrupt the meeting. This is plainly evident. There is no reason for the organizers of the meeting to permit such a disruption. The ejected parties' free speech rights do not trump the organizers rights to hold a civilized meeting (also in the first ammendment). I did not say they were booted for what they belived, but what they were planning to do. They were not arrested for what they were believed to be planning, only ejected from the meeting. They did not go to jail or have to appear in court. They were told to go home.

    Is it your argument that the organizers of the meeting should have let them stay and disrupt the meeting? At this point the three of them would have been arrested and possibly spent the night in jail, or at least a few hours until appearing before a judge. Is this how you wish the US federal government to operate?

    I also wanted to point out that disrupting one of these meetings does little to advance the debate, because they get labeled as "fringe" and thus can be ignored in the larger debate. There are better, and more productive ways to make your points. There are plenty of avenues available that do not require the childish acts that some people believe are the only way to be heard. I think that as long as the "fringe" acts like they are the "fringe" then they will be treated as outsiders by everyone else.

    [ Parent ]

    sounds like you like prior restraint (3.00 / 3) (#220)
    by speek on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST

    Guilty until proven innocent too maybe?

    --
    al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
    [ Parent ]

    No, I think I understood quite well, thanks. (none / 1) (#231)
    by MrMikey on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:24:30 PM EST

    "The three of them where asked to leave the meeting because the organizers thought that they would disrupt the meeting. This is plainly evident. There is no reason for the organizers of the meeting to permit such a disruption. The ejected parties' free speech rights do not trump the organizers rights to hold a civilized meeting (also in the first ammendment). I did not say they were booted for what they belived, but what they were planning to do. They were not arrested for what they were believed to be planning, only ejected from the meeting. They did not go to jail or have to appear in court. They were told to go home."

    They were ejected from a meeting paid for by taxpayer money, and billed as, at the very least, a semi-public event, based on a suspicion. Even if you think this particular instance was justified (and I don't), it's part of a pattern of action by our current Administration that is actively suppressing the expression of dissent anywhere within line of sight of the President. Does that not concern you?

    "Is it your argument that the organizers of the meeting should have let them stay and disrupt the meeting? At this point the three of them would have been arrested and possibly spent the night in jail, or at least a few hours until appearing before a judge. Is this how you wish the US federal government to operate?"

    What, do I think our government representatives should have not prevented the presence of American citizens until such time that they did anything that was actually objectionable, if not illegal? Why yes, that is exactly the way I wish the US federal government to operate. Don't you?

    "I also wanted to point out that disrupting one of these meetings does little to advance the debate, because they get labeled as "fringe" and thus can be ignored in the larger debate."

    Perhaps... depends on who is actually doing the labelling, and in what context.

    "There are better, and more productive ways to make your points. There are plenty of avenues available that do not require the childish acts that some people believe are the only way to be heard."

    Haven't you heard? Attempts at peaceful, lawful demonstration get you sent to a "Free Speech Zone", where you are free to speak, but no one hears you.

    "I think that as long as the "fringe" acts like they are the "fringe" then they will be treated as outsiders by everyone else."

    Heh... how long, I wonder, before anyone who disagrees with the President in any substantive way gets labelled "fringe", and treated accordingly.

    [ Parent ]

    I mostly agree (3.00 / 2) (#270)
    by DavidTC on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:26:12 PM EST

    But 'objectional' should be 'disruptive' instead. If they sit down, wait until the meeting is started, and then obviously pull off their top shirts and don't do anything else, I fail to see why they should be ejected. The fact is they should have been let in wearing those shirt, and them having to sneak them in is not 'disruptive'.

    Heckling, sure. Kick the bums out. Wearing a TV shirt? No.

    However, I think a lot of people are missing something. The issue isn't so much they got kicked out, it's that pseudo-secret service people did.

    And either a) The Secret Service are very crappy at protecting the president, and people dressed like SS agents were wandering around manhandling people without their knowledge, b) The pseudo-SS were operating with the full knowledge of the Secret Service, or c) The pseudo-SS were the Secret Service.

    There really is no fourth option. And the first option is just absurd, so that means that the executive branch is not only censoring speech, it's lying about it.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    There is a bigger picture (none / 0) (#334)
    by TheWake on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:32:17 AM EST

    They were ejected from a meeting paid for by taxpayer money, and billed as, at the very least, a semi-public event, based on a suspicion.
    Do you know for a fact that there was not any evidence pertaining to this suspected stunt? For all you know there was a real plot to disrupt the meeting and it was stopped. Have you actually looked into the other side of this story? If you have please let me know what you have uncovered, I would like to know what the real reason for this was.
    What, do I think our government representatives should have not prevented the presence of American citizens until such time that they did anything that was actually objectionable, if not illegal? Why yes, that is exactly the way I wish the US federal government to operate. Don't you?
    The chaos caused by a stunt like this could well lead to an opportunity for an assassin to attack the president. The government should keep out potentially disruptive people from these functions. If the oposition wished to disagree in an orderly manner and debate issues instead of disrupting the event then there would be a much more serious issue.
    Haven't you heard? Attempts at peaceful, lawful demonstration get you sent to a "Free Speech Zone", where you are free to speak, but no one hears you.
    As bad as this is, there are better places to make you voces heard. Isn't there still a diverse system of newspapaers, radio stations, telivision news, news magazines, and newsletters that can be used to advance opposing points of view? Last I checked big media corporations do not own it all yet. Some of them even have editorial opinions that do not agree with the president. The media can do more to swing the next election than daily protests ever could. Protests do nothing except make the protesters feel better and get the protestees to dig in thier heels.
    Heh... how long, I wonder, before anyone who disagrees with the President in any substantive way gets labelled "fringe", and treated accordingly.
    There are plenty of people who disagree, they just don't seek attention in a childish manner. They vote, they write letters, they discuss the issues. How many democratic senators are there? How many representatives? What about governors? State legislators? Newspaper columnists and editors? AARP members? This is the oposition that gets results. They are not the "fringe". Do you really believe that they will ever get labeled as "fringe" groups?

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed there is... much bigger. (3.00 / 2) (#338)
    by MrMikey on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 10:03:53 AM EST

    "Do you know for a fact that there was not any evidence pertaining to this suspected stunt? For all you know there was a real plot to disrupt the meeting and it was stopped. Have you actually looked into the other side of this story? If you have please let me know what you have uncovered, I would like to know what the real reason for this was."

    No, I haven't looked into it. Given the pattern of activity I've seen coming from this Administration, I find it completely in character that they were ejected for purely ideological grounds.

    "The chaos caused by a stunt like this could well lead to an opportunity for an assassin to attack the president."

    That rationale could be used to justify damned near any action. "That tape recorder or camera could be a weapon... better confiscate it."

    "The government should keep out potentially disruptive people from these functions. If the oposition wished to disagree in an orderly manner and debate issues instead of disrupting the event then there would be a much more serious issue."

    Oh, please. Who gets to decide what qualifies as "potentially disruptive." If I have a peace sign on a t-shirt, does that qualify?

    "As bad as this is [Free Speech Zones], there are better places to make you voces heard. Isn't there still a diverse system of newspapaers, radio stations, telivision news, news magazines, and newsletters that can be used to advance opposing points of view?"

    <*chortle*> Have you taken a good look at who owns the TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers in your area? Try it... it's an eye-opener. And, even if there are better places to be heard, it does not follow that you can arbitrarily eject people from what is supposedly a "Town Hall Forum" based on the idea of their ideology that you get from their bumper sticker. That the ejection was accomplished by men who didn't identify themselves, and who looked and acted like Secret Service personnel at a function where the SS was actually in operation is another disturbing feature of all this.

    "Last I checked big media corporations do not own it all yet."

    Not yet, no.

    "Some of them even have editorial opinions that do not agree with the president."

    I suspect, but do not know, that there are fewer of those voices every day.

    "The media can do more to swing the next election than daily protests ever could."

    That's a good thing? Check out who owns most of the media.

    "Protests do nothing except make the protesters feel better and get the protestees to dig in thier heels."

    Yep... that's just what happened during the Vietnam War. "Let's not protest... it's so unseemly." Screw that.

    You seem to be ready to dismiss protestors as a "fringe group"... how illustrative.

    [ Parent ]

    Rush to the bottom (none / 1) (#345)
    by TheWake on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 12:19:26 PM EST

    You seem to be rushing to the worst possible conclusion you can dream up.

    I would imagine that the cameras/recorders/microphones etc. are thoroghly inspected and returned at entry to the events. There is no reason to confiscate them. There is also no reason to deny you entry if all you were up to was wearing a peace sign on a T-Shirt. If you wanted to cause other trouble then yes there would be a reason. Have you started your own newsletter? If you create an electronic one, I bet the additional cost would be near zero. You also obviously do not read the papers I do, nor do you listen to the radio stations I do. The op/ed sections of these outlets is clearly more liberal than the current administration. There are plenty of liberal voices in my section of the US.

    I just happen to view protests as counter-productive. From what I see they do not work and only serve to harden the debate. It is not a method that I approve of. Believe me there are plenty of things I disapprove of that happen, many of which get protested, but the protests do little or no good. Creating an organization and holding your own town-hall meetings that are covered in the media can work much better than being thrown out of a meeting for a "stunt". Early on with little or no funding you need to stick to local events, but then you can grow your influence, and scope. Stunts and protests may be good for 15 minutes of fame, but will never equate to long term influence.

    [ Parent ]

    Disrupting? (3.00 / 5) (#168)
    by Kasreyn on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:30:26 AM EST

    So in your universe, a meeting between the Most Powerful Man in the World and his Adoring Followers comes to a screeching, quivering halt because of the looming threat of... teenagers in politely phrased protest shirts?

    If you call that "disruption", you are truly an example of how pussified America is getting. "Oh no! It's... it's... TEENS WITH TEE SHIRTS!! GAME OVER, MAN! GAME OVER!"

    Go visit a riot in Africa or Southeast Asia. You'll probably discover that "disruption" is something more along the lines of having all your teeth and your lower jaw torn off your skull by a hurled brick, right before you get a teargas grenade in your eyeball.

    Yeah. "Disruption". Riiiiiight.


    "Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
    We never asked to be born in the first place."

    R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
    [ Parent ]
    Remember when the objectional t-shirts said things (none / 1) (#369)
    by DavidTC on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 06:43:35 PM EST

    ...like 'Fuck the War' and all sorts of crap like that? They tried to be shocking and they tried to upset squares.

    Remember when, despite them actually causing violence, people could wear them at political events?

    Now they say things like 'Stop the Lies' and 'Protect our Civil Liberties'. And you can't get anywhere near anywhere there might be other people, and there are people standing around defending this because you might cause a 'disruption'.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps I'm too biased to judge. (none / 0) (#414)
    by Kasreyn on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 11:44:49 PM EST

    I personally don't have a problem with someone protesting by showing up with a T-shirt that says to eat aborted fetuses and kick pregnant women in the stomachs. Speech is speech. If someone can't handle it, the fault is their own.


    "Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
    We never asked to be born in the first place."

    R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
    [ Parent ]
    Not sure what exactly your point is (2.83 / 6) (#125)
    by hatshepsut on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 12:52:03 PM EST

    You say your 1st amendment rights were trampled, but were they? I am not an American citizen, so perhaps I only misunderstand, but doesn't the first amendment guarantee that you can say what you want (but not that you can say it necessarily where you might want to)? If I have understood that correctly, then I don't see the 1st amendment violation - you could have said what you wanted to say, outside the building. Don't get me wrong - removing people who may disagree from a public meeting seems shady, but I wasn't aware that it violated the 1st amendment.

    Or, maybe your main point was that there is some confusion regarding who exactly removed you...the Secret Service or local security guards. If so, maybe you should emphasize this more.

    Or, maybe your main point was that the administration is using public monies to fund what are apparently private or semi-private functions. That would definitely be worth discussing (unless it is more common than I have heard).

    There is also the point that while you say you were not there to disrupt the proceedings, you were wearing T-shirts with inflammatory slogans...if you were NOT going to show these (hence creating a disruption), why wear them. Someone else mentioned this point in the comments, and you failed to answer satisfactorily.

    I appreciate the fact that you are trying to improve the article (by pulling it previously and making edits), but your main thesis needs to be much more clear, and I think you should tighten up the writing itself to both shorten the piece and make it a little more clear (and chronological).

    By the way, you posted nothing to K5 before Sunday (when I gather the first version of this story was in the queue), what made you post this story here? I am genuinely interested, and NOT trying to say that "nullos" shouldn't submit stories.

    Bumper sticker = speech (2.75 / 4) (#146)
    by Magnetic North on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:45:25 PM EST

    The 1st amendment angle seems to be that they consider their bumper sticker speech, and that is what got them evicted from the propaganda event.

    --
    <33333
    [ Parent ]
    First amendment is not just freedom of speech (2.50 / 2) (#157)
    by wurp on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:36:09 PM EST

    It includes the right to peacably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, among others.


    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


    ---
    Buy my stuff
    [ Parent ]
    You are correct but (none / 0) (#470)
    by triddle on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:02:37 PM EST

    Do not forget that the constitution says Congress will make no law; that leaves plenty of room for your state constitution to make that law. Unless Federal statute was involved here its not a first amendment issue. Check the state constitution (and court cases and tons of other stuff that is nearly impossible to go through) to get an understanding of your rights as they exist where you live.

    [ Parent ]
    Prior restraint... (3.00 / 4) (#192)
    by lumpenprole on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:15:53 AM EST

    has been roundly rejected by the supreme court, to paraphrase Walter Sobchak. That means you can't be restrained from expressing your opinion anywhere that the public is allowed provided you aren't causing a disturbance. Apparently, like Habeus Corpus, this only applies to people Bush likes.

    [ Parent ]
    No, they have every right to use public money (none / 0) (#467)
    by RyoCokey on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 02:24:51 PM EST

    ...for invite-only restricted functions. Most government functions, from press conferences to the State of the Union address, are private, invite-only functions.



    The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick
    [
    Parent ]
    +1 Human (2.75 / 8) (#129)
    by ptulipana on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 03:08:51 PM EST

    For all the comments, which are right, about "this is a diary," etc. it does need to be said that a lot of the time the article format seems to pre/ex-clude the fact that this stuff (say, being discriminated against at a political event in America because of your political beliefs) happens to a lot of people in the first-person singular. I think important for a fourm to be able to include "what's happening" under the guise of "what happened to me." +1.

    You saw it here first (2.85 / 7) (#134)
    by Benny Cemoli on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 03:44:54 PM EST

    Looks like this is possibly turning into a real news story. (first link is a wapo link ... might require registration ... there's nothing really new in it, just demonstrates that the story may be getting legs.) Apparently the Washington press is asking Scott McClellan about it. And of course all the bloggers are starting to flog it.

    From what I see, the whole thing hinges on whether the guy who gave you the boot claimed to be a Secret Service agent, or if other staffers there knowingly misrepresented him as a Secret Service agent. If so, you've possibly got a case. If not, you got nothin'.

    Which is it?


    "the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."

    -1 Not a 1st Amendment Issue (2.50 / 8) (#136)
    by LO313 on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 04:05:33 PM EST

    This is not a public meeting. It may feel like it but its no more than a campaign stop. These are generally funded by party funds not public funds. Its a private political meeting. If they don't want you there, you can be kicked out much like a concert. Its not like city council meeting which is open to the public. I do find private security posing as secret service disturbing though but that is not the point of the article. I heard of this happening during the campaign by both parties to eliminate disenting voices in the crowd. That's there choice sice they are footing the bill. If public funds are being used to put these meetings on then that should be investigated but I doubt it.

    You'd be right... (2.50 / 8) (#139)
    by MrMikey on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 05:13:35 PM EST

    if this were a private club meeting. It wasn't. It was the President of the United States speaking in front of what was supposed to be a group of citizens. The citizens who were ejected weren't causing a scene, and had tickets.

    This is just another version of those cowardly "Free Speech Zones"... corrals where citizens whose views are unacceptable to the State get segregated. What would we say if that shit happened in any other country? We'd be appalled.

    This issue is front page material. It's bad enough that our President picks his Cabinet so as to guarantee a lack of dissenting voices, he (or his handlers) are also making sure that dissenting voices don't get seen or heard anywhere near him. What's next: shutting down newspapers or TV stations for "unpatriotic (aka "terrorist") activities"? What, are we now to be the USSR instead of the USA, with Fox "News" as our Pravda?

    [ Parent ]

    Free Speech Zones (3.00 / 8) (#177)
    by cgenman on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:56:10 AM EST

    In case people are unaware, the "Free Speech Zones" literally are corrals, usually a baseball field, where anyone who is expressing an unfavorable opinion is forced to go when Bush is in town. Generally speaking, this baseball field is a half-mile away from anywhere the president is going to actually be. The media is prohibited from entering or talking to the people inside, and the people inside are prohibited from leaving.

    Many people don't know this, because it's literally unbelieveable that people in the US are routinely arrested and incarcerated for expressing dissenting opinion during a presidential visit. Not because they were rowdy, or even likely to cause trouble, but just because they held up signs opposed to Bush policy measures amongst groups of people holding up signs in favor of Bush policy measures.

    This really happens. And this doesn't just happen at the occasional rally or event: this happens at every single Bush appearance. This happens wherever Bush is traveling throughout the US. This happens when Bush travels overseas. This happened at the Republican National Convention. This is not an isolated thing. People are arrested for speaking freely in the U.S. It's atrocious. It's reprehensible. It's unconstitutional. And it's at the behest of our President.

    I really, really want to find a group of people willing to get arrested with me for holding up "Free Speech Now" signs at a Bush rally. Anyone know the next time he is coming through Boston?


    - This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future. This is only a device.
    [ Parent ]

    You are lucky the let you out at all (1.00 / 4) (#255)
    by sellison on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 04:47:48 PM EST

    people opposing the President at a public ralley during Time of War are giving Aid and Comfort to the  Enemey.

    Since you are probably haven't read the Constitution, that is treason, and if President Bush wasn't such a nice guy, he'd be within his rights as Commander in Chief to do alot more than just put you in a baseball field for a few hours!

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Definition of treason (none / 1) (#290)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:37:36 PM EST

    "people opposing the President at a public ralley during Time of War are giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemey."

    So the real reason the terrorists hate us is because we might make some changes to the Social Security program?

    [ Parent ]

    Programs like social security (none / 1) (#317)
    by sellison on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 02:05:17 AM EST

    distact the Federal Govt. from it's true, Constitutional, purpose: National Defense.

    President Bush is just taking the first baby steps toward eliminating such distractions so the Federal Govt. can focus on protecting us from our enemies.

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
    [ Parent ]

    Programs (none / 0) (#318)
    by nobrowser on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 02:15:03 AM EST

    Hmm. Since you're so smart, what about these other programs? Are they constitutional, or just a distraction? And could it be true that the contry's security depended on them more than on our armed forces? 1/ Centers for Disease Control 2/ EPA 3/ NASA

    [ Parent ]
    You must be joking (none / 0) (#344)
    by sellison on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 11:39:22 AM EST

    EPA is clearly extra-constitutional; if it was eliminated American Industry would be freed to make us all much more prosperous, which in turn would produce more $$ for the DOD to use to protect us from our jealous enemies.

    NASA is another extra-constitutional waste, the US Airforce should be the only Federal unit in Space.

    CDC would also be much more efficient and effective if it were merged into the DOD, and it's expertise could then be used to more directly serve our National Interest.

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
    [ Parent ]

    Yep... Loki Troll... [nt] (none / 1) (#348)
    by MrMikey on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 12:38:51 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Typical Liberal Character Assignation (1.00 / 2) (#357)
    by sellison on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 02:53:31 PM EST

    because you can't win a debate the issues.

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
    [ Parent ]
    Character assassination is not my intent. (none / 0) (#361)
    by MrMikey on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 03:11:36 PM EST

    Your recent posts give every indication of being what is referred to as a "Loki Troll".

    Allow me to explain. First, the term "troll":

    1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.

    2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. [source]

    A "Loki Troll" is someone who is playing the trickster (hence the reference to the Norse God Loki), and attempting to generate material that gives every appearance of coming from an actual troll.

    Based upon some recent posts of yours, I concluded that you were such a person.

    Am I incorrect?

    [ Parent ]

    Typical Liberal Character Assination (none / 1) (#379)
    by sellison on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:46:25 PM EST

    because you can't win a debate on the issues.

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
    [ Parent ]
    So, is this your way of saying (none / 0) (#381)
    by MrMikey on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:58:21 PM EST

    that you're not a "Loki Troll"?

    Your most recent post made your position on the matter unclear.

    [ Parent ]

    Typical Liberal Character Assination (none / 1) (#382)
    by sellison on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:59:51 PM EST

    because you can't win a real debate on the issues.

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
    [ Parent ]
    Just out of curiosity... (none / 0) (#419)
    by MrMikey on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 05:02:11 AM EST

    What is an "Assination"? Do you perhaps mean "assignation"? If that is what you meant, that still wouldn't make any sense:
    assignation
    n 1: a secret rendezvous (especially between lovers) [syn: {tryst}]
    2: the act of distributing by allotting or apportioning; distribution according to a plan; "the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives is based on the relative population of each state" [syn: {allotment}, {apportionment}, {apportioning}, {allocation}, {parceling}, {parcelling}]
    As you can see, assignation wouldn't fit these circumstances. So, what word did you intend to use? You've used "assination" once, and "assignation" once. When I first read one of your posts, I thought I saw the word "assassination", which would make sense in this context.

    BTW, you never did answer my question. Are you stating that you are not a "Loki Troll"? Your posts would certainly lead me to believe that you were, so I'd like to clarify your position.

    [ Parent ]

    Typical Liberal Character Assination (none / 1) (#423)
    by sellison on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 10:36:01 AM EST

    delving into boring pedandics because you can't win a debate on the original issue. Heck you can't even participate in a debate on the original issue because you haven't the brain power nor the spirit.

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
    [ Parent ]
    Wrong (2.50 / 2) (#196)
    by LO313 on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:43:47 AM EST

    This was the President talking in front of a group of citizens where you could only get a ticket from a Republican congressional representatives office. It even says that in the article. This was a private event! That's my point. If you buy a ticket to go see some loser pop star, they can kick you out for any reason and all they have to do is refund your money. These people didn't even pay for the damn ticket. And your cowardly free speech zones are an agreed practice by both political camps. Blame the dems as much as the repubs.

    [ Parent ]
    Dems use Free Speech Zones? (none / 1) (#223)
    by lowkey on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:07:49 PM EST

    I've never heard about that before. I've never heard of anyone but Bush using them. I mean, yes, both parties will remove disruptive dissension from a crowd, but not actually fence them off away from the action beforehand. Do you have any links to reference this? I'm not picking a fight, I'm genuinely interested.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton started it [nt] (none / 1) (#229)
    by emmons on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:22:12 PM EST



    ---
    In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
    -Douglas Adams

    [ Parent ]
    Links? (none / 1) (#240)
    by lowkey on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 02:43:58 PM EST

    Again, I'm surprised I've never heard this. Can you provide substantiation?

    [ Parent ]
    sure (none / 1) (#277)
    by emmons on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:59:10 PM EST

    http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11796

    The three men said they've been protesting both Democrats and Republicans for years, calling their act "a freedom thing." Redner said President Clinton's Secret Service also employed protest zones. Elend encountered his first zones at the 2000 Democratic Convention in Los Angeles.

    I'm not defending the practice, but it is misunderstood. I helped organize a presidential visit last fall, which was held in a facility rented by the Bush campaign. Since the campaign rented the place, the campaign got to decide who and what got in. Just like at a concert.

    I can attest to the fact that the secret service guys couldn't care less what people bring in or wear so long as they can't be used as weapons. It's completely up to the campaign staff and volunteers to screen people. However, if a person is asked to leave and refuses, then the police or the secret service will enforce the campaign's right to decide who gets to be there. The critical thing is that the campaign makes the decision. If the event were public, then the campaign wouldn't be able to keep them out. Hence the protesters along the inaugural procession.

    ---
    In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
    -Douglas Adams

    [ Parent ]

    That's not... (3.00 / 2) (#367)
    by DavidTC on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 06:22:15 PM EST

    ...what people are talking about with 'free speech zones'.

    You're describing the the Dems shunting people away from private events. All well and good. Well, no, not really, but not what people are talking about.

    Bush shunts people away from public streets. He drives down the street, you're not allowed to stand on the street anymore if you have a sign that he doesn't like. Unless he's started leasing streets, they're public.

    Now, for all I know, the Democrats did that too, I'm not saying they didn't, I honestly don't know. I do know it is quite possibly illegal.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    Hey you, mc6809e! (none / 0) (#268)
    by MrMikey on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:23:45 PM EST

    What did I say that warranted a "zero" from you? I'd like to know.

    [ Parent ]
    "Free Speech Zone" is an oxymoron (none / 0) (#421)
    by trezor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 07:09:12 AM EST

    See, if you must be in a specific zone to execerise your right to "free" speech, it is by defintion no longer free, but restricted. This should be obvious to anyone with a 2-digit IQ or higher, but as you surely know in the US anyone thinking an independant thought is now consaidered dissident and a threat and therefore must have his rights adjusted.

    But don't worry: Your right to restricted speech is guaranteed by your constitution.


    --
    Richard Dean Anderson porn? - Now spread the news

    [ Parent ]
    Hrm.... (1.53 / 13) (#148)
    by thelizman on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:17:44 PM EST

    ...seems that the Secret Service has never heard of you. You should have done more fact checking prior to fabricating such a broad conpsiracy.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    RTA (3.00 / 4) (#154)
    by Bob Finklestein on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:54:54 PM EST

    Try reading the article:
    At the meeting with the Secret Service (03/28/05), Lon Garner, special agent in charge of the Secret Service district office in Denver talked about the fact that these people imitate Secret Service agents.
    He's not saying the Secret Service kicked them out. He's saying guys pretending to be Secret Service did.

    [ Parent ]
    I think he read that (none / 0) (#171)
    by Harvey Anderson on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:55:36 AM EST

    but he's either retarded or a troll.

    He gets more points from me if the former.

    [ Parent ]

    He's both (none / 1) (#191)
    by Magnetic North on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:15:34 AM EST

    He's definitely a troll (see his comment history here). He's at least mildly retarded, and he's also a self aggrandizing wanker (read his putrid livejournal that he links to, or spare yourself the agony and take my word for it).

    --
    <33333
    [ Parent ]
    Gross! (none / 0) (#200)
    by Harvey Anderson on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:21:11 AM EST

    I'll take your word for it.

    [ Parent ]
    Speaking of Wankers (none / 1) (#209)
    by thelizman on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:22:08 PM EST

    ...rather amusing conversation follows in which two [quite possibly homosexual] kur0bots exchange meaningless sql space wasting banter.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Poor attempt. (none / 0) (#217)
    by Harvey Anderson on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:59:32 PM EST

    losar is you.

    [ Parent ]
    Fabricating Lies Now? How Pathetic! (1.50 / 4) (#211)
    by thelizman on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:30:10 PM EST

    Full text of linked article:
    The Secret Service is investigating the claims of three people who say they were removed from President Bush's town hall meeting on Social Security last week because of a bumper sticker on their car that read: "No More Blood for Oil."

    The three said they had obtained tickets to the event through the office of Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo., had passed through security and were preparing to take their seats when they were approached by what they thought was a Secret Service agent who asked them to leave.

    Alex Young, 25, who was among the three removed, said officials told them the next day they were identified as belonging to the "No Blood for Oil" group.

    Lon Garner, the agent in charge of the Secret Service office in Denver, said the Secret Service had nothing to do with the three being asked to leave. Garner declined to release further details, citing an ongoing investigation.

    "We are very sensitive to the First Amendment and general assembly rights as protected by the Constitution," Garner said.

    Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for Americans United, called the removal of the three people an egregious violation of their First Amendment rights.

    "They're screening the people who are allowed to come and then they're profiling them in the parking lot," he said. "It's quite extraordinary, and disappointing."


    Oddly enough, your little quote appears nowhere in that article, and amounts to mere conjecture on ayoung's part. So, the fact remains that a) it was not a Secret Service agent, b) Alex Young is a fucking liar, and c) so are you.

    Kudo's to "Benny Cemoli" and "joschi", who in the process of riding your coat tails also failed to do some simple fact checking.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    gave you a "3" (none / 1) (#221)
    by speek on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:05:46 PM EST

    Everyone should take note of how you not only fail to read the article, but how you also fail to read the posts you respond to. Either that or you just don't understand what you're saying.

    --
    al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
    [ Parent ]

    My little quote... (3.00 / 2) (#250)
    by Bob Finklestein on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 03:41:31 PM EST

    Doesn't appear in that linked article, and I never implied that it did. It appears in the article on which we are now commenting. The k5 article. The one called "America: Where a Bumper Sticker Gets You Banned." Just to clear up any ambiguity.
    quote:
    So, the fact remains that a) it was not a Secret Service agent
    Hello and welcome to That's the Point. It wasn't a Secret Service, no one is debating that. I didn't even debate that. Look at my post! The point is that it was someone posing as a Secret Service agent. So in conclusion: Before you call my integrity into question again, I'd suggest you figure out exactly what it is you're talking about.

    [ Parent ]
    Deniability... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Mysidia on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:03:46 PM EST

    Assume for a moment there was some kind of "conspiracy" as you call it.. If some incident becomes well known... then denial is exactly what one would expect in that case (whether the denial is the truth or whether the denial is somewhat of a self-serving lie, or wether they operate in a manner so as to give them enough plausible deniability to say "No, they weren't involved with (whatever)".)

    I think there's a good chance that no organization, particularly not a government organization wants to add bad publicity, you see.. right?

    This might infer that anything they think they could get away with denying, they will deny. What this means in my opinion, is that their denial is not a conclusive indication as to their non-involvement (and neither is the claim by the folks kicked out that they were somehow involved... the claim that 'secret service was involved' may have just been a self-serving remark to attempt to garner more attention).



    -Mysidia the insane @k5
    [ Parent ]
    The Fun of Conspiracies (none / 0) (#212)
    by thelizman on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:31:58 PM EST

    Assume for a moment there was some kind of "conspiracy" as you call it.. If some incident becomes well known... then denial is exactly what one would expect in that case
    The 'conspiracy' exists in the mind of ayoung (the article's author). There is no actual conspiracy. This is the United States Secret Service, not a Praetorian guard.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Considering the title of article says 'Removel' (none / 0) (#449)
    by Mr.Surly on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:00:47 AM EST

    Doesn't exactly make your linked article rock-solid.

    [ Parent ]
    A New Day for K5 (1.21 / 32) (#151)
    by thelizman on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:39:39 PM EST

    What you have here, folks, is a nullo who along with some buddies, failed his feeble attempt to crash one of Bush's pre-scripted townhall meetings, and is now fabricating conspiracy theories about the Secret Service trampling his alleged constitutional right to disrupt the free political speech of his idealogical opponants.

    To add insult to the lack of intelligence of 111 people here at K5, the author posted his own version of the story replete with conspiratorial rants and one-sided commentary when he should have bought an ad. K5 is now most definately a mouthpiece for spammers.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    And "trammelling" [nt] (none / 0) (#169)
    by KrispyKringle on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:40:34 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Let me spell it out for you... (3.00 / 3) (#182)
    by mirleid on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:09:46 AM EST

    BOLLOCKS!

    All the links that you provide do nothing to disprove what is being said in the story. Your links point to depictions of the events that basically say:
    • Some people claim to have been forcibly removed from a rally by somebody that looked like a Secret Service agent, but wasn't
    • The Secret Service is looking into it, but what that means is not explained to anybody, as they will not comment on what is going on, other than to say that they had nothing to do with it

    You don't have definitive evidence that the poster of the original story is lying. You weren't there. You do not even seem to have an opinion on the matter, other than everybody that voted this story up is a moron. In short, the usual crap that you post...



    Chickens don't give milk
    [ Parent ]
    -1 Fiction (1.12 / 8) (#185)
    by thelizman on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 08:08:40 AM EST

    Fanciful works of fiction are nice, but when you confuse them reality, it's time for a straight jacket. The author alleges that the secret service forcibly removed him and his friends. The fact is, the secret service didn't. It was local GOP foot soldiers.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    I fail to see... (none / 1) (#210)
    by SvnLyrBrto on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:27:21 PM EST

    > The fact is, the secret service didn't. It was local GOP foot
    > soldiers.

    ... why anyone should see any difference between one pack of two-bit thugs doing the bidding of bush, and some other pack of two-bit thugs doing the bidding of bush.  They all get their marching orders from the same place.

    All you are doing is picking trivial nits.

    cya,
    john

    Imagine all the people...
    [ Parent ]

    You're talking bollocks again... (none / 1) (#325)
    by mirleid on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 06:42:17 AM EST

    These people, people who control the executive and legislative branches of our government, apparently think they can silence their critics by spying on them and hiding behind unnamed operatives who intentionally present themselves as Secret Service agents.

    and

    These people, people who control the executive and legislative branches of our government, apparently think they can silence their critics by spying on them and hiding behind unnamed operatives who intentionally present themselves as Secret Service agents.

    Nowhere in the article does the author claim that the person that removed him from the rally was a Secret Service agent. He merely stated that that person looked like one. Actually (see second quote), the author actually refers to the fact that the person that removed him from the room was probably not a Secret Service agent.


    Chickens don't give milk
    [ Parent ]
    ME TOO!!!!111 (none / 0) (#247)
    by mpalczew on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 03:22:55 PM EST

    agreed.

    News at 11, Bush kicks out dissenter at a private rally.  
    Also in bigger news,  A bear shat in the woods.  

    Yes his practice is quite lame.  How do you convince people to join your cause when you are only preaching to the choir?  I guess it worked for him in the past.

    -- Death to all Fanatics!
    [ Parent ]

    ID? (2.77 / 9) (#160)
    by syukton on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:45:36 PM EST

    Did you request to see ID? If somebody comes up to me and asks me to come with them, I request identification. If they don't provide it, I don't move. Simple as that.

    If they want to start a scuffle, I'm more than happy to defend myself from the anonymous attacker who declined to identify himself before he assaulted me, by forcibly jamming my thumbs into his eyesockets rendering him permanently blind. Never had to do it yet, everyone always provides their ID--I don't even have to threaten to blind them!


    and he is (2.75 / 4) (#237)
    by Altus on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 02:08:49 PM EST


    absolutely correct... do not assume anyone is in a position of authority until they prove that they are... they are required by law to do as such.

    if I walked up to you at an event like this in jeans and a tee shirt and insisted you leave would you simply obey without question?  why should it be any different if I am in a cheep suit and dark sunglasses?

     

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    wha (2.00 / 2) (#248)
    by orestes on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 03:28:03 PM EST

    haven't you seen 24? if you don't do what they say and foolishly ask questions you will be hurt and possibly thrown into a room where you will be tortured. if you cooperate right away you might possibly be spared. and that's if you really didn't do anything, like put an offending bumper sticker on your car. the guy that wrote this story got off easy - they could have easily had him killed, as well as his family and had people with whom he's spent more than 10 seconds of contact with thrown into a dark interrogation room (see above). i'm not schizophrenic, you can't make this stuff up!

    [ You Sad Bastard ]
    [ Parent ]
    and at a clinton, kerry, ANSWER, or any other raly (2.00 / 5) (#164)
    by hildi on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 11:46:37 PM EST

    you would of course been welcome with open arms, even if your bumper sticker said 'its a life not a choice' or 'bush 04'

    Well... (3.00 / 7) (#190)
    by lumpenprole on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:11:54 AM EST

    Actually, on two seperate occasions I can think of, (health care, and nafta) Clinton took opponents of his programs from Congress on the road with him so he could debate them in front of the American people.

    Also, I was at one, and there were die-hard anti-Clintonites there who were, horror of horrors allowed to ask questions.

    But then, ass or not, Clinton wasn't afraid of the people.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton was also capable (3.00 / 5) (#236)
    by Altus on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 02:06:16 PM EST


    of defending his position from ideological attacks by the opposition.  therefore he had no reason to fear them.  embracing them only strengthened his position.

    a slightly above average K5 poster could probably take bush apart in a real debate over some of his policies.

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    and 'hard leftists' hate clinton (none / 0) (#295)
    by hildi on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:11:36 PM EST

    they think hes a traitor because of NAFTA etc

    [ Parent ]
    But not a UAW parking lot.... (none / 0) (#233)
    by gandalf23 on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:34:25 PM EST

    Marines driven out of UAW lot

    "The union says Marines in foreign cars, displaying Bush stickers unwelcome"

    ...

    ""We do not think it is unreasonable to expect our guests to practice the simple principle of not insulting their host," the UAW statement said."

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (none / 1) (#249)
    by Bob Finklestein on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 03:31:41 PM EST

    Bush supporters were allowed in Kerry rallies. I know this from personal experience having worked at one. We were told of course to keep an eye on them (I believe there were three of them, sitting together) and make sure they didn't make trouble. They didn't, and there was no problem.

    [ Parent ]
    so what (none / 1) (#294)
    by hildi on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:10:24 PM EST

    im talking about the attitude.
    that somehow democrats/leftist are
    different human beings than republicans,
    somehow 'more tolerant' of views they hate.

    did you bother reading dailykos, watching
    the daily show, or listening to air
    america during the election?

    [ Parent ]

    attitude (none / 1) (#315)
    by nobrowser on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:33:42 AM EST

    If you are talking about attitude, you're off topic. This is about the blokes being thrown out.

    [ Parent ]
    no its not (none / 0) (#442)
    by hildi on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 10:09:35 PM EST

    its about blokes being thrown out by 'those dirty republicans'. the other side does plenty of throw out on its own. you can find anecdotes either way if you try hard enough.

    [ Parent ]
    But, you *do* agree that, (none / 0) (#444)
    by MrMikey on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 10:55:21 PM EST

    no matter which Party's members are doing it, we citizens shouldn't put up with shit like this, right?

    [ Parent ]
    uhm yeah (none / 0) (#445)
    by hildi on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 11:55:14 PM EST

    uhhh... why are you asking me that

    [ Parent ]
    I asked because (none / 0) (#446)
    by MrMikey on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:32:12 AM EST

    I've seen people imply that if Side A engages in shenanigans, those same activities can be excused if Side B should engage in them as well. I was clarifying that you weren't such a person.

    [ Parent ]
    My problem (none / 0) (#450)
    by Cro Magnon on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:56:56 AM EST

    is when Side A engages in shenanigans and their supporters say it's ok, but when Side B does the same thing, they scream from the rooftops. Ideally, neither side should be doing it, but I can understand Side B supporters snickering at Side A for their blatent hypocrasy.
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]
    uhh, thanks mom (none / 0) (#454)
    by hildi on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:35:03 PM EST

    wheiro12345io1234io

    [ Parent ]
    Y'know (3.00 / 2) (#273)
    by kraant on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:38:11 PM EST

    That'd make a lot of sense...

    If it was a party rally.
    --
    "kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
    Never In Our Names...
    [ Parent ]

    dear smirking chimp (1.00 / 4) (#293)
    by hildi on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:07:26 PM EST

    in case you hadnt noticed, there are a limited number of characters you can use in reply titles.

    [ Parent ]
    This post (none / 0) (#418)
    by baseball on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 12:45:09 AM EST

    even if it's a troll, is so moronic that I'm not going to save you the embarassment by hiding it with a 0 or 1.

    By the way, as far as I know, the Bush people are the only ones who screen attendees for their political views before allowing them to attend public functions.
    * * *
    Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
    [ Parent ]
    so what (none / 0) (#443)
    by hildi on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 10:10:46 PM EST

    democrats do lots of the same type of thing. give me a f'in break.

    [ Parent ]
    Synonym? Definition? What? (none / 0) (#482)
    by mister slim on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 08:38:19 PM EST

    Is this the level of political debate in America? A public meeting is the same as a rally? Still, good to be reminded the position of President has no responsibility towards members of other parties.
    __

    "Fucking sheep, the lot of you. Yeah, and your little dogs too." -Rogerborg
    [ Parent ]

    haha (1.11 / 9) (#165)
    by FecalFetus on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:11:15 AM EST

    fookeng amerikans!1

    I can't believe it went FP. (1.85 / 7) (#166)
    by Kasreyn on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:21:45 AM EST

    That's all, you may go.

    *surprised*


    "Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
    We never asked to be born in the first place."

    R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
    The system works (none / 1) (#324)
    by rusty on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 06:29:23 AM EST

    Love the system. Obey the system. :-)

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    No no (none / 1) (#327)
    by Kasreyn on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:34:26 AM EST

    It wasn't a negative surprise or a complaint. People seem to be assuming I meant I was upset it posted. I wasn't.

    Actually, I was just very surprised, given how k5ers typically react to anyone (especially "dirty hippies") who they see as trying to use the site as the vehicle for some ill-thought quickie protest.


    "Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
    We never asked to be born in the first place."

    R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
    [ Parent ]
    I understand (3.00 / 2) (#329)
    by rusty on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:12:35 AM EST

    I just thought it was a good opportunity to point out that the system works. This was a good personal experience story with news value. And all the "-1 Diary" and "-1 I don't agree with your politics" nonsense didn't stop it from posteing where it belonged. The system works. :-)

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    I considered going to a Bush rally once. (3.00 / 9) (#167)
    by Psycho Dave on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:23:05 AM EST

    It was last fall in the heat of election time. Bush was going to be speaking at Fiddler's Green. I mean, I hate the guy, but how often do you get to see such a divisive guy up front and personal. Shit, I'd have checked out a Hitler rally for the historical significance if I was more than a zygote at the time...

    Alas, I didn't have a ticket. And the loyalty oaths are just *really creepy*. They demand you not only not disrupt the proceedings (which I wasn't planning on doing) but agree with everything he was saying.

    Plus, quite a few of the people attending the rally were staying at my hotel. Some had driven five hundred miles to see him speak. This may sound elitist, but anyone who drives an SUV with a "God is a Republican" bumper sticker on it five hundred miles to see a POLITICIAN for half-an-hour is a FUCK-NUT. Seriously, they were all toothless losers who think dinner at the Cheesecake Factory is fine dining.

    Well, this story is all over both of our papers here in Denver. A. Young, you shoulda mentioned all that Secret Service stuff the last two times it was in the queue so you could have scooped them.

    heh...Cheesecake Factory (none / 0) (#251)
    by tarpy on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 04:15:03 PM EST

    Seriously, they were all toothless losers who think dinner at the Cheesecake Factory is fine dining.

    My very liberal wife would take umbrage with your slur against the Cheesecake Factory (and her love of it).

    Then again, I'm quite the conservative, and I can't stand the place...I prefer a nice, small French (I know, I know) bistro.


    Sir, this is old skool. Old skool. I salute you! - Knot In The Face
    [ Parent ]
    Is this okay? (3.00 / 7) (#175)
    by Gooba42 on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:09:08 AM EST

    I don't see that it matters whether there was a strong or weak argument in this article.

    The point was that he paid for a meeting and then was denied entry because he could potentially have been disruptive.

    Do late-term pregnant women get kept out of these events because they could go into labor and cause a ruckus?

    The answer is "No" because birthing a baby is not dissent. Since when are we not allowed to voice dissent at a public event? Since when are we not allowed to object to the way our taxes are spent? Or to make full and unlimited use of the freedoms, goods, services and events bought with our taxes and our blood?

    First Amendment or no, this is unacceptable on ethical and legal bases. Those of us kept out of these events are still footing the bill. Had this been an opera, his paid ticket would entitle him to attend no matter his bumper sticker or undershirt and to be denied or to be kicked out for either of these reasons would entitle him to a refund. Where's the refund?

    When did they pay? (none / 1) (#198)
    by LO313 on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:52:14 AM EST

    They didn't pay for anything. They acquired tickets, which means they asked. This was not a public event. So where ever a politician goes its automatically a public event? This was a private function. How do you know you are footing the bill? If your so outraged, next time he is in your neck of the woods look up how to get tickets. Go there and see what they say. Is it private or public. I'll bet its paid for by the Republican party. It will say so right on the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    These events specifically (3.00 / 3) (#216)
    by Benny Cemoli on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:57:45 PM EST

    are paid for by the taxpayers. They are part of the administration's campaign to drum up support to privatise social security. This is the President using the bully pulpit to make his case to the people. By definition, it's not a private GOP-only rally. The whole point is to generate widespread bipartisan support for the president's position on an issue of public policy.

    Political parties hold privately-funded, invitation-only meetings all the time. This ain't one of them.


    "the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."
    [ Parent ]

    The meeting in question, (none / 0) (#459)
    by slackhaus on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 01:32:20 AM EST

    It was a RNC funded event, so it was not a so-called public event. In fact I cannot think of any of these meetings that were public.

    [ Parent ]
    YFI (none / 0) (#463)
    by Benny Cemoli on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:39:21 AM EST

    Get your facts straight. From the Denver Post:

    Bush's Denver appearance probably cost taxpayers tens of thousands in jet fuel, room rent and personnel.

    "This was an official White House event and not a political event," Colorado GOP executive director David Wardrop explained.

    Anyone with tickets could have attended, added assistant presidential press secretary Allen Abney.

    "The White House welcomes people exercising the right to free speech," he said.

    Our tax dollars at work. If you have trouble understanding this, please let me know and I will be happy to explain it. Thank you.


    "the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."
    [ Parent ]

    BTW, your sig.... (none / 0) (#465)
    by Have A Nice Day on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 11:44:05 AM EST

    Whilst it is MC hawking, I believe someone else said it first, and the Mighty Stephen Hawking is giving props. Can't remember who did say it first though.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    beastie boys? (none / 0) (#466)
    by Benny Cemoli on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 01:35:03 PM EST

    google led me here

    "the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."
    [ Parent ]

    All the president's costs are payed via taxpayers. (none / 0) (#468)
    by RyoCokey on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 02:31:03 PM EST

    By your logic, we should be able to go to Camp David when he's vacationing. The mere fact that his expenses are payed by the US government doesn't make any meeting he goes to an event open to the public.



    The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick
    [
    Parent ]
    Question (none / 0) (#475)
    by Benny Cemoli on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:20:33 PM EST

    Can the President hold a GOP fundraiser and charge all the expenses to the taxpayers?


    "the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."
    [ Parent ]

    This event is NOT an invitation to protest (none / 0) (#478)
    by Frank Anderson on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 06:25:34 AM EST

    Since when are we not allowed to voice dissent at a public event?
    Others are answering you with arguments based on ownership, control, etc. I think that's a red herring. The point is, this event is scheduled for the President to discuss a major policy issue with citizens. That's discuss, not listen to disruptive protestors. We have an elected government; we are not ruled by the people with the biggest signs or loudest chanting or cutest bumper stickers.
    If the event organizers admit people who plan to disrupt the event, they allow the President's time to be wasted as well as citizens' time.
    The key fact that "dissenters" and "protestors" need to understand is that by attacking our democratically elected government, you simply piss off the people. Your megaphone does not outweigh my vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Please forgive me... (none / 0) (#483)
    by sgp on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 09:01:39 PM EST

    I'm from the UK, so I may be misunderstanding this word "discuss".

    Apparently, to you, it means that a group of people who agree on an issue talk about how they agree.

    Here in the UK, whilst we speak a very similar branch of the language, many words are different - pavement/sidewalk, bumper/fender, belt/suspenders, etc.

    To me, a discussion must involve those of different persuasions, talking about their differences, and maybe even coming up with resolutions from these conflicts.
    I believe that's how we came up with idea of democracy, which Bush is so keen on enforcing worldwide (though particularly in oil-rich countries)

    There are 10 types of people in the world:
    Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

    [ Parent ]

    Discuss, dissent and disrupt (none / 0) (#484)
    by Frank Anderson on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 03:59:12 AM EST

    The event organizers may well welcome peaceful discussion of the kind you advocate. However, in this country at least we are contending with a relic of the sixties - a spoiled and self-centered attitude among a small group of people that "entitles" them to disrupt public events.
    In this case, the person who posted this article, along with his two associates, were wearing T-shirts under their business attire with the slogan "Stop the Lies".
    This hints that they were planning to dramatically unveil their slogans at some mediagenic moment during the event. That's not discussion, as you advocate it. It's disruption. It's not driven by a desire to communicate ideas, but a desire to shock. It hinges on a total lack of respect for the time and involvement of other participants.
    To his credit, the author may have realized this - he has posted that he changed his mind about unveiling the t-shirts before being ejected.

    [ Parent ]
    (late reply) Democracy (none / 0) (#487)
    by sgp on Sat May 21, 2005 at 09:28:09 PM EST

    Is shock not a part of the open discussion? If a group of people hold certain shocking beliefs, is it not their democratic right to communicate them? Or should only the "acceptable face of society" ever get attention, and all else be quashed? Here in the UK, the British Nationalist Party (BNP - fascist scum, in simple terms) won a seat in the Parliament.
    I find their views abhorrent, and I find it entirely distasteful to consider that they have one seat (amongst 600+ 'sensible' MPs) in Parliament.
    They have the right to hold their views, and to try to persuade people to share such views. I would prefer to live in a country which allows such self-centerd wankers a democratic vote, than to live in a country which is so full of self-centred wankers as to disallow a voice to independant thought.

    If political 'debate' is to consist purely of "here's my speech" vs "well, here's my speech", that does not match my definition of the word.

    We live in a wide a varied world; much of which we might not agree with. I'd prefer to understand-and-disagree with someone than to simply say "you're not saying what I'm saying; go away (and possibly, if you have the opportunity, say it elsewhere)".

    There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone's idealogy, so long as the issues have the opportunity to be expressed and discussed. Deciding that somebody is scum "because it's obvious" denies democracy.

    I prefer to let the BNP show that they are single-agenda scum who have no ability to run a constituency, than to give them publicity by attacking them for their single-minded views.
    The suckers who voted them in will soon learn their lessons, I'm sure, and will vote for a leadership who actually know how to run a constituency (emptying the rubbish bins on time, keeping the pavements clean, etc) at the next election.

    Bashing on people's ability to voice their opinion, however offensive, does no benefit to democracy. It simply reinstates the current system whereby there are two (or three) parties who have a voice, and damn the public.

    There are 10 types of people in the world:
    Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

    [ Parent ]

    Just remember: (2.77 / 9) (#176)
    by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:21:22 AM EST

    They hate you 'cause your free.

    Bwahahahaha!!!!

    ---
    AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
    ה

    Yeah... (2.75 / 4) (#178)
    by JohnLamar on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 03:12:07 AM EST

    I guess we solved that problem didn't we?
    The worst thing you've ever seen
    [ Parent ]
    His Free What? (none / 1) (#208)
    by holdfast on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:17:20 PM EST

    Are you suggesting he is giving things away?


    "Holy war is an oxymoron."
    Lazarus Long
    [ Parent ]
    It's all starting to make sense now (3.00 / 2) (#276)
    by codejack on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:53:23 PM EST

    I get it, Bush figures that if he takes away our freedom, they'll like us, right?


    Please read before posting.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's see (1.14 / 7) (#181)
    by marx on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 06:30:57 AM EST

    Why didn't you bring out your shotgun (which all Americans are allowed to carry) and shoot the guy in the head? Isn't this why you're allowed to carry guns in the first place?

    Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.

    why yes, i do believe it is. (none / 0) (#261)
    by the ghost of rmg on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 06:24:02 PM EST




    rmg: comments better than yours.
    [ Parent ]
    don't you think that (none / 0) (#305)
    by Battle Troll on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 11:08:48 PM EST

    'adbuster1976' or 'michaelmoorefan2005' would be a more appropriate handle for you than 'marx?'
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    What is happening to my country? ;-( (1.69 / 13) (#203)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 11:22:45 AM EST

    First they came for the militant Muslim fundamentalists because militant Muslim fundamentalists flew airplanes into office towers, killing thousands of innocent people.
    But I never was a militant fundamentalist who sought to destroy the USA, so I didn't speak up.

    Then they came for the fascist dictator in the Middle East who waged wars of megalomaniacal conquest on his neighboring countries and yes, you guessed it, gassed his own people.
    But I never gassed anything except some cockroaches, so I didn't speak up.

    Then they came for the Dixie Chicks and Tim Robbins and Janet Jackson's boobies and some other celebrities.
    Well, they didn't really come for them, but some stupid rednecks said they didn't like the celebrities because they acted like they had something important to say about politics when they were just rich celebrities, therefore helping Bush get reelected by making his enemies look like stupid spoiled rich whiners, so I didn't speak up.

    Then they came for the the Bush rally gate crashers.
    But I could never stomach listening to that moron Bush anyway nor could I imagine why anyone would actually want to listen to that stupid frat boy, so I didn't speak up.

    Then they came for me. Well, they didn't really, but I saw some guys in suits with plugs in their ears acting like Agent Smith in the Matrix, so I could have sworn they were coming for me for a few seconds. But nothing happened so I finished eating my burrito and realized I was just a hysterical twit with an imagination fueled by B Hollywood movies.

    And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

    Well, except for 99.999% of the population who aren't propagandized paranoid schizophrenics.


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    You're real funny (none / 1) (#206)
    by JohnnyBolla on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 11:48:30 AM EST

    So are you calling the poster, the Denver Post, the Guardian UK, and the 117 other news agencies that covered this, liars? But yeah, keep up the cutesy comedy. It's totally hilarious when our elected officials take a big wet shit all over the Constitutional freedoms we are garaunteed. Hardeeharhar

    [ Parent ]
    hear's a magical word for you: (1.00 / 3) (#207)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 11:52:26 AM EST

    "overreaction"

    understand the concept?

    it's a fucking BUSH RALLY, what the FUCK do you expect?

    it's like the old D&D game...

    cast spell: 10 foot radius of evil

    inside the radius, you find evil

    OMG!


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    What do I expect? (none / 0) (#213)
    by JohnnyBolla on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:37:17 PM EST

    I know If a radical leftist and all, but since my goddamn tax dollars are paying for this little propoganda tour, you'd better beileve the first ammendment of the Constitution should be enforced there. what are you, eight years old? Adult concepts like liberty and responsibility get you all confused? A male prostitute with an assumed name can get into the White House for three years and these three American citizens who DID NOTHING WRONG are booted out of a public forum? Yeah, I'm overreacting. Ang you're getting a little crusted up with bong resin, smartguy. Now shush, adults are talking.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (1.00 / 5) (#214)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:39:21 PM EST

    OMG!

    like, i can't crash a bush rally!

    the world is ending!

    you talk about bong resin?

    dude, you need xanax

    IT'S JUST NOT A FUCKING BIG DEAL

    REALLY FUCKTWIT:

    IT

    DOESN'T

    FUCKING

    MATTER


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    It doesn't matter to you, because you are stupid (none / 1) (#218)
    by JohnnyBolla on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST

    To a lot of the rest of this country, it does matter. See, we have this thing called a Bill of Rights. one of those rights is the right to peacable assembly, another is to freedom of expression. Now maybe civil rights don't matter to you, but that just shows you aren't very smart. You may recall from your high school US History class that we fought a war against Britian over these rights. Or maybe you don't. and see, it's not a "Bush rally". It's a publically funded tour entitled "Conversations on strenghtening social security". Do you understand the difference between paying for an event with your own money and paying for an event with tax dollars? Allow me to explain the difference. Any entity that takes Federal Funding is required to uphold the Constitutional freedoms garaunteed in the Bill of Rights. In this case, that entity is this event. Bush didn't pay for this out of his pocket, he didn't write a check from his personal bank account. He was appearing as the President of the United States. That means the Denver three get to watch. Period. End of discussion. So I hope you can understand now what the problem is, but I suspect you can't, because you seem really, really dumb. Again, to clarify, this isn't a Bush Rally. Get it?

    [ Parent ]
    oh my god... (1.00 / 4) (#224)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:07:51 PM EST

    IT'S NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE YOU FUCKING HYSTERICAL TWIT

    IT'S A MATTER OF AVOIDING MAYHEM

    understand?

    YOU would be the first to complain if mayhem broke out that the secret service should have controlled who got into the rally!

    you would be the first to say "i pay their salary on my tax dollars, why weren't they doing their job protecting a public gathering from harm!"

    LOL :-)

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    My apologies. I didn't know you were a psychic. (none / 1) (#228)
    by JohnnyBolla on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:19:33 PM EST

    Since obviously you can't comprehend that part of it, let's try another route to find your central nervous system. Do you understand that it is illegal to impersonate a Secret Service agent? Do you understand that the Secret Service knows who committed that crime already? Can you get your pinhead around that idea and concentrate for five minutes on that fact? Now while your concentrating, ask why there haven't been any charges filed yet. when you recover from that, answer me back. I'll wait.

    [ Parent ]
    dude! (1.20 / 5) (#234)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:40:25 PM EST

    i hate bush!

    he's a fucking moron!

    i cried when he STOLE the election from gore!

    but, IN ALL FUCKING HONESTY

    THIS DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IN THE LEAST

    unless you are a paranoid hysterical twit

    REALLY!

    every single thing about this entire affair screams "who cares" while nitwits like you get your panties all tied up and a twist and scream "OH THE HUMANITY"

    it's fucking hilarious!

    :-P


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Who cares? (none / 0) (#238)
    by JohnnyBolla on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 02:34:12 PM EST

    I care. Alex Young cares. enough people care to make this a relatively well covered news item. I'm sure this isn't the first time you've started to get the feeling that you are missing the point.

    [ Parent ]
    i understand the point, all of it (1.00 / 3) (#239)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 02:42:14 PM EST

    i see the situation, i have thought about it's implications, i comprehend the portentions, i grok the insinuations, yadda yadda yadda

    and all of it amounts to A HILL OF BEANS

    i'm completely UNFUCKINGIMPRESSED

    and as for you being and others being impressed by this crap, i am further reminded about how many pantywaists there are in this world who go ballistic over FUD

    "won't somebody think of the children!"

    LOL


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    No, you didn't get it (none / 0) (#242)
    by JohnnyBolla on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 02:52:09 PM EST

    And quit LOLing me, you illiterate boob. The Hill of Beans that it amounts to is restricting freedom of speech and right to peacable assembly. I'm really finished trying to explain it to you. Go ask your Dad about it.

    [ Parent ]
    i understand "freedom of speech" (1.50 / 2) (#243)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 02:54:21 PM EST

    i understand "peaceable assembly"

    do YOU understand concepts like

    perspective

    scale

    context

    ?

    oh yeah, almost forgot:
    LOL

    (snicker)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Have you ever tried being nice? (none / 1) (#269)
    by communistpoet on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:24:07 PM EST

    You know try to not be a complete asshole when you talk to people who you think are wrong? I dont think laughing at what you see to be stupidity in people is going to help win people to your side. Please try to be less condescending and more respectful in your dialogue. Is it somehow better to write mean negative comments than it is to put time in an article that may get voted down?

    We must become better men to make a better world.
    [ Parent ]
    hey fucktwit (none / 0) (#274)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:39:53 PM EST

    this is the internet, not a coffeeshop

    you don't get anywhere being polite

    loud rude honesty trumps quiet placid lies

    think drunken fans in the stadium at a football game

    not the academic debate society's formal

    your comfort zone decide the format here about as much as my comfort zone does

    so you decide who gets their voice heard and their point made

    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You are screaming into the wind. n/t (none / 0) (#288)
    by communistpoet on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:27:33 PM EST



    We must become better men to make a better world.
    [ Parent ]
    your whispering into a gale nt (none / 0) (#297)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:14:44 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    you should try pissing into the wind... (none / 0) (#307)
    by issachar on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 11:47:56 PM EST


    ---
    Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
    Diary? I do a blog.
    [ Parent ]
    you're farting into a hurricane (nt) (none / 0) (#343)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 11:29:51 AM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually... (none / 0) (#252)
    by Sairon on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 04:17:42 PM EST

    it's quite likely. Many major news sources lie directly and indirectly quite often. They are in the entertainment business, so they take some artistic liberties here and there. Just don't confuse it with reality.

    Jared

    [ Parent ]

    Just because I am paranoid (none / 0) (#219)
    by SlashDread on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:01:05 PM EST

    is no proof, they are NOT coming to get me.

    [ Parent ]
    ok, you win (none / 1) (#225)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:09:29 PM EST

    they're coming to get you

    go put your tinfoil hat on and hide in your bunker

    LOL


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    lol (3.00 / 2) (#259)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 05:22:03 PM EST

    I like the way you exaggerate the threat posed by the rhetorical plot "fundamentalist Islam" and in the same breath pooh-pooh the by leaps and bounds much more lethal pursuit of American interests and unchecked militarism, not too mention the by no means minor influence of Christians sects on social policies that are the envy of Iran. The "stupid rednecks" you refer to are in power, and it would be a trivial exercise in political rhetoric to juggle adjectives and substitute for "Fundamentalist Islam" in your rants "America." I mean, there would be no loss of meaning. It would still be jibber-jabber, and an intelligent reader would have to conclude that situations in the world were merely narrative props for the expression of your prejudices, nepotism, and, shudder, personality.

    However, there would be a great loss in living bodies, because for every American killed by that one act of eleven criminals who happened to be Muslim, America has killed 10,000 Muslims. When's the last time an Islamic country bombed America? That's right, never. And America, when's the last time it bombed an Islamic country? Correct again, always. But perhaps I set the bar too high. OK fine then, when's the last time a fundamentalist Islamist called in a bomb threat or otherwise trolled our fears? Never. That's very interesting. When's the last time the Ministry of Defense of the Fatherland did so? Always.

    but, IN ALL FUCKING HONESTY

    THIS DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IN THE LEAST

    unless you are a paranoid hysterical twit

    Speaking of hysteria, I have a question for you. How many people are there in the world? How many of them do you suppose are terrorists? You don't say, as many as one hundred? My God, that's a lot. There are more terrorists than right-wing militia or there were Klansmen... isn't there? I mean there must be because I don't see USAF jets dropping bombs on pious podunks occupying the space between NY and San Francisco.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    let me ask you a very simple question (1.33 / 3) (#263)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 06:37:55 PM EST

    if "america" and "fundamentalist islam" are merely rhetorical props that are interchangeable, what's the point?

    just let them beat each other to death and begone with either of them, correct?

    is there any stake you have in the struggle?

    your words, with their equal opportunity contempt, seems to indicate you have no stakes in either

    so fine then, be off with you

    take your contempt to its logical conclusion and crawl into a cave, and stop commenting on that which merely makes you wrinkle your nose into a sneer

    truly, osama and i are so happy you've found the time to shower us with your contempt

    however, osama and i have been reading some pop psychology articles in readers digest, and we've been talking it over, and we agree that you seem to be serving your own ego with your contempt more than you are serving any other cause

    any other cause such as... the betterment of the world maybe?

    according to ANY ideology, that is

    something osama and i care about: the world... but we have alternative approaches to that "better" world

    and right now, osama and i? see, what is happening right now is that we're just ironing out our differences

    osama and i do have a bond after all: we both care about the fate of the world- do you understand that concept?

    you do? then what you are doing about the future of the world besides criticizing the players?

    because that's easy, criticism... you know: perfect hindsight, no risk, armchair analysis

    but don't worry your pretty little head about osama and i, because when we're done ironing out our differences, well... then we'll come for you

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    so osama and i, us interchangeable props, we thank you for your negativity, we hear your words

    but we find the loudest part in your missive to be the glaring absence of any positve alternatives to fundamentalist islam and pandemocratic imperialism

    it's so easy to criticize the players in the script, dear friend

    but it's so hard to be a player yourself

    america is one

    al qaeda is one

    who the hell are you?

    i don't see your name anywhere in the cast of characters

    you want to play with osama and i?

    ok, but there's a warning you should understand when you enter the game called caring about the struggles in the world: you might have to face some empty negativite criticism, from those who like to sit on the sideline and criticize action, but take no action themselves

    and the cutest part of these type of people?

    they think that makes them superior somehow!

    isn't that precious? such cute children, such righteously indignant teenagers... they know the answer to everything precisely because they know nothing of the real world

    but you don't have to take sides between osama and i, we understand

    just don't think that gives you a right to criticize the game if you don't take sides, see?

    at least with any words that are somehow meaningful for the players

    players... you know: people who care enough about the world to try to make it better, people who don't just TALK, but people who DO, who ACT on their beliefs

    see dear mr. spaghetti, this is the truth: i hate osama bin laden, because his ideology sucks

    but i respect him: he's doing something about what he believes in

    as for you? you i have no respect for, nor do i hate you

    why no hate?

    because you don't matter friend

    you simply don't matter in this world, because you don't do anything

    how can i hate you? you're useless

    how dare i call you empty and useless to the struggles in this world?

    i don't dare at all: you've clearly stated in your words above, that between osama and i, that you are useless

    so enjoy yourself

    but don't think you matter, to anyone except your own sense of self-righteousness, through the glorious method called not caring about the world

    take sides, or shut up, or form an alternative that works

    but your negativity is found wanting

    xoxoxoxoxoxoxox

    ;-)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Well I'll be damned. (2.75 / 4) (#275)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:42:39 PM EST

    That sure didn't sound like an apology for murdering hundreds of thousands of people because they're different. It sounded to me like a hairless monkey with murder in his genes talking gibberish to enlist support for conquest. In all the history of talking monkeys I don't believe that's ever happened before. This is the first time. Hey, CTS. I wish I had a million dollars. A million dollars is a good thing. Everyone agrees one million dollars is a good thing. But I get so sick and tired of people always TALKING about a million dollars and never DOING anything about it. I think if they were to kill a 100,000 people and take ten dollars away from each of them, they wouldn't breed so much pestilence, dig?

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    the world is owned (none / 1) (#281)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 08:56:24 PM EST

    by those who work for it

    your withering contempt doesn't harvest anything

    you care about the world

    then you have a plan to change it for the better

    then you have the willpower to see the plan through

    then you have the means to put your plan in motion

    or is it your assertion that the world is fine the way it is?

    personally i think you just don't care about the suffering in the world

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    the world (3.00 / 3) (#285)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:11:06 PM EST

    is billions of plans, one per person

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    the corollary is (none / 0) (#287)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:26:32 PM EST

    "ideas are like assholes, everyone has one, but most of them stink"


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh and btw. (3.00 / 2) (#278)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 08:10:26 PM EST

    I'm DOING the same thing you are, only for the other side. Is that OK by you? The difference is I'm intellectually honest about the selection criteria: aesthetics, or just because. It's amazing the amount of time you can save for more useful pursuits -- DOING -- for example COUNTING actual BODIES instead of torturing words to mean truth is a predicate of our tribe.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    what are you saying? (none / 1) (#279)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 08:53:57 PM EST

    you support al qaeda?

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    why would I support something (3.00 / 2) (#284)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:10:05 PM EST

    that doesn't exist? That's nuts.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    it just gets better and better (none / 1) (#286)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:25:43 PM EST

    explain "I'm DOING the same thing you are, only for the other side."

    explain how al qaeda does not exist


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I can answer one of those (2.50 / 2) (#300)
    by Coryoth on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:24:41 PM EST

    explain "I'm DOING the same thing you are, only for the other side."

    I think he meant "Trolling Kuro5hin".

    [ Parent ]

    yakking, know-nothing opinion mongering (3.00 / 3) (#302)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:28:59 PM EST

    obviously an intelligent man such as yourself knows very well al-q itself is a myth but that there are exceptionally rare and sporadic cases of unbalanced criminals paying homage to the patron figure of bin Laden, a man they have never met, and refering to an organization with which they have no concrete relationship. if al-q exists where is it? what's it doing? give me the name of one convicted terrorist who identifies as al-q. why won't its sleeper cells wake up? do you seriously expect me to believe lipstick journalist claims bin laden -- who has never mentioned an organization called al-q -- is coordinating an international network of would-be (emphasis would) terrorists? If not him, who? With what, a cell phone?

    I would say al-q exists like thelizman is a general in the us army. I would say they killed about the same number of people.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    wow (none / 1) (#328)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:12:07 AM EST

    ok, just wanted to know exactly who i was talking to

    you believe al qaeda doesn't exist

    when the world presents you facts that don't jive with your ideology, i guess your answer to that is don't change the ideology, change the facts

    you're actually one of those fools who are still in denial over 9/11

    there are 5 stages of grief:

    denial, anger, dewpression, bargaining, acceptance

    al qaeda has disrupted your worldview, has killed the validity of your worldview

    and you are in grief over that, and you're still in the first stage of grief over that

    and so you cling to your cold war era ways of looking at the world

    you're kind of sad and pathetic


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    you propaganized shitstain fuckity-fuck! (3.00 / 3) (#352)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST

    I think there might have been an al-q once, a loose affiliation of some kind that wasn't called al-q and did not even then assume any of the protean forms that are supposed to marching across the globe committing acts of terrorism with unprecedented frequency (because that just isn't happening) but it's no more. You've been fighting this mysterious organization since 2001 -- where is it! Why can't you find and convict a single al-Q terrorist? You're making shit up, that's why. Al-Q is no less a McGuffin than Jewish Bolshevism was in Nazi Germany: a smokescreen, fantastical visions and wishful thinking that would situate The Enemy where he belongs, far away in a desert country, as opposed to where he is: in your own backyard. I ask you again, why aren't we bombing pious podunks between NY and SF? Why don't we have an overarching narrative for them? At least they exist.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    um (none / 1) (#355)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 02:37:31 PM EST

    9/11

    remember that?

    bali disco? 3/11 in madrid?

    ring any bells?

    i'm sorry that these events require a rethinking of your worldview

    but your current worldview is, in fact, dead

    but i'm glad that you're getting angry, it means that you are moving out of the denial phase into the next stage of grief over the death of your cold war era worldview

    good luck, you have some catching up to do

    xoxoxoxoxoxoxox

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    ha-ha i replied to my own comment (none / 1) (#364)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 05:31:40 PM EST

    it's just as well, I didn't read yours

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    proud of yourself? (none / 0) (#377)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:24:39 PM EST

    good, i'm glad

    you don't got much else going for you other than blind pride

    you need it to keep yourself going

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    YOU AREN'T GOING TO FIND TERRORISTS (none / 1) (#384)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:25:31 PM EST

    ON SIGNOR SPAGHETTI DR FREUD YOU HAVE TO LOOK ELSEWHERE TO COUNT THEM

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    no, you're not a terrorist (none / 0) (#386)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:29:48 PM EST

    no terrorist organization would accept you

    ;-P


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    NO ONE'S PERFECT (none / 1) (#402)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 10:23:16 PM EST


    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    it's funny isn't it? (none / 0) (#405)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 10:34:43 PM EST

    your own obsolescence, it is very funny

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (3.00 / 3) (#411)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 11:05:01 PM EST

    OH LOOK EVERYONE A SENTENCE WITH SEVEN WORDS

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    Plots, always with the plots. (3.00 / 2) (#363)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 05:28:52 PM EST

    I remember 9/11. Every single member of Al-Q died on 9/11. Do you remember the retaliation? How many Al-Q agents died in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, CTS? 100? 10? 1? Many people died, two orders of magnitude more than terrorists have killed all this and last century. My question to you is how many of those were al-Q terrorists? HOW MANY!

    Your evidence of a coordinated global jihad against the west by a mythical organization is three acts of terrorism in as many years, in as many places, perpetrated by three different groups, and for three different reasons? No, that is evidence we've never had it so peaceful. For real.

    No, that is evidence you can't cope with the fact your modern voracious New York society is so fragile a common gang acting alone and less sophisticated than the one that perpetrated the Great Train Robbery can fell two towers with box cutters and some practice on Microsoft Flight Simulator. The vagaries of life frighten you. You need a monster under the bed to make sense of them, and so you shall plot one: Al-Q exists for the same reason do comic books.

    How many terrorists are there in the world, CTS? 10, 20, 50, 100 -- HOW MANY! How many US soldiers? How many lives have terrorists claimed, CTS -- HOW MANY! How many have US soldiers? How much money and weapons do the terrorists have, CTS - HOW MUCH! How much does the US Army. Can Al-Q count on for support a nation of 300 million people, an army of black-robed priests reading between the lines in their constitution, and an army of frightened monkeys on television and web blogues? Can the US army?

    100,000 Iraqis dead -- oh look over there, a train blew up. Gosh, that's never happened before.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    what does the word "intent" mean to you? (none / 0) (#375)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:23:24 PM EST

    who is more evil:

    i watch the coming and goings of a school bus for weeks, and plot on purpose to blow the bus up the next time it comes round and kill as many innocent children as i can on purpose... i succeed, but there are only 4 kids on the bus that day

    i'm escorting a convoy of supply trucks and one of the trucks in the convoy falls out of its lane into oncoming traffic, killing 24 kids in a school bus

    on scenario 2, 6x the number of children of killed

    does that make the person in scenario 2 6x as guilty in your mind?

    the joys of math-based morality LOL

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    LESS TALK MORE ROCK MOTHERFUCKER! (none / 1) (#383)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:02:25 PM EST

    I ASKED YOU HOW MANY MOTHERFUCKER ONE UNIT PER DEAD BODY VERY SIMPLE OK! YOU GO JOIN A PHILOSOPHY READING CIRCLE IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS GHOSTS LIKE INTENT AND EVIL -- LOOKING FOR TRUTH IN THE MEANING OF WORDS?? GODDAMN THAT'S RETARDED. EVER LISTEN TO WHAT SUICIDE BOMBERS HAVE TO SAY MOTHERFUCKER? THEY SAY THE SAME SHIT YOU DO THEY DON'T INTEND TO KILL ANYONE EITHER. GODDAMN WHEN YOU KILL 100,000 PEOPLE YOU NEVER MET AND WITH WHOM YOU HAVE NO PERSONAL QUARREL EITHER THAT'S INTENTIONAL OR WORDS DON'T MEAN DICK FUCKING NAZIS HAD AN EXPLANATION TOO.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    listen very carefully (snicker) (none / 0) (#385)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:26:47 PM EST

    "i intend to kill as many innocents as possible in order to hurt america"

    "i intend to democratize iraq with as little innocents hurt as possible"

    so in your mind gw bush is sitting in the white house with an iraqi children's skull drinking oil from it shouting "yeeha!"

    while osama bin laden is saying "shucks, i wish i didn't have to fly those airplanes into those office towers, why was i pushed into that corner? sniff, the poor dead innocents"

    really dude, you got serious issues

    i don't honestly believe you understand much about human nature or morality

    morality by math?

    answer me a simple query about your understanding of the concept of "intent":

    if i kill 100 people by driving a truck carrying medical supplies to a village into a train by mistake, and i feel awful about it

    versus i kill 10 people after weeks of careful painstaking planning to do exactly that, and i'm really happy about it

    who is more evil?

    you're rathere the simpleminded deluded fool

    i don't think you know about as much about human nature and morality

    i mean the concept of intent i am presenting to you is something your average kindergartner could grasp

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    YOU ARE NOT LISTENING! (none / 1) (#387)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:39:26 PM EST

    I DON'T CARE WHAT PHILOSOPHICAL FICTION MONKEYS TELL EACH OTHER TO ENLIST SUPPORT FOR CONQUEST -- THEY'VE BEEN PULLING THAT STUNT FOREVER -- THAT'S WHAT MORAL PHILOSOPHY IS FOR -- AND IF YOU COULD JUST GET IN YOUR HEAD THAT EVERYONE HAS A DIFFERENT CONCEPT OF YOUR GIBBERISH THAT WOULD BE THE BEE'S BANANAS.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    haha (none / 1) (#389)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:47:07 PM EST

    YOU ARE PRETENDING MASS MURDER IS PERSONAL -- YOU ARE WRITING STORIES FOR THE COMIC BOOKS AGAIN! -- IT IS IN FACT A BUREACRATIC ENTERPRISE SAME AS IT WAS IN GERMANY YOU SHOULD READ SOME WEBER AND SHUT UP.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    i know, pretending its personal (none / 0) (#391)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:54:55 PM EST

    i worked at the wtc until 9/11

    left work at 9 pm on 9/10, looked up, never went back

    it's totally not personal

    nah, no one was actually hurt who had families or were innocent

    i totally see where you're coming from

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I SUPPOSE A FEW IRAQIS MIGHT FEEL THE SAME (none / 1) (#393)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:06:44 PM EST

    PERHAPS YOU MIGHT GET TOGETHER WITH ONE OF THEM TO DISCUSS INTENT

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    wouldn't mind it at all (none / 0) (#396)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:13:49 PM EST

    being that an iraqi is a fellow human being of mine

    not the cardboard cut out racist stereotype you view them as


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    NO YUO (none / 1) (#400)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:57:28 PM EST


    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    i am not a racist (none / 0) (#403)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 10:27:20 PM EST

    hoewver, your cardboard cut out racist ideas of the world are showing: americans vile imperialist monsters, iraqis helpless innocent children

    we're just people man,, iraqis helping americans, americans helping iraqis


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    NO YUO ARE (3.00 / 2) (#407)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 10:58:30 PM EST

    AN ELECTRON SLUMMING MOUNT EVEREST LIKE A NEURON DON'T KNOW HAMLET YOU AREN'T COGNIZANT OF THE SYSTEM'S SENTIENCE OR GREATER PURPOSE AFTER I'M DONE LISTENING TO YOU EXPLAIN YOUR FEELINGS I'M GOING TO ASK A WATER MOLECULE HOW IT FEELS ABOUT THE ATLANTIC OCEAN OK?

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    pure arrogance (none / 0) (#409)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 11:03:19 PM EST

    you accuse me of not knowing greater things at work, and yet you are somehow knowledgable of them

    therefore the greater things you are knowledgable of that i am not is your own paranoid schizophrenia and conspiracy theories

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I DON'T KNOW (none / 1) (#413)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 11:18:42 PM EST

    THAT'S WHY I DECLINE TO OFFER A SO-CALLED "POSITIVE" ALTERNATIVE IN YOUR WORDS BUT TELL YOU WHAT I ACT FOR FRIENDS AND FAMILY NEIGHBORS THE FLESH AND BLOOD BEFORE ME THAT I CAN TOUCH MAKE SURE THERE IS NO DIRT UNDER THE CHILDREN'S FINGERNAILS AND SOME NUTRITIOUS FOOD ON THE DINNER TABLE BORING STUFF LIKE THAT WHILE YOU WORRY YOUR PRETTY HEAD ABOUT FREEDOM AND GIBBERISH OK? THE PROBLEM WITH POLITICS IS THE WRONG PEOPLE ARE ATTRACTED TO IT.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    ok you win (none / 0) (#430)
    by circletimessquare on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 02:32:45 PM EST

    oh no wait, no you don't, you chose to leave!

    how noble you are! ;-P


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    lol (none / 0) (#390)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:51:39 PM EST

    i'm glad you agree with me

    yes, those muslim fundamentalists are nuts to try to conquer the world through terror

    bali, madrid, nyc, chechnya...

    but i'll have to give some thought to your approach about doing nothing whatsoever about them except talk about how dumb they are

    not sure that will work though

    ;-P


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    OH YOU WANT TO BREED *LESS* TERRORISM? (none / 1) (#392)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:02:26 PM EST

    OK NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'VE BEEN INVADING MUSLIM COUNTRIES AND KILLING ALL THE PEOPLE THERES.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    what will you do (none / 0) (#395)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:11:29 PM EST

    when in 20 years, they talk about gw bush the moron as if he were winston churchill in the elementary school text books...

    ...in iraqi textbooks

    ...written by iraqis

    think it's impossible? watch, my friend, and learn

    bush is a moron, and he doesn't deserve that, but that such a scenario should come to pass is not implausible

    sucks to be you... imagine how much THAT scenario would burn in you?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    what if? (none / 1) (#399)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:53:42 PM EST

    I don't consider subjunctive speculation good reason to invade a country and kill tens of thousands of people. Jesus. Iraq might turn out fine (despite BushCo); but it might have turned out finer had we not invaded. I couldn't see twenty years into the future when Saddam was killing Iraqis, and I can't see twenty years into the future now that Bush is killing even more. Did you predict the future of Ceausescu's Romania? Poland? The Evil Empire itself?

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    i can predict the future with certainty: (none / 0) (#404)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 10:33:41 PM EST

    decades under saddam's sons

    thousands of iraqis killed under their rule, way more than an american invasion

    thank god the americans came and got rid of the husseins

    but you don't have to listen to me, listen to an iraqi

    you should talk to iraqis someday, you'll find them to be quite agreable to what i am saying

    i know some in new york, what i am saying is pretty much what they say

    the shias are pretty bitter that the usa didn't support them last time they revolted in the early 1990s after gulf war i

    and i'm certain you would be angry at the usa about that too: you know, damned if we do, damned if we don't, the hypocrisy of your pure hatred

    you're a racist: americans are vile imperial monsters, iraqis are poor innocent helpless children

    the world and the people in it are really more complex than your simple mind can apparently comprehend

    an iraqi is my equal in every respect, and that my fellow americans should die so they can know democracy is something i am immensely proud of

    so you stay on the side lines, and you call me a monsterous imperialist, and an iraqi a helpless child

    we're just human beings, helping each other

    where is your human conscience about the suffering under hussein?

    i would love to show your posts to an iraqi, and have them tell you why your viewing of them as helpless children is racist and stupid

    from the american invasion of iraq in 2003 comes a few things: more american security, iraqis with democracy

    from your opposition to the invasion comes one thing: the taste of bitter regret

    enjoy your irrelevance, an irrelevance of your own choosing by choosing inaction


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Zzz (none / 1) (#408)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 11:00:39 PM EST


    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    good night, small minded racist (nt) (none / 0) (#410)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 11:03:53 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    HA HA I HAVE MORE STAMINA THAN CTS (3.00 / 2) (#412)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 11:09:58 PM EST

    No, don't go. Let's log onto different accounts and argue the opposite position. It'll look like 4 people are taking part in this thread. No one will know.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    since you ask (none / 0) (#476)
    by Battle Troll on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 02:40:00 PM EST

    Ceasescu's Romania had no future the minute that Russian guns stopped backing old Lae Chioru. That's why the NSF staged a palace coup, so that their mismanagement of the state wouldn't be impeded in any way by Ceausescu himself issuing orders to the contrary.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    There are (none / 1) (#417)
    by baseball on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 12:38:01 AM EST

    "5 stages of grief:
    denial, anger, depression, bargaining, acceptance
    ."
    Hey, I saw that Simpsons episode. Homer ate the poisonous fish in the Japanese restaurant, right?
    * * *
    Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
    [ Parent ]
    You're crazy (none / 0) (#350)
    by rodentboy on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 12:49:39 PM EST

    And I'm sure you like to be called crazy, so I'm just taking some time here to make your day.

    And BTW I'm still waiting for you to answer my question: "What are you doing to solve the world's problems?"

    One of your biggest rhetorical crutches seems to be of the "you just sit on the sidelines and criticise" variety, so I'm waiting with bated breath to hear you extoll all your virtues and all the direct action you are forever taking to solve the world's problems.

    And BTW criticising someone in power from the sidelines is totally legitimate. What do I have to do, be elected US president before I can criticise US policy? Hey it's your governments job to be representing you and to play fair in the world. They work for you, the us citizens, and in a larger sense since they play in the bigger sandbox that we call the world they have a share of the responsibility for everyone on the planet. When someone who works for you doesn't do their job to your statisfaction you criticse them.



    [ Parent ]
    criticism is useless (1.50 / 2) (#354)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 02:30:45 PM EST

    without positive alternatives

    if all you do is criticize, you're not actually helping any of the problems you care about

    1 drop of positive independent effort form a total moron outweighs 10 million geniuses criticizing and poopooing whatever it is someone else is doing

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    NIce hyperbole, (none / 0) (#360)
    by rodentboy on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 03:05:30 PM EST

    Now how about answering the question?

    Who are you, where are you from, how old are you? What is your occupation. Please feel free to jump in with any other details you think are salient and that might allow us to understand you better and where you are coming from.

    You see, argue from authority a lot so I'm sure a lot of us would like to know on what basis you do so.

    It's funny that MichaelCrawford who sometimes feels that "Nazis are conducting operations in the parking lot" comes off as 10 times more logical than you. He's got schizoaffective disorder, what's your excuse?

    And BTW:

    if all you do is criticize, you're not actually helping any of the problems you care about

    is positively replete with exagerrations (if all you do is criticize), bald assertions (you're not actually helping) and is exactly the kind of hyperbole one would expect from an adolescent.



    [ Parent ]
    nice (none / 1) (#362)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 03:55:18 PM EST

    so unless i reveal my personal information on the internet to a random troll, i must be wrong?

    i've got a reply to your offer:

    go stick your dick in an electrical outlet

    and unless you do so, it means i've won this argument

    that's exactly the same thing you're saying to me

    i don't have to prove anything to you, fuckface

    you're the one who has to prove to me, as you are the one criticizing, see how that works?

    negative criticism NEVER wins

    positive action ALWAYS wins

    think about it

    but if you must keep doubting my conviction, or doubt that i have real faith in the words i speak, please, by all means, you go on with your bad self

    if that's what keeps the smug condescension working in your head, there is no need for me to deprive you of that

    because doubting and criticizing is all you seem to have going for you

    doesn't make for much of life

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Take it easy (none / 1) (#368)
    by rodentboy on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 06:41:26 PM EST

    so unless i reveal my personal information on the internet to a random troll, i must be wrong?

    No

    and unless you do so, it means i've won this argument

    Humourous, but completely orthogonal to what I asked.

    that's exactly the same thing you're saying to me

    No that's not true. I asked that you back up your air of megalomania and condescension with some credentials. It's not like I asked for your SIN and mother's maiden name. As I said earlier, you argue from authority all the time. Since that is the basis for a lot of your 'pronouncements' I thought I might ask from what sacred fount all your wisdom flows.

    you're the one who has to prove to me, as you are the one criticizing, see how that works?

    No I absolutely don't see how that 'works'. You are the one constantly arguing from authority (supposedly yours) as if you 'own' these ideas or institutions in the first place, so if anyone has to back up his credentials it's you. Criticism is crucial to a mature society, without it we'd be a nation of toadies and sycophants to authority figures. (wait, maybe we are.)

    negative criticism NEVER wins

    History has proven this false a few times. The civil rights movement, the 95 theses nailed to the church door, I could go on and on. These movements were openly criticizing (uttering 'negative' statements towards, e.g. cticicizing) institutions that had to change.

    I know that this is not what you meant by 'negative criticism NEVER wins', but that is the whole point. You make such self aggradizing, sweeping pronouncements that you seem to be determined to one up yourself with each successive comment in an effort to become a parody of yourself.

    positive action ALWAYS wins

    Poorly stated, but I agree with you. How do you think we get to the point of taking 'positive action'. Surprise, it often starts with criticism!

    However, you sound like you have pshychological problems. Think about that. A large part of your persona, that you obviously spend a lot of time promoting here on k5 sounds insane.

    (narcissistic personality disorder and megalomania?)

    This either means that the rest of you is possibly insane, which is not anything to be ashamed of, just get help; or that you spend a good part of your day acting the part of an insane person to annoy people.

    Think about it, I'm not the first person to have brought it up.

    You might want to tone it down for your own benefit. If you spend all your day ranting at people (assuming that it's just an act) then you might start to believe your own bullshit and get pulled farther and farther away from the shores of sanity.

    I don't doubt your conviction, I even agree with you some of the time, it's just that I doubt your rhetorical judgment---and to a lesser extent---your sanity.

    Just for the record, my belief is that people are basically good, but apathetic. Get too many of them together in an institution (like a government or corporation) and that apathy coupled with emergent properties can create an institutional personality that is monstruous though it's made of of basically good people. I'm cynical about institutions but hopeful about people.

    One of the obvious solutions is to try and reach people on as small a scale as possible, but until we figure out how to either, not lose the 'smaller picture', or become less apathetic, we are going to keep producing these malignant institutions that harm us.

    The good thing about the smaller picture is that it's acessible to everyone. When you travel to Mexico try and make some friends with the locals, don't just stay in some all inclusive resort, find a taxi driver and hire him for the whole day ask him to introduce you to some people see their way of life. Get to know the people at the indian grocery store near your house find out about what issues concern them. Good at math?, then volunteer to tutor kids at your local school.

    Note however that in some of these scenarios you might come up against institutional mistrust. Someone may be delegated to tell you, it's not that I don't trust you it's just a policy of the school, nursing home you see.

    So IIRC one of our tossups was on the issue of Iraq where I also made a seeping generalization about the Irakis not caring about 'our' democracy. It's an unfortunate way to state what I still maintain to be true. 'Hate the oppressor, fear the oppressed.' They aren't bad people, they just don't even remotely speak the same civic language that we do. We've tried to give them freedom, but now they have to take it and not fall into factionalism, or use the decompression of their political system to allow fr ethnic group hatreds to flare out in the open a la Yugoslavia.

    Most Irakis are probably good people, so are most US soldiers, put them together in this scenario directed from on high by a malignant institution made up of good people and you have a huge fucking mess. How do we solve the problem, if Indeed I have identified a problem? I don't know, and if you think that makes me a cynic then, what the hell can I do to convince you?



    [ Parent ]
    how do you make the world better? (none / 0) (#378)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:43:49 PM EST

    how do you make the world a better place in your mind?

    for example, saddam hussein: is your conception of a better world to leave him alone?

    he's not our problem?

    well, then you can't pretend to care about iraqis then, correct?

    if you care about iraqis, as you suggest, then how come that your care of iraqis only appears now?

    where was your caring for the fate of iraqis when saddam hussein was around?

    seems like some shallow propaganda-driven sense of caring you have there, doncha think?

    why is the usa responsible for iraq?

    there are 2 answers for that

    1. : 9/11 proves that the world is a small place: the suffering that happens in kandahar will be felt in manhattan
    2. : if all human beings are equal, then put your money where your mouth is: south of the rio grande, if what happens there that is bad, do you turn a blind eye to it?
    we are all human beings, nationalism is stupid tribalism, we must all take care of each other, or divided we fall

    democracy is good for iraqis now and forever and always was good for them

    it is patronization and condescension and racist to say iraqis aren't ready for democracy

    it is racism, pure and simple to look at iraq, or any country and say: "not ready for democracy"

    the whole world is ready for democracy, right now

    and anywhere there is not democracy, right now, is suffering that we will all pay for someday

    so why is it ok to march into iraq you say? what about china? iran?

    well doesn't iraq strike you as especially egregious, way more evil a regime than any ohter country in the world by orders of magnitude?

    additionally, there is not only caring about the world, or the willpower to care about the world, there is also the MEANS to care about the world: the usa simply doesn't have the MEANS to invade china! not by long stretch!

    besides, just leave china alone: they will democratic on their own, the leaders have even said that's their goal

    but iraq? with saddam's sons? those decades of suffering ahead?

    what is the measure in your mind when the countries of the world should invade a country to save the people there?

    in my mind, iraq fits that bill

    what is threshold in your mind across which action is appropriate?

    and the only reason why no one invaded before 9/11 was that the american people didn't have the stomach to pay the price: hundreds of american body bags coming home, so we didn't invade iraq

    however, after 9/11, they do have the stomach, they understand: the suffering in the middle east will be felt, either at home, a la 9/11, or on the battlefield, your choice

    and so they chose wisely: to free the iraqis from the bonds of tyranny

    other countries didn't help us: well other countries weren't attacked by middle eastern terrorists! why should they care? and so they don't, and so they aren't our friends

    but you say the terrorists weren't from iraq?

    true: the terrorists were form the middle east, and iraq is but the first step in the fix we need to make to the middle east

    there is a lot more to come

    if we invaded saudi arabia, that would not have solved the problem either: the point is to fix the entire middle east, and iraq is but the first step

    and we WILL invade syria/ iran if another 9/11 style attack hits the usa at the hands of muslim fundie fanatics... or if not, then syria and iraq will fall to democracy peacefully, by example of iraq

    what will you do if in 20 years, gw bush, the fucking moron, is written as if he were winston churchill in the history text books in grade school classes?

    and i'm not talking about grade school classes in the us, i'm talking about in iraq

    think about it

    do you honestly believe that's impossible?

    what will you do, what will you say about your beliefs if that comes to pass?

    so revisit your thoughts about iraq in 20 years, watch history unfold, and learn how positive action beats fear, uncertainty and doubt any day of the week

    the future is owned by people who work for it, not by those who doubt any action is possible

    action is always possible, and with the middle east, it's required, after 9/11


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Now that we're actually talking (none / 0) (#451)
    by rodentboy on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:53:31 PM EST

    how do you make the world a better place in your mind? for example, saddam hussein: is your conception of a better world to leave him alone?

    No

    he's not our problem?

    Maybe, maybe not. It's not mainstream in foreign relations to consider pre-emptive strikes against corrupt and dangerous regimes. Maybe it should be, but then what about darfour and the congo and rwanda?

    well, then you can't pretend to care about iraqis then, correct?

    It doesn't follow. In fact I do but I also care about people in the other countries listed and have a vague suspicion about dozens of other places that I should find out more about.

    I already admitted above that leaving the door open to pre-emptive strikes maight be a good idea. The problem is in the execution. You yourself state that Irak is the 'first step' in fixing the middle east. Why should it be the first step? Why not Saudi arabia which would be a much better fit considering that if any country can be said to have perpetrated 9/11 it would be them (in coalition with Afghanistan). Afghanistan, did make sense.

    It turns out that Irak was a weak regime, softened up by years of sanctions (gee I guess sanctions do have some effect). What if they had tried to invade Saudi Arabia? Or even, gasp, Israel. I think personally that the fundies at some subliminal level have to prop Israel up to hasten the end times

    And then, allowing that we think preemptive strikes are OK, what's to stop them from devolving into egregious strikes with some ulterior motive, like grabbing control of some resource or territory.

    I won't quibble about Haliburton, even if it is a sham that Bush's friends and supporters get lucrative contracts to rebuild Irak, I still think the Iraki's are better off.

    what will you do if in 20 years, gw bush, the fucking moron, is written as if he were winston churchill in the history text books in grade school classes? and i'm not talking about grade school classes in the us, i'm talking about in iraq think about it do you honestly believe that's impossible? what will you do, what will you say about your beliefs if that comes to pass?

    I will gladly take any benefits to world peace that he may be able to produce, be it out of some 'gift' for foreign relations I have yet to discern, or because he is surrounded by smart people or be it from dumb luck. If he is seen to be responsible then I will gladly give him 30 seconds of golf clapping.

    the future is owned by people who work for it, not by those who doubt any action is possible action is always possible, and with the middle east, it's required, after 9/11

    What if we treated it as a police matter? What do you think would happen? Do you think we'd have a 9/11 event every year? I'm not goading, just curious as to your thinking on that.

    I hope that our actions in Irak will not backfire on us and cause 20 ungrateful fanatics to perpetrate another attack on the west.

    This is where you can rightly call me cynical. It's great that they have democracy now, but it will take at least a generation for their political habits to change. Also I don't think that democracy by itself will pacify any culture, for that they need most of the levels of their hierarchy of needs pyramid fulfilled. Basically what we've given them is democracy and a PNAC inspired version of supply side economics with Haliburton at the top.

    What I really wish is for the new leaders over there to have the wisdom to look beyond their own factionalism, the maturity to give a nice 'thank you' to the US for the democracy but to temper that with enough backbone to say no to their liberators if they try to take advantage of their role as liberators.



    [ Parent ]
    Just an experiment ... (1.41 / 12) (#215)
    by cdguru on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 12:45:59 PM EST

    I suggest you go to a black church in some inner-city area dressed in a white sheet with a pillowcase over your head. Do nothing, say nothing, just walk in. Do you believe for one second that you will be allowed to sit there for the services?

    Or, how about going to the fur section of a large department store with a dead mink on your shoulder. Again, no distruption, no evangelism, just "shopping". Think your "free speech" rights are going to be impacted?

    How about sending a million emails out advocating some political position - any political position, it doesn't matter. Why does nearly everyone think this does not fall under "free speech"?

    Sorry, but your free speech rights do not include heckling public meetings. After about 30 years where such meetings have been broken up by people disrupting them just about everyone in the "meeting organizing" game understands there are some people you have to throw out - because it is either before they start up or after you have given them a platform. This started with colleges in the 1960's where commencement addresses were drowned out by chants. It has certainly grown to the point where any, and I do mean any, public assembly has to be "sanitized" or else the meeting cannot function.

    Do you really believe if they had an "open meeting" policy that every left-wing nutjob in Denver wouldn't come out to (a) get their face in the TV News and (b) make sure Bush couldn't spread any more lies? I'm not talking about anyone here necessarily - I'm just saying that if the meeting was really "open" there would not be a meeting. People with an agenda to prevent one word from being spoken would be there, and if let in, they would likely succeed.

    Yes, this means that some people who "might" be there to distrupt the meeting get thrown out before they actually do anything. It is a calculated risk. Unruly crowds are standard now. Live with it.

    Who heckled him? (none / 0) (#222)
    by JohnnyBolla on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST

    Please show me in any of the several hundred news stories on this event where a heckling occured. The President hadn't arrived yet.

    [ Parent ]
    Err, a suit is not a hood (3.00 / 2) (#226)
    by badtux on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:14:36 PM EST

    The guy was dressed in a business suit, and was heckling nobody. For a bumper sticker that was on a borrowed car, he was ejected from the show. This is quite different from showing up at a black church wearing a KKK hood, and you know it. You're just being a tendacious apologist for fascism.

    - Badtux the Patriotic American Penguin
    In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
    [ Parent ]

    Please explain (3.00 / 3) (#227)
    by MrMikey on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:15:00 PM EST

    how your analogy was worth the time it took me to read it.

    Case 1: American citizens who've done nothing wrong have tickets to go to an event paid for by taxpayer money at which the American President is to speak, and are booted out because they are suspected of holding an unacceptable ideology.

    Case 2: A private citizen goes to a private church dressed in a costume that is uniquely and directly associated with the wholesale murder and terrorism of the group to which the church's congregation are members, and which implies intent to cause bodily harm.

    Don't waste our time with bullshit posts. Think before you type!

    [ Parent ]

    Read more closely (3.00 / 6) (#230)
    by JohnnyBolla on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:22:22 PM EST

    He's saying two things here. One, if you disagree with the President, obviously your intention is to disrupt. Presidential detractors are all rabble rousers. Two, disagreeing with the President is roughly equivalent to being in the Ku Klux Klan. Dissent is unAmerican. That's the nice thing about these Neocon clowns. They always say what they mean, you just have to decode.

    [ Parent ]
    Not a public event (none / 0) (#458)
    by slackhaus on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 01:24:50 AM EST

    An event put on by the Republican party, Paid for and organized by them. It is the only "public meetings" our president will be involved with.

    [ Parent ]
    who-ahh (none / 1) (#292)
    by FieryTaco on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:51:13 PM EST

    I suggest you go to a black church in some inner-city area dressed in a white sheet with a pillowcase over your head. Do nothing, say nothing, just walk in. Do you believe for one second that you will be allowed to sit there for the services?
    Congress, or any other branch of the government, would in no way would be involved in you getting your ass kicked and thrown to the curb like somebody's bitch. The police may come along and arrest you for trespassing or creating a public disturbance, but that's what happens when you break the law. If you were to go get a permit to demonstrate in public, the police would be there to protect you. They wouldn't let you into private property, ie. the church, but they certainly would do their best to prevent you from getting killed.

    The proper response for the organizers of the meeting in the story would be to have someone come to the three individuals in question and let them know that if they interrupt the meeting through some random outburst or previously planned surprise demonstration then they would be thrown out and likely investigated by the Secret Service to decide if they were a threat to the president, etc. But preventing them from participating is bullshit.

    Even liberals and commies are interested in social security, they should be allowed to take part in the discussion and share their views to their leaders.

    Nice troll though.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (none / 0) (#322)
    by tonyenkiducx on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 04:47:11 AM EST

    "If you were to go get a permit to demonstrate in public" Your kidding, right?

    Tony.
    I see a planet where love is foremost, where war is none existant. A planet of peace, and a planet of understanding. I see a planet called
    [ Parent ]
    No. I'm not. (none / 0) (#397)
    by FieryTaco on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:13:53 PM EST

    It's a well established principle. Stopping someone from demonstrating in the middle of a critical thoroughfare (for example the main route to a hospital) isn't stopping that person's right to free speech. Nobody guaranteed you a right to an audience.

    [ Parent ]
    So you have the right to protest anytime/where... (none / 0) (#447)
    by tonyenkiducx on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 04:59:05 AM EST

    You just have to arrange it???? Thats fucking crazy. Whats to stop the government denying permission to protest?

    Tony.
    I see a planet where love is foremost, where war is none existant. A planet of peace, and a planet of understanding. I see a planet called
    [ Parent ]
    It is all about property (none / 0) (#469)
    by triddle on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:51:32 AM EST

    You have the right to protest at any time not at any place. Protest anytime you want to as long as it is on property you own. If you are on property that your state, county, or city owns you will have to abide by their rules. If they say you need a permit before you organize 300 people to march in the streets of down town you better do it. Being on that property is not a right it is a privilege. Most of your rights exist only while you are on your land. Don't own any land? You have very few rights.

    [ Parent ]
    other examples: Oregon special ed teachers (1.66 / 3) (#232)
    by rjnagle on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 01:26:45 PM EST

    Here's another example of the same phenomenon. I could cite others. The one thing to remember is that in college George W. Bush was a cheerleader for his school's football team. A cheerleader. The party that elects a cheerleader for its leader is a party that doesn't have any need for other voices.

    cheerleader? (none / 1) (#266)
    by issachar on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:08:59 PM EST

    That's your "the one thing to remember"? That's what you consider relevant to the discussion?
    Cheerleader not "manly" enough to make a good President in your mind? Would it have been better or worse if he'd been in the A/V club in highschool?

    How does it make any difference?
    ---
    Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
    Diary? I do a blog.
    [ Parent ]

    Sinple (none / 0) (#461)
    by mcgrew on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 09:13:07 PM EST

    Bush is our first gay president. I mean gees, if he did something as pussy as being a cheerleader...

    Personally, the thing that sticks out in MY mind is the fact that not only is he the first criminal to be elected President, Cheney is the first criminal to become Vice President. Both of these criminals were convicted of drunken driving, Cheney TWICE.

    "The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    You were a security risk (1.20 / 15) (#253)
    by sellison on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 04:35:04 PM EST

    obviously we need to be extra careful of our President in times like these.

    You may think you are a patriotic American even though you oppose our President in Time of War, but obviously for folks who's job it is to protect Our Leader, you people who oppose verbally and in writing are much more likely to oppose him physically as well.

    So get used to it, you have no "right" to come to these events, it is a privelege to meet with Our Leader and if you want to, you need to behave better.

    Republicans didn't run around opposing Rooseveldt while he was busy fighting the Nazis, one would have expected better of you dems in the middle of this War on Terror, but I guess you can't behave with honor, so you need to be expelled from places where your stickers and your shirts give aid and comfort to the enemy.

    Feel lucky that we are more tolerant than you would be if the roles were reversed!

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

    You seem to have a profound passion (none / 1) (#254)
    by MrMikey on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 04:40:56 PM EST

    when it comes to yielding to authority figures. This is not a positive attribute.

    [ Parent ]
    You're absolutly right (3.00 / 3) (#256)
    by burningsquid on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 04:50:56 PM EST

    Since the presisdent is a man chosen by god to lead His nation, it is not the duty of us merecitizens to oppose His rule.

    Of course, if he were a leader elected by the people, it would be a totally different matter, but I digress.
    Quis costodiet ipsos custodes?
    [ Parent ]

    Right, there was an election (1.00 / 6) (#257)
    by sellison on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 04:57:54 PM EST

    and the lefties and socialists lost.

    Now you should shut up and support the Presdient so he can win the War on Terror*.

    You'll get another chance to elect a anti-religion socialist in 2008, until then you should confine your protest to things that won't give Aid and Comfort to our Enemies.

    *Reforming the hoary socialist program of social 'security' is an important component of providing Homeland Security, as we need all the resources of the Federal Govt. to be focused on supporting our Men and Women in the Military.

    This is just the start of a long process of getting the Federal Govt. out of Social(ist) programs immorally and illegally started by Rooseveldt and Johnson, so that we can get it focused like a an anti-missle laser on National Security, where it belongs.
     

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
    [ Parent ]

    One of the cornerstones of America (2.80 / 5) (#265)
    by MrMikey on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 06:59:19 PM EST

    is our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights within it. The very first Amendment reads thusly:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    This is a cornerstone of our nation. You would do well to remember that. I'm also rather partial to this quote:

    The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
    - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912

    I am not a Socialist... but it wouldn't matter if I were. You'd probably label me a "Lefty". But, regardless of what convenient little box you care to try to put me in, I will not be silent. I will never be silent. I will speak out against anyone, especially the President, if I feel he is doing harm to the nation of which I am a citizen.

    We are not at war. Our nation is not engaged in military combat with another nation. This "War on Terror" is no more an actual war than the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Illiteracy." I will most certainly not remain silent in the face of a "War" that has no forseeable end. It would be very convenient for those who think as you do if everyone who disagrees with you were to remain silent. It will not happen. It will never happen. You live in a nation that values freedom; one would think you'd have come to terms with that by now.

    This Atheist Lefty is here, and he isn't going away. Get used to that. Your demand that I remain silent offends me, and spits upon the graves of every patriot who gave blood and life for the freedom both you and I enjoy.

    [ Parent ]

    Citing the constitution (none / 0) (#299)
    by orestes on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:22:26 PM EST

    Tell-tale sign of a leftist hippie. It's a rag and the forefathers didn't live in a world where iraqi terrorists crashed planes into buildings. You'd be surprised how many americans will tell you this :-)

    [ You Sad Bastard ]
    [ Parent ]
    Consitution (3.00 / 2) (#313)
    by nobrowser on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:12:45 AM EST

    Of course, that doesn't prevent you from screaming about "activist judges" and "original intent" of the Constitution every time a decision doesn't go your way.

    [ Parent ]
    Get with the current century (1.33 / 3) (#310)
    by sellison on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 12:15:17 AM EST

    or be "left" behind.

    The War on Terror isn't going to be a war like the kind you lefties are used to protesting against, it isn't going to be a war against a state like the USSR that funds your little anti-American groups.

    It is going to be a war against shadow enemies, who look like us and talk like us, right up until they blow themselves and us up.

    Winning this war is going to take some fundamental changes in how America works, changes that will mean  we will have to greatly reduce the power of the undemocrate and activist judiciary, which went so far beyond their constitutional mandate in the 60s and 70s.

    The courts may try to stop the Republicans as we work to save America, and they may make decrees and say our actions in defense of America are "unconstitutional".

    Well, like another great American Patriot, George Bush and subsequent American leaders need to stand up to the courts, and say to them "you have tried to make a new law, now you go ahead and enforce it  ."

    In other words, the Commander in Chief is mostly above and beyond the courts when there is a war on, and this war is going to last a long, long, time...

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
    [ Parent ]

    spelling (none / 0) (#312)
    by nobrowser on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:09:20 AM EST

    I would be tempted to think sellison is a troll, except that trolls are usually better at spelling.

    [ Parent ]
    I see your small mind (1.50 / 2) (#316)
    by sellison on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 02:02:03 AM EST

    is haunted by a hobgoblin.

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
    [ Parent ]
    I (none / 0) (#416)
    by baseball on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 11:57:20 PM EST

    agree.
    Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
    [ Parent ]
    Your 'War on Terror' will never end! (none / 0) (#388)
    by Morning Star on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:43:38 PM EST

    Unless you slaughter some 6 billion people. That won't really end it, just put it on hold until they get enough people with a difference in opinion that they start killing each other again.

    Let me tell you about an unfortunate truth: no matter what you do, no matter how rigtheous and noble you think it is, no matter how much you think everyone will want it, there will always be a group of people that disagree. And of that group, there will be a subset of people that will resort to violence to oppose you! Hence, your so called War on Terror will NEVER end!

    You seem to think that you will someday get everyone to agree with what you want them to. Everyone here that disagrees with you is proof that you are wrong.

    I don't want terrorists blowing up other poeple anymore than you do, but I will not sacrafice mine or anyone elses rights OR live in a state of fear because the current President says it's a good idea.

    Well, like another great American Patriot, George Bush and subsequent American leaders need to stand up to the courts, and say to them "you have tried to make a new law, now you go ahead and enforce it ."
    What? That doesn't make sense, unless your saying that congress should be enforcing the law. I assume your talking about Terri Schiavo. The three branch system with checks and balances is the bases for our government. Congress cannot pass a new law to merely sidestep a judicial ruling.

    Ardente veritate incendite tenebras mundi
    [ Parent ]
    It so hard to argue with ignorant liberals (2.00 / 2) (#424)
    by sellison on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 10:43:56 AM EST

    you don't even know your own history.

    President Andrew Jackson said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.

    What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the most dangerous - literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional subpoenas. They can't be stopped - solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God. The only power courts have is that everyone jumps when they say "jump." (Also, people seem a little intimidated by the black robes. From now on we should make all judges wear lime-green leisure suits.)

    This is America, RTF History before you think you're qualified to comment on it!


    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
    [ Parent ]

    Likewise (none / 0) (#427)
    by Morning Star on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 02:00:55 PM EST

    You seem to be ignorant of history as well. Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803): "Chief Justice John Marshall declared that in any conflict between the Constitution and a law passed by Congress, the Constitution must always take precedence."

    And you gave such a great example of America's historical dignity. Andrew Jackson's rejection of a Supream Court ruling allowed Georgia to forcibly remove Native American's from their land. Please, I'd like to know why you think Jackson's action deserves merit.

    How about this ruling, Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958), that once again declared the the courts as the exclusive interpreter of the Constitution. I suppose you think Arkansas did the right, moral and patriotic thing by rejecting the courts order to desegregate. We all know how terrible the country has become because of it!

    One more thing, if you really are so keen on protecting America and our way of life, it's in your best interest to uphold the Constitution and protect it's value!

    Ardente veritate incendite tenebras mundi
    [ Parent ]
    They didn't kill her! (none / 0) (#428)
    by Morning Star on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 02:17:43 PM EST

    What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the most dangerous ...
    Oddly enough, the judicial branch is the least corrupt.

    ... - literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, ...
    The didn't kill her, they allowed her to die. Respect the living, respect the dead, and repect the dying.

    They can't be stopped - solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God.
    Who exactly has the correct interpretation of the "word of God"? I don't live by the word of God, but if you want to, that's fine as long as it doesn't pander to hatred, intolerance or nonsense.

    (Also, people seem a little intimidated by the black robes. From now on we should make all judges wear lime-green leisure suits.)
    Sometimes I feel intimidated by right-winged jingoism and feel that people engaging in it should have to wear orange jumpsuits and shackles.

    Ardente veritate incendite tenebras mundi
    [ Parent ]
    It really bugs me (3.00 / 3) (#321)
    by Phil Urich on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 04:40:54 AM EST

    how everyone even slightly Left in the States is suddenly a socialist.  Dear god, the Democrats re more right-wing than Canada's right-wing parties!  This is going to be a bit abrasive, but YOU should shut up with your rhetoric.

    'Course, judging by your words, you're either an idiot or a troll, so either way, I shouldn't be bothering to reply . . . oh well.

    [ Parent ]

    Political hacks, and tons of cash (none / 0) (#436)
    by Shajenko on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 06:37:10 PM EST

    It's a rhetorical strategy, and it works. A lot of people hold "liberal" values, but will never call themselves liberal because of the propaganda campaign against the word.

    [ Parent ]
    Just like they won the war on drugs? (none / 0) (#351)
    by rodentboy on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 12:56:45 PM EST

    I mean remember when all americans were addiced to drugs then they started a "war on drugs" and now it's impossible to buy drugs anywhere in the US?



    [ Parent ]
    and exactly who are are enemies? (none / 0) (#457)
    by slackhaus on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 01:11:02 AM EST

    But then again you are obviously a troll

    [ Parent ]
    trollop (none / 1) (#326)
    by SlashDread on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 06:42:45 AM EST

    - The war against Iraq is nothing at all like the war against the Nazi's, by comparing them so, you show utter disdain for the survivers of the holocaust, and the Real Patriots dying for my freedom.
    - A Patriot is someone who will fight for its Coutries, now get this, values. It is not s blind nitwit, fighting for his countrie for whataver -reason- A true american patriot should oppose this Iraq thing on principle grounds. Apparently you suppose Replublicans are mindless Nationalists, like yourself. They are not. (Well Bush and his neocons are..)
    - Your remark about reps, being suprior because more tolerant reeks of fascism. Humans are humans after all, and Dems are not more prone to bias or tolerancy than Reps. If you think they are, you would have loved Mussulini and Franco.
    - Visiting a TOWN-HALL style meeting IS a privilege... for the prez. But if your prez only wants to preach to his own choir, he is a damn louzy reverent.

    [ Parent ]
    Congratulations !!! (none / 0) (#474)
    by mrt on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:29:31 AM EST

    You've been trolled.
    -

    I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
    [ Parent ]
    Security Risk (none / 0) (#349)
    by crazyeddie on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 12:44:44 PM EST

    "obviously we need to be extra careful of our President in times like these."

    You may think you are a patriotic American even though you oppose our President in Time of War, but obviously for folks who's job it is to protect Our Leader, you people who oppose verbally and in writing are much more likely to oppose him physically as well."

    I'm pretty sure that the dude was unarmed. Are t-shirts and bumperstickers deadly weapons now?

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, there's even less justifcation than normal. (none / 1) (#372)
    by DavidTC on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:06:28 PM EST

    I mean, on a parade route, someone holding an anti-Bush sign could, indeed, try to shoot the president. This is obviously idiotic, as only a complete moron would do that..if you were going to shoot the president, you'd try to look as 'normal' as possible.

    Well, I'll admit that 'assassinate the president' is on the list for crazy people to try, next to 'attempt to fly under own power', so if you see someone holding a protest sign about alien mind control, maybe it's justified politely moving them somewhere else. For the rest, no. A real assassin is going to do a Lee Harvey Oswald from a nice secure place, popping into view about four seconds before he fires. (Or, pretending the terrorists wanted to get rid of Bush, leaping at him with a hand grenade.)

    But there is at least the excuse of that to remove protestors to somewhere far away.

    But this was in a building. They had their names checked against the Secret Service's list of 'people we don't trust around the president', and they more than likely went through, at least, a metal detector. What were they going to do, leap out of their seat, pick up their chair, and sprint at the president while swinging it wildly? Could anyone seriously think they could injury the president that way? They'd be lucky if they ended up alive.

    (And shouldn't we let them do that? Hey, look, we just found a possible assassin! Let's never let him near the president again. The idiot had one chance and he attacked with a chair.)

    Of course, the fact the secret service had no excuse to remove dissents here is why there were 'mysterious' people wandering around at this, one of the most secure events in the nation, who looked like SS agents but 'weren't', who were 'mysteriously' escorting people out of the building without the SS's knowledge. Good job paying attention, Secret Service!

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    You have to understand the islamicist mind (none / 1) (#380)
    by sellison on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:58:06 PM EST

    Showing dissent like this during War Time gives them the hope that with a few more car bombs, they will drive us from our just cause. Thus it directly makes it more difficult for our boys and gils in Iraq, more likely they will be harmed.

    Can you even imagine someone showing up at a Rooseveldt rally during WW2 with a "no blood for France" sticker on their car?

    The demos of the 40s would have dragged them to a internment center, and rightly so, while they were mostly wrong-headed socialists on domestic matters, the demos of the 40s were at least real patriots.

    Not like the outright traitors you have running the demonrat party today!


    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
    [ Parent ]

    You need to learn from history (none / 0) (#431)
    by Trepalium on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 02:39:52 PM EST

    During World War II, there were far fewer opponents of the war, but there were still some. An interesting slate article mentions some of what went on. From the article:
    In fact, the only major war that lacked an organized bloc of dissenters was World War II: Pearl Harbor had made an isolationist stance untenable... Still, even during the "Good War," critics persisted. On the left, pacifists served prison time for refusing to fight or perform compulsory alternative service. On the right, congressional Republicans launched an investigation of Pearl Harbor, with some implying that Franklin Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the attack.
    That last item seems like Deja Vu. Conspiracy theories on the right seem just as loony as the ones coming from the left. Both sides like to pretend they're better and above the tactics of the other side, but when it comes down to it, political opportunism is just too tempting for either to let pass.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure King George III would agree (nt) (none / 0) (#448)
    by Mr.Surly on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:49:03 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Verify who the monkey in the suit is! (2.71 / 7) (#258)
    by Tetalon on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 05:05:13 PM EST

    First always verify who is asking you to do what.
    Just because some one looks like Secrete Service does not mean he is.

    1. A secrete service agent has both photo ID and a badge; request to see them.

    2. Ask them who they think you are before presenting your ID. If their Secret Service they already know who you are.

    3. Before complying with their orders ask to see his super visor to confirm his orders.  Then do 1 & 2 with the Sup.

    If they do not comply with your request, let them know that if they don't leave you will do one or all of the following.

    1.create a scene bring attention to what they are doing.

    2. Make a citizen arrest for impersonating a Federal Law Enforcement Officer. And call 911
    (That is a lot of years doing hard time)

    3. Subdue your Prisoner and keep him there till the real police Arrive.

    4. Always and I mean always use your camera phone. Take pictures of everthing
    and try to do it when they don't see you doing it if you can.

    And remember the secret Service can not remove you from the venue for being a political threat, only a physical one to the pres.

    I should know I am a former USAF SP and a Former Campus officer.

    Tetalon

    Tetalon Linux is user friendly; it is just particular who its friends are!

    Is that realistic advice? (none / 0) (#262)
    by cpghost on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 06:30:49 PM EST

    I should know I am a former USAF SP and a Former Campus officer.

    First of all, your advice seems reasonable, but only at first glance. If the guys really were who they pretend they are, you couldn't fight back or even resist in any way. They are trained professionals and you would be a defenseless citizen [unless you have special USAF skills ;-)].

    Secret Service people are not subject to the same rules as City or State Police or the FBI: they must act in an emergency, and presenting their ID or calling a supervisor is certainly not required of them IF they assume that you were an imminent threat. Wether that assumption has merits or not is irrelevant at the moment it is happening. This could be sorted out later and end with due apology, but this is the price to pay for effective personal protection.

    Think of the Secret Service as some kind of paramilitary organization of bodyguards for the President.


    cpghost at Cordula's Web
    [ Parent ]
    I'd bet the agent would show his badge. (none / 1) (#289)
    by trendwhore on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:37:26 PM EST

    If you're asking for ID from someone who says they are a cop what you're really saying is: "I'll do what you say, but only if you aren't bullshitting me about who you are." Unless the cop has a serious power complex, they'll do whatever is easiest to get you to do what they are asking. For most people, this is showing a badge. What is far from the easiest is asking for supervisors. I guess the agent could just grab you and phyically move you (they probably have the right) but why go through all the effort?


    Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn
    [ Parent ]
    Sure it is. (none / 1) (#291)
    by FieryTaco on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:40:14 PM EST

    Given the circumstances as they have been described, asking for ID, asking to speak to a supervisor/commanding officer, etc. is all fine. I would recommend trying to get the attention of a uniformed officer rather than making a ruckus, but whatever floats your boat.

    When the ball is in play, then just jumping on a threat is fine. When you're principle isn't on the scene then jumping on a threat and refusing to show ID and the like is just bullshit. It damages the reputation and credibility of the service.

    Now as to resisting, well I can say for a fact that if you try to resist and they kick your ass right away, then they are obviously some kind of trained individual and you can assume they are who they say they are... :) On the other hand, again a fact, unless they drop an arm bar, choke hold, or shoot you twice in the chest and once in the head right away, the odds are that you certainly are going to be able to resist even if all you can do is flop around like a fish out of water. That's just how it works.

    [ Parent ]

    In a calm situation they SHOULD produce id (none / 0) (#437)
    by Mycroft_VII on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 05:40:45 AM EST

    If there isn't an emergency in progress or some such, refusing to produce id could be a bad idea on thier part. If you simply calmly and clearly ask them to identify themselves it's in thier best interest to do so IF they are legitimate law enforcement. Only a fake or someone with serious issues (which would lower thier odds of getting into such jobs, especialy higher up ones like S.S. assigned to the presedint directly or tangentialy) would refuse to provide id if possible. They have a job to do, and fighting with a calm person to avoid showing id is almost NEVER a valid method to do it. In most states LEO MUST provide postive id when asked unless the situation prohibits doing so safely (ie in the middle of a physical confrontation, while trying to deal with nutjob throwing molotov's off a roof, etc.). If someone came up to me in plain clothes and started acting like that I would ask for id. Refusing to do so would make me assume they were NOT any sort of LEO or related and I would make a scene to protect myself. I'd make it clear to all around me the person in question was NOT leo and why and yell for real police. Mycroft

    [ Parent ]
    Secret Service (none / 1) (#456)
    by slackhaus on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 01:05:11 AM EST

    Actually the Secret Service is the Treasury Departments law enforcement arm, they mostly handle counterfeiting cases, only a few of the very best are tapped to work on the presidential detail. Trust me these men are the pinnacle of professionalism, If, during a time like this, they are asked for their ID they will produce it. Also if they come up to talk to you most of the time their will be 2, at no point do they want to put themselves in harms way unecessarily. In fact I would expect that they would quietly flash their badges before leading you out the door with as little fuss as possible. You don't get on the presidential detail by being an asshole, These are the eagle scouts of law enforcement.

    [ Parent ]
    Applause! (1.00 / 2) (#264)
    by exa on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 06:39:38 PM EST

    You are the man.
    __
    exa a.k.a Eray Ozkural
    There is no perfect circle.

    Bogus, bogus, bogus, bogus (1.00 / 4) (#282)
    by tweetsygalore on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:04:46 PM EST


    And there is nothing like these politicians and so-called public
    servants not being able to stand the heat and scrutiny to show
    how guilty they are.  God, what a joke!

    After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realised that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis comes along. --- Justice William Brennan
    P.S. It must be working if it IS... (1.00 / 4) (#283)
    by tweetsygalore on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 09:09:40 PM EST


    ...contributing to their fear and implosion.  If they weren't so guilty
    and hubristic, they wouldn't be so fragile, brittle and not very resilient!

    Best
    C

    After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realised that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis comes along. --- Justice William Brennan

    Why not mention the t-shirts in your story? (1.85 / 7) (#301)
    by FieryTaco on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:27:11 PM EST

    The t-shirts were absolutely fucking stupid. Truly. You lose any capability to claim the moral high ground when you show up equiped to hijack the, well understood, purpose of the meeting.

    I can imagine your little organization's glee when you got your tickets and can picture the "Let's play spy!" clandestine meetings held in some smokey, dark restaurant or bar where you came up with your t-shirt scheme.

    You do realize, don't you, that you not only fail to hurt your opponent, but screw all the people who are perceived as your friends when you do something so stupid?

    It's too bad that only the apparent idiots seem to get tickets to these things. If you had shown up, dressed nicely, without slogans on your underwear, were smart enough to formulate and express dissenting opinions in clear, rational terms you would have done some good. But as it is, you'll get your fifteen minutes of infamy and then fade into anonymity and the people who are really working at controlling the damage caused by the current administration will have a little bit harder time.

    FYI, I supported you 100% until I found out about the t-shirts. You cretin.

    Wow (none / 1) (#303)
    by QuantumG on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:37:52 PM EST

    The T-shirt is the ultimate embodyment of free speech. It has often been said that if it can be put on a T-shirt then it must be free speech. How can you attack a man for using the power of the T-shirt to make his point? That's absurd.

    Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't promote T-Shirts (none / 0) (#306)
    by issachar on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 11:40:48 PM EST

    making a T-Shirt slogan your "speech" is certainly your right, but it doesn't really contribute to discussion. All it does is reduce serious discussion to a sound-bite. And that's not a discussion it's just try to score points.
    "No blood for oil" might sound good, but it's a collasally naive, stupid and simplistic anti-war argument. It's nothing more than a slogan. The same thing goes for "Support our Troops".
    Aha! You've managed to say it in only three words. Clearly I must support the war in Iraq!
    Sorry for the sarcasm, but it's been a long day...
    ---
    Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
    Diary? I do a blog.
    [ Parent ]
    I beg to differ (3.00 / 2) (#304)
    by JosephK on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 10:55:03 PM EST

    They have been much more effective as martyrs. What you say is true, to a degree. However, the state of the current cultural climate in the USA is dangerous. The only glimmer of hope is that republicans are starting to reject the fundamentalist christian hijacking of their party. American news media resembles "Entertainment Tonight" more than anything else, and its shameless pandering for ratings has completely destroyed it as an information resource. Pride in ignorance was a precedent set by the first election of GWB, and has only grown worse under his watch. The recent IMAX decision to not show certain scientific films is an example, which was part of a larger story about christians attacking science in museums. Quite frankly I'm disgusted with the direction things are moving in right now.
    HTML is Dead.
    [ Parent ]
    Pride in ignorance... (none / 0) (#311)
    by nobrowser on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:05:10 AM EST

    I remember when Ronald Reagan boasted he never visited his hometown's library.

    [ Parent ]
    Also (none / 1) (#406)
    by naitha on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 10:40:07 PM EST

    Have you noticed that all you can "Discover" on the Discovery channel is how to decorate your house or build a really bitchin' bike?


    "To listen is an effort, and just to hear is no merit. A duck hears also."
    -Igor Stravinsky,
    [ Parent ]
    T-shirts now, thoughts later (3.00 / 2) (#346)
    by crazyeddie on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 12:22:01 PM EST

    They were wearing their t-shirts underneath their outer clothes. Since they weren't exactly strip searched, it wasn't the t-shirts that got them thrown out.

    I wasn't aware these things had that strict of a dress code. Surely some actual supporters were wearing t-shirts? Some with questionable taste?

    Is it still true that you have to sign an oath of fealty to Bush to get into one of these "town hall" meetings? If so, that might explain, out of all the people who oppose or are at least neutral towards Bush, only the cretins are willing to show up.

    When I attended a Kerry whistlestop rally, almost half the crowd was "Bushie Boo Birds". (There's a rumor that these were mostly out-of-towners, who were parelleling the train in their cars for the express purpose of heckling at each stop.) Another good proportion of the crowd were drunks who came over from a local bar. The Kerrys gave back as good as they got.

    Why is Bush so afraid of dissent?

    Is anybody else concerned that "security guards" are impersonating secret service agents?

    [ Parent ]

    Crimes committed by presidential staff (none / 0) (#371)
    by Incabulos on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 06:53:27 PM EST

    Impersonating a police officer is a crime in most places, I should think that impersonating a federal agent, especially one of the Secret Service is a crime too, and probably a very serious one.

    If someone refuses to identify themselves, and tries to force you to leave a public gathering in a way that constitutes physical assault, then IMHO you have every right to detain and place _them_ under arrest, or at the very least call for law enforcement types in your vicinity to carry out their duties and arrest the person assaulting you.

    Its all about the rule of law. If the President, a federal Judge, Congressman or Senator was caught committing a violent crime, then the correct course of action to take is to restrain and detain the person until police arrive.

    [ Parent ]
    President committing violent crime... (none / 0) (#426)
    by poyoyo on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 12:42:53 PM EST

    If the President, a federal Judge, Congressman or Senator was caught committing a violent crime

    I have a sudden urge to link to this photo.

    O Canada! That was in 1996 or so I think, and if anything actually boosted Prime Minister Chretien's popularity.

    [ Parent ]

    yep.. definitely helped Chretien (none / 0) (#432)
    by issachar on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 03:04:05 PM EST

    I really think that Mr. Chretien was a poor Prime Minister, but I remember that my opinion of him actually went up when I heard about the Shawinigan handshake. I found a picture though. I guess I'm human enough to want to see a little moxie in a PM even if I think he was a power hungry politician that sees the democracy as a feeding trough for the winners. Exactly the wrong kind of person to lead a country... :(
    ---
    Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
    Diary? I do a blog.
    [ Parent ]
    The thing is. (none / 0) (#398)
    by FieryTaco on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:20:52 PM EST

    Showing up all with slogans on their underwear is like going into a jewelry store with a crowbar down your pants and a ski mask in your pocket. It just presents an image that you need to avoid if you are shopping for engagement rings.

    [ Parent ]
    The thing is (3.00 / 2) (#415)
    by baseball on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 11:46:03 PM EST

    this is supposed to be a free country. Didn't Bush say something to the effect that freedom isn't America's gift to the world, it's the almighty's gift to mankind?

    If it's a free country, people should be able to have any bumpersticker or tee shirt they want. Bush's "conversations" are paid for with public funds. When Bush pushed for the tax cuts, he justified them by saying "it's your money." Well, if it's our money and people who agree with Bush get to speak their minds, so too should people who disagree.

    The fact is, these conversations with the president are just another propaganda mechanism paid for with public funds. Either people should be permitted entry regardless of their viewpoint, or Bush should use "his money" to pay for them.
    * * *
    Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
    [ Parent ]
    But it's not our money. (none / 0) (#455)
    by slackhaus on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 12:54:07 AM EST

    These town hall meetings and the such are not funded by the government, they are payed for and coordinated by the Republican party. Really these are just campaign meetings for a president who can't run anymore. Hmm funny.

    [ Parent ]
    Not true [nt] (none / 0) (#464)
    by baseball on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 11:54:35 PM EST


    Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
    [ Parent ]
    Hmm (none / 1) (#314)
    by trhurler on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:14:21 AM EST

    The way things are going, any day now the White House counsel is going to "commit suicide."

    Why I waste material like that on people like you, I don't know. In any case, everybody knows the audiences for "town hall meetings" are carefully picked over. If you didn't know it, that's because you're a moron who neither reads the news nor has any fucking clue; it has been that way for decades now.

    You're not going to stand for it? A bit late now, chump. You needed to not stand for it last November. At this point, you can stand for it or bend over, and it won't make much difference.

    For what it is worth, I disagree with roughly half of Bush's positions, and many of his actions. However, I fancy myself "not an idiot," so I would never post something like this story.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    Really? (none / 1) (#366)
    by svampa on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 05:58:51 PM EST

    everybody knows the audiences for "town hall meetings" are carefully picked over.....it has been that way for decades now.

    Really? Is that a common procedure in USA? in my country I have gone to several meetings of different parties.



    [ Parent ]
    Screw Bush; I voted (L) (none / 0) (#453)
    by pin0cchio on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 08:58:25 PM EST

    A bit late now, chump. You needed to not stand for it last November.

    Don't blame me; I voted for Badnarik.


    lj65
    [ Parent ]
    I think I know (none / 1) (#460)
    by mcgrew on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 09:12:19 PM EST

    "Why I waste material like that on people like you, I don't know."

    Because you hate us?

    "The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    Dems == dirt, Pugs == poison, dirt /= poison (none / 0) (#472)
    by anonymous cowerd on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 09:12:29 PM EST

    I heard some plenty loose audience talk at Clinton's herd-meetings. "...for decades"? Bullshit, absolute bullshit. Typical of you. For shame.

    "This calm way of flying will suit Japan well," said Zeppelin's granddaughter, Elisabeth Veil.
    [ Parent ]

    This is the sort of leftie behavior (1.08 / 12) (#339)
    by sellison on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 10:08:29 AM EST

    that makes it so important to keep you out of Presidential events:

    Pat Buchanan Doused With Salad Dressing

    Imagine the trouble it would cause to the War effort and the effort to Liberate the Middle East if our Leader were hit with salad dressing or some such at a public event!

    You lefties can't be trusted to engage in peaceful protest, so you must be identified and removed from rallies and public meetings where your actions might harm or embarrass the Presdient.

    While it would be polite to protest without throwing condoments in time of peace, in Time of War, it just cannot be tolerated!

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

    OK, sellison just HAS to be a Loki troll... (none / 0) (#340)
    by MrMikey on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 10:17:10 AM EST

    "Imagine the trouble it would cause to the War effort and the effort to Liberate the Middle East if our Leader were hit with salad dressing or some such at a public event!"
    ...
    "While it would be polite to protest without throwing condoments in time of peace, in Time of War, it just cannot be tolerated!"

    Bravo, Sir! Bravo! *applause*

    [ Parent ]

    Article not worried about a campaign issue (2.33 / 3) (#373)
    by mahlen on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:20:16 PM EST

    The American Conservative wasn't worried that a future President Clinton would use these as a campaign issue. They were worried that a future Clinton (or other non-Conservative president) would use the precedents that Bush is setting to exclude *Conservatives* from presidential events.

    See, they don't much worry about the speech or participation of *others* being manipulated; they worry that these standards could be applied to THEM. Sort of like Republicans and their newly-minted dislike of the Senate minority's ability to filibuster.

    mahlen

    oh please (none / 0) (#440)
    by CAIMLAS on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 04:53:16 PM EST

    Liberals/Democrats do the exact same thing. To imply - or say outright - otherwise is both ignorant and childishly petty.
    --

    Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
    [ Parent ]

    Oh Please (none / 0) (#481)
    by mister slim on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 08:19:50 PM EST

    Very good. The tu quoque argument. My favorite way to justify misbehavior.
    __

    "Fucking sheep, the lot of you. Yeah, and your little dogs too." -Rogerborg
    [ Parent ]

    Get real! (none / 1) (#429)
    by dostick on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 02:22:45 PM EST

    Oh in America you may be removed from political meeting or whatever that is.
    Get real! There are EU member countries where 50% of population aren't citizens and have no equal rights. People born in country have no citizenship if they are alien nationality.
    Countries are run by political mobsters in such obviously criminal ways that US prez is holy angel compared to them.
    And you're complaining about what. I wish we had your kind of problems all over the world, americans.
    My site: http://blog.enargi.com
    Getting real is complex (none / 1) (#434)
    by cpghost on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 05:31:14 PM EST

    There are EU member countries where 50% of population aren't citizens and have no equal rights

    Yes, that's true. Non-citizens are excluded from the political process. This is normal and happens everywhere in the world, not just within the EU or the US.

    People born in country have no citizenship if they are alien nationality.

    To non-americans, this may seem strange, but it is true. Not every country applies the lex soli with respect to the nationality. The place of birth is not relevant there. Instead, they apply the lex sanguini which states that you have the nationality of your parents (and in case both parents have different nationalities, you get the nationality of the father by default). This is not a good law, because it fosters the development of huge alien populations within countries that hold on on lex sanguini. That alien population never gets assimilated and they develop problems of their own. That's why lex soli is preferrable.

    Countries are run by political mobsters in such obviously criminal ways that US prez is holy angel compared to them.

    Oh yes, I'd second that.

    I wish we had your kind of problems all over the world, americans.

    There's no country without problems. Put two people together, and problems spring out of nowhere. Put millions together, and you get... guess what? Yeah: Politics!


    cpghost at Cordula's Web
    [ Parent ]
    Erratum (none / 0) (#435)
    by cpghost on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 05:36:30 PM EST

    To non-americans, this may seem strange, but it is true.

    s/non-americans/americans/

    Sorry.


    cpghost at Cordula's Web
    [ Parent ]
    What do you mean? (none / 1) (#439)
    by CAIMLAS on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 04:51:36 PM EST

    What do you mean, "posing as Secret Service agents"? Did Lon Garner specifically say they were not SS agents? Who were they, then, and how did they get in? Wouldn't this group be considered somewhat more than, say, a mere nusance? In my mind, they're covert terrorists: they're posing as members one of the more highly regarded social institutions in the United States and in the act of doing so violate people's 1st Ammendment rights. This breeds fear and disrespect for the SS and other associated groups. What is this group of people? Are they organized? Are they just a couple localized people? Are they funded? By whom?
    --

    Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.

    Next (none / 0) (#441)
    by czolgosz on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 05:52:04 PM EST

    Next come the Potemkin villages.
    Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
    Why were we removed? (none / 0) (#452)
    by fhotg on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 05:43:59 PM EST

    For being premeptively authority obeying little buggers. Being kicked out by a secret service imitation : hahaha.

    There is a standard question to everybody I don't know trying to make me go somewhere I don't want to go: "Do you carry a gun ?" If no, my answer, like that of every self respecting person, is "fuck off".

    America goes down the drain by lack of testicles.
    ~~~
    Gitarren für die Mädchen -- Champagner für die Jungs

    That's right (none / 0) (#462)
    by bob6 on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:01:21 AM EST

    Who needs society, laws and justice where we got guns?

    Cheers.
    [ Parent ]
    Touche! (n/t) (none / 0) (#473)
    by mrt on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:18:43 AM EST


    -

    I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
    [ Parent ]
    A very suspicious story (none / 0) (#477)
    by Frank Anderson on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 06:09:06 AM EST

    I don't buy the innocence act. You are telling your side of the story publicly, knowing full well that the Secret Service cannot respond.
    First of all, you were ejected from the event. It doesn't matter if the person who ejected you was Secret Service or not. You're not questioning that he had the authority to eject you, are you?
    Second, you mention that your friends were talking to the security person outside. But you don't tell us what was said. Isn't it possible that this conversation contributed to your being thrown out? Perhaps your friends voiced an intention to disrupt the event.
    Then we come to:
    They were informed that they had been "ID'd" and warned "Don't try to pull anything, or you'll be arrested and sent to jail"
    Now, why would the security folks give your friends this warning? Did your friends ask what this meant? Seems like they already knew what it meant. Were your friends recognized as people who disrupted meetings in the past?
    Why were we removed? Not for creating a disturbance. We were sitting there quietly.
    I'd like some straight answers, if it's not too much trouble:
    1. Did you or your friends attend this meeting with the intent of disrupting it?
    2. Have you or your friends ever disrupted a political event?
    3. What words passed between your friends and the security man outside?
    4. From what context were your friends likely recognized upon entry?


    Straight questions, straight answers (none / 1) (#479)
    by ayoung on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:55:50 AM EST

    1. We had no intention to disrupt the event. Even if Scott McClellan wishes really really hard, that was not the case. I'd really like to see the early report he was referring to (hint - it doesn't exist).
    2. No. Unless you call family dinner a political event, but I digress.
    3. Here's a summary:
      At the door on the way in we were asked for photo ID which was compared with a list.
      My friends (Karen Bauer (a marketing professional), Leslie Weise (a lawyer)) were then asked to step aside. I was allowed in.
      Karen and Leslie were told to "Wait here for the Secret Service."
      The same guy who later kicked us out appeared and instructed them three times that they would be arrested and jailed if they pulled anything.
      They were then allowed in.

      At no time did we even hint at any disruption, at no time did we talk about anything political. We talked about the weather - it was cold.
    4. The Secret Service has confirmed that the only reason we were removed was because of the bumper sticker on Leslie's car.


    [ Parent ]
    The Secret service can't respond? (none / 0) (#486)
    by JohnnyBolla on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:36:27 PM EST

    Why not? I bet they'd have more luck calling a press conference than ayoung would.

    [ Parent ]
    You were thrown out because you were liberal. (none / 1) (#480)
    by JavaLord on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:43:03 PM EST

    Maybe they threw you out because you are a liberal. After all, since liberals can't just listen to a viewpoint and feel the need to assault speakers, like they have done to Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan and William Kristol over the past year. I wouldn't blame the secret service for dragging your commie asses out.

    that would make a funny new phrase (none / 0) (#485)
    by mattw on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 07:37:26 PM EST

    "Innocent until proven liberal."

    Your vitriol against liberals aside, why shouldn't we remove all Republicans from all public events because they tend to blow up things they don't like? (e.g., abortion clinics)


    [Scrapbooking Supplies]
    [ Parent ]

    America: Where A Bumper Sticker Gets You Banned | 485 comments (442 topical, 43 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!