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]
Liberty? What liberty?

By mcgrew in Op-Ed
Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 08:46:20 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home - the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty" -George W Bush

Just what liberties do we Americans have that other countries do not have?


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.

When I worked at Disney World in the early 1980s, I had a conversation with a gentleman at Epcot's Chinese pavillion who had only arrived from China a month earlier. He had said something positive about President Reagan, and I set him straight about the doddering old fool that occupied the White House. I blasted his cuts of the Capital Gains Tax, which had unleashed an orgy of corporate takeovers and layoffs. The gentleman was horrified that I would dare say anything against the government, and looked around nervously as if expecting the FBI to appear from nowhere, slap me around and drag me away.

Certainly there are other countries (I can think of a few in the Middle East) with no freedom to speak.

But our own freedom to speak carries such heavy limitations that to think we are better than the Chinese is laughable. You can be arrested for "hate speech." If you badmouth the wrong corporation (and face it, the corporations are the government here, the politicians only being figureheads who do the corporations' bidding) you will be slapped down with a S.L.A.P.P. suit. You won't go to jail, but you will be financially ruined.

2600.org wasn't allowed to link to an algorithm (DeCSS). The courts have held that you have no freedom of speech when writing in a computer language.

Our freedom of speech is illusory.

Religion? Again there's China, and Cuba. However, I don't think that Christianity or Hinduism are illegal in Saudia Arabia.

On the other hand, children have been suspended and even expelled from school for evangelizing. They're being punished both for their speech and their religion.

As to freedom of assembly, that's been gone for quite some time. You want to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" by protesting en masse in front of the statehouse? You're going to go to jail for not having a permit- in short, you must have permission to petition the government by peaceful assembly. Having to ask permission doesn't seem too free to me.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I'll let you folks beat these dry horse bones. Just let me say that you have no right whatsoever to bear arms in the city of Chicago. In fact, try walking down the street of any American city carrying a shotgun. And again, at least in the state of Illinois, you have to have a Firearms Owner ID card (FOID) to own a gun. Again, if it's my right, why do I have to ask permission?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

When the cop pulls you over and wants to search your car, try refusing. Apparently a car isn't a "place to be searched," or an "effect."

In short, your 4th amendment rights are meaningless.

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Except after your 4th amendment rights aren't violated when they search your car and they find a little baggie of pot under the back seat. They take the car! No trial, nothing. Even if you go to trial on the drug charge and are found not guilty, they still keep the car.

A few years ago the newspapers reported that there was a soldier who was pulled over for driving a used car while black in some little redneck state down south. They searched the car and found cocaine in the door panels. He was arrested and his car confiscated. It turned out that he had bought the car three weeks earlier, and the cocaine came with the car. Nobody knew how it got there. The soldier was released without any charges being filed- but he never got the car back.

So much for that part of the 5th amendment.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Guantanamo.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Apparently bail of a million dollars is not exessive for an unemployed man accused of murder. Apparently zapping a man with 90kv in order to kill him isn't cruel, nor was it unusual when it was first done.

And again, it doesn't apply at all if you're a suspected terrorist. The Bush admisistration, who touts our supposed superior freedom, has gotten his lawyers to say that torture is neither cruel nor unusual.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Where in the Constitution does it say they can deny my right to do anything to my body I wish? How are drug laws Constitutional? Particularly when they felt they had to amend said constitution to outlaw alcohol?

If a woman has the right to remove a zygote, blastocyst (which, btw and beside the point I do support) from her body, why does she not have the right to put anything she wants into her body, whether it be food, cocaine, or rat poison?

On top of this, there are countries in this world with more freedoms than ours. I'm thinking Amsterdam, and most likely your country's citizens enjoy freedoms we Americans have long been denied.

It's been said that if you repeat a thing long and often enough, it's believed. It was likely true that Americans in 1800 were the freest people on Earth, but no more. Bush and every other American should just shut the hell up about our vaunted freedoms, especially when they all seem hell bent on removing them.

-------------------

Non Americans, please use this forum to point out freedoms you enjoy that we don't.

Sponsors

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

Login

Poll
What freedoms should we give up in our war on terror?
o None, you traitor 64%
o Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression 1%
o Amendment II - Right to bear arms. 5%
o Amendment III - Quartering of soldiers 2%
o Amendment IV - Search and seizure 1%
o Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. 0%
o Amendment VI - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses. 1%
o Amendment VII - Trial by jury in civil cases. 0%
o Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment. 4%
o Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution 1%
o Amendment X - Powers of the States and People 1%
o All of them, you criminal 17%

Votes: 75
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home - the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty" -George W Bush
o Also by mcgrew


Display: Sort:
Liberty? What liberty? | 489 comments (365 topical, 124 editorial, 0 hidden)
Interesting (3.00 / 7) (#2)
by Cat Huggles on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 07:31:23 PM EST

I live in neither country, but when I was googling around I found this comparison of Germany and the USA: http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/us-d.html#freedom

lots of problems with this (1.75 / 4) (#85)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:56:41 AM EST

It is filled with exaggerations and selective examples whenever it's convenient to bash America. In some cases, he's misleading (name one 16 year old that has ever been executed) or plainly wrong (either Japan or North Korea are the most technological societies). He's also inconsistent (Germans mock cell phone users but then he has so much concern for the quality of its technology).

The fact is, he doesn't understand freedom. Democracy is freedom and not merely the basis for it. If Americans elect to embargo Cuba and prohibit travel to there, this isn't an accurate example of a restriction on travel. Because the decision was derived under democratic principles we have placed the restriction upon ourselves. We are free to rescind it at any time. That's the freedom we enjoy, not this grocery list of individual activities.

Americans are free to do everything he said that we couldn't. We just have to vote that way. It's as simple as that. The exact same thing is true in his country which enforces values and places restrictions on such basic things as work. As a result, each country reflects their collective national identity. He seems to prefer the German identity and that should not be a big surprise.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
I don't know US well enough to judge, but ... (3.00 / 2) (#190)
by schrotie on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:13:40 PM EST

It is filled with exaggerations and selective examples whenever it's convenient to bash America.
Ugh, yes. So what about the many examples where America comes off better (aggression, general attitude of people, public US TV, user friendliness of Bureaucracy, welfare work, professional attitude, class mobility, health technology and many others)? As for exaggeration: It is indeed a bit over the top to call the average German "anal-retentive". But in comparison to Americans it makes perfect sense. Exaggerations helps marking the point of comparisons. The selective examples are indeed an impressive selection. One wonders how it was possible to list so many points and still be so selective </irony>
In some cases, he's misleading (name one 16 year old that has ever been executed)
It usually takes years after the crime for an execution to take place. The US has murdered dozens of people who were underage when committing the crime.
or plainly wrong (either Japan or North Korea are the most technological societies)
The text says "One of the most ...", not "The most..."
He's also inconsistent (Germans mock cell phone users but then he has so much concern for the quality of its technology)
Inconsistent but right. Who said people or the world or anything is consistent?
He seems to prefer the German identity and that should not be a big surprise.
He moved from Germany to the US and claims to live there now - doesn't look like he prefers Germany. Being a pessimist German he now quarrels with his miserable fate in the US. Not surprising at all :-)

[ Parent ]
Originally, I did a point-by-point (none / 1) (#195)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:31:38 PM EST

Almost everything he says is overgeneralized or selective to the point of exaggeration. Some things he says are true but the overall piece is highly flawed. I was just presenting examples of each thing.

There have been dozens of executions for crimes committed by minors? I'm asking for just one. I'm still waiting. The reality is different from the belief and unless you produce proof, your rhetoric is empty.

Your other example is completely wrong. Here's the relevant quote: "It is well known that the US is the most heavily technologized society". Of course, I said North Korea instead of South Korea, but that's a common typo--the S,N,R, and U keys are so close together on American keyboards. ;)

I don't know about your overall general thesis that he can offer plenty of exaggerations and surely some of them must be true or that the overall effect paints a general picture. Europeans have some imagination that everyone in America is fat. Of course, when I think of Germans I think of Oktoberfest and sausages and rolly-polly men in leiderhosen so the stereotype can go the other way. I've met three native germans; two were fat and one was thin. Does that legitimize this stereotype? Not really. If I give a hundred more similar examples, must any of them be true or do they describe an overall picture? Not really.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Child murderer (none / 1) (#210)
by schrotie on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 08:06:06 PM EST

Almost everything he says is overgeneralized or selective to the point of exaggeration.
Yes indeed, just as the author claims:
I am constantly generalizing here; [...] generalizations are wrong; I'm trying to capture a hypothetical average. And not even that: just the average of my personal acquaintances mixed with some information gathered from news media.

There have been dozens of executions for crimes committed by minors? I'm asking for just one. I'm still waiting.
Well, if you really care. I have no proof for any execution, underage or not. Underage execution was recently outlawed by the supreme court. News of that even made it to Germany. It's kind of ironic that the US wouldn't leave that very small group of rouge nations (including North Korea) who practiced such atrocities earlier. In that context actual cases were mentioned in the German news, which I mostly trust. Anyway, here are the cases I found from 2000 until now (all were 17 when they committed the crime):

Your other example is completely wrong. Here's the relevant quote: "It is well known that the US is the most heavily technologized society".
Which continues:
"if you count TVs, phones, microwaves, pagers, cars or personal computers per person, you'll find that the numbers are far higher than in Germany, or most every other country for that matter."
Emphasis mine.

I don't know about your overall general thesis that he can offer plenty of exaggerations and surely some of them must be true or that the overall effect paints a general picture.
You don't know that? You should read real books for a change. It's a technique commonly employed by authors.

What do we learn from this? The author forgot to mention one important point: Germans are arrogant knowitalls. I found the linked article rather entertaining. You seem to have read quite some of that article too. Why? It is very long. You like reading crap?

[ Parent ]

interesting (none / 0) (#223)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:08:34 PM EST

point well taken about the child murderers. I would only argue that every single one of those cited were over 17, qualifying for the legal status of "minor" but I think we can all recognize that they're clearly in that transitional gray area between childhood and adulthood. Almost no parent and definitely no 17 year old would call themselves a child and no one outside the law treats them that way. Still, I'll concede your point because I don't want to move the goal posts on you in the middle of the debate.

When I say, "I don't know that..." this is a polite way of saying, "I disagree about..." This, too, is a common ploy by authors and perhaps I might encourage you to take your own advice.

Incidentally, I got my degree in philosophy. Being an arrogant know-it-all is just as common as reading a bunch of German crap. ;-) This would just be considered light reading and I sped through much of it.

The rest is quibbling and we're not going to agree. Until next time, be well.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Actually, I take part of that back (none / 0) (#226)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:12:29 PM EST

His claim was that they execute 16 year olds, so you haven't really validated his claim.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
True. (none / 0) (#286)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 01:51:08 AM EST

But he also pointed out that they convict (to death) those who commit murder when they are 16. I'm not sure if this is accurate or not, but as has already been pointed out, the U.S. recently stopped the execution of juvenile offenders.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
NO-O-O-O! (3.00 / 2) (#346)
by davidduncanscott on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 10:00:57 AM EST

Democracy is freedom and not merely the basis for it.
Democracy is neither freedom nor the basis for it. Democracy is at best the least objectionable means for preserving freedom.

Just because Japanese-Americans were outvoted in 1942 doesn't mean that the internment camps were free or that their imprisonment was right or just.

Freedom is hard, and democracy must be fettered by respect for individuals or else it simply becomes a tyranny of the majority. Is it here, Slashdot, or Plastic where somebody sports a sig pointing out that democracy shouldn't be 51 wolves and 49 sheep voting on the dinner menu?

[ Parent ]

Asset forfeiture (topical repost) (2.71 / 7) (#4)
by Magnetic North on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 07:47:14 PM EST

I saw an episode of JAG the other day, where one of the officers, who had previously worked at the Mexican border, told the JAG head honcho that their standard routine was to sell all cars forfeited in drug busts to the border managers brother-in-law. So there is obviously some fishy things going on regarding asset forfeiture.

On the other hand, I'm not so sure you can trust JAG for good information any more. Last week there was an episode where a US soldier was being tried before the ICC by some arrogant prosecutor with a very phony french accent. In fact, all the arrogant nasty little ICC fuckers had really annoying false french accents. Anyway, I didn't catch the first twenty minutes of the epsiode, but a US soldier tried by the ICC? That just doesn't happen. By the end of the episode the JAG lawyers had won the hearts of the fake french accent ICC officials, and they not only acquitted the soldier, but also ruled that the latest invasion of Iraq was just and a really good thing for all.

Sorry for posting this twice, forget to select 'topical'.

--
<33333
Little hint. (none / 1) (#23)
by The Amazing Idiot on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:38:42 AM EST

Thats populist TV crap.

Thats not real life.

Every petition for the US to be involved with the ICC has been ignored, as it takes ratification of a foregin treatise by 2/3 congress (or was it senate?).

[ Parent ]

Little Hint (none / 0) (#28)
by richarj on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:32:53 AM EST

YHBT

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
I agree with most of what you said, except: (1.66 / 9) (#5)
by kurtmweber on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 08:02:02 PM EST

Just let me say that you have no right whatsoever to bear arms in the city of Chicago.
Well, actually, you do. Your rights are yours--they cannot be taken away by an external force, only renounced by an act of your own volition. Government is simply abrogating your rights--the right still exists, but government isn't allowing you to exercise it--meaning that government is WRONG.

Apparently zapping a man with 90kv in order to kill him isn't cruel
Well, no, it's not. For it to be cruel it has to be worse than what is deserved. Death by electrocution is actually much LESS than what a murderer deserves--he deserves a shitload of torture beforehand. Hell, murderers aren't even human anyway, so they don't enjoy the rights that humans do.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
+1 (none / 0) (#318)
by Ubiq on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 02:16:31 PM EST

I don't agree with this _at all_, but he has a point.

[ Parent ]
the problem (3.00 / 8) (#6)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 08:11:45 PM EST

The constitution is vaguely worded and sweeping in its scope. For example, we allow 20 year olds to drive but not 12 year olds. Isn't this age discrimination prohibited by the 14th amendment? Where is your outrage against this gross injustice?

Few people want their laws to be either and if you're writing a law this is generally considered a bad idea but this is how the entire constitution is written. The entire business of the judiciary ever since Marbury v. Madison is to tackle these two problems. You cannot agree with the court's decision in Roe v. Wade but disagree with the consequences that lead to all of these other ills that you mention.

As a result, we have a panel of nine officials whose collective opinion on a law matters more than the opinion of those who enacted it. If necessary, they even invent laws or rights to defend their rulings. While this sometimes works well (civil rights in the South), this is still merely the perspective of which side of the political football field on which you stand. Let's ask some of the older residents of the deep south if they enjoy the privilege to hire and fire whomever they wish and lets talk to him about his civil rights. Mind you, I agree with the civil rights movement and I can see how it could be read into the Constitution, but there's a jump from "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of citizens" to "Private citizens are obliged to follow specific hiring practices" that is immediately obvious. If it's not obvious, you can toss a coin to decide how the courts will rule, either inventing justifications along the way or adhering to myopic principles of strictly reading the constitution.

The courts have long known they had this sweeping responsibility which is why there are frequent discussions about judicial restraint. The checks placed on the judiciary do not stop them if they choose to be tyrants. Whether you like it or not, this imbalance lies in that document whose amendments you cherished.

-Soc
I drank what?


Its never so easy... (1.66 / 3) (#21)
by The Amazing Idiot on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:29:49 AM EST

---The constitution is vaguely worded and sweeping in its scope. For example, we allow 20 year olds to drive but not 12 year olds. Isn't this age discrimination prohibited by the 14th amendment? Where is your outrage against this gross injustice?

Not quite. Its accepted that people under 18 are 'junior citizens', and hold a limited subset of freedoms (such as not being able to vote or represent themselves without due process). And if any age laws were to be attacked, it should be the "drinking age". I can go kill myself in "War of the Week" when Im 18, but cant drink until 21? WTF?

I can understand why there's an age limit on certain offices (president, senator, and such), but why the hell is there an age limit ABOVE full citizenship for drinking a liquid?

---Few people want their laws to be either and if you're writing a law this is generally considered a bad idea but this is how the entire constitution is written. The entire business of the judiciary ever since Marbury v. Madison is to tackle these two problems. You cannot agree with the court's decision in Roe v. Wade but disagree with the consequences that lead to all of these other ills that you mention.

For starters, I question anybody who says abortion is a right.. What then does the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mean? Or does it just apply to living beings not in the womb?

Yet still to go to abortion, does he even know the precident in which RoeV.wade set? Guess what, it never actually fully allowed abortions. Go read the verdict for yourselves and you'll understand.

And my last point about abortion is that before 1900, abortion was LEGAL in the USA. Around 1900's, a whole bunch of laws were passed illegalizing abortion, when it was perfectly legal since 1776. Roe V Wade could be seen as undoing the laws made back in the 1900's. Id rather have those freedoms to exercise (and let the states decide) rather than some huge federal crap banning therof.

---As a result, we have a panel of nine officials whose collective opinion on a law matters more than the opinion of those who enacted it. If necessary, they even invent laws or rights to defend their rulings.

Thats the first big no-no. The supreme court can issue down any verdict in which they were asked, yet Congress can pass any bill into law and override the Supremem court. They can also rewrite the Constitution, if need be and the SCOTUS has jack to say about that.

Also, the President is of the Executive branch, and can "Not Execute" the verdicts passed by SCOTUS. Law's a law, but with no enforcing (executing), its a worthless law. Of course, these days the President has this non-existant "executive order" which skirts around the other 2 branches of government. Thats more dangerous than any activist judge (well, you CAN impeach a judge if they are shown to not act in the best interest of the citizens of the USA).

---If it's not obvious, you can toss a coin to decide how the courts will rule, either inventing justifications along the way or adhering to myopic principles of strictly reading the constitution.

And this can be said whenever you disagree with the verdict. Like I said above, all they can do is put forth verbose sheets of paper with words on em. They have no clout if the Executive branch decides to not enforce it.

---The courts have long known they had this sweeping responsibility which is why there are frequent discussions about judicial restraint. The checks placed on the judiciary do not stop them if they choose to be tyrants. Whether you like it or not, this imbalance lies in that document whose amendments you cherished.

As an aside, what happens to professors these days who get tenure? They go ape-shit-crazy, you say? They go activist? Damn straight. They do all sorts of things, as they pretty much cant be fired. Well, we have a system of tenureees. I wonder where the problem is.....

[ Parent ]

Proving your nick (3.00 / 2) (#81)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:13:18 AM EST

Sorry to sound harsh, but I think you completely missed my points. For starters, I'm opposed to abortion, I have read the verdict and I never said anything supporting or disapproving of the subject, just pointing out that the same principles used in that particular decision that the original author supported were also used in these other instances that he doesn't support, such as prohibitions on free speech, etc.

The constitution says you cannot discriminate; the constitution says congress cannot abridge freedom of speech; neither of these are strictly true. The wording of the constitution can be interpreted to give 12 year olds licenses but it has been interpreted the other way around too. You can invent any reasons you want to, but they are not found in the constitution because the words themselves are vague and sweeping.

Also, you apparently aren't familiar with the appellate judge who was asked if judges can make law. He famously said, "Of course they do, I made some myself."(Can't find the exact citation since I'm not at home but here's a decision--a dissenting opinion I might add--that references it). It's a standing fact that we recognize the phrase "legislate from the bench." Theoretically, they cannot but in practice they do.

Also, a verdict has as much authority of execution as when the president speaks even if the judge's decision is controversial. Were we complacent when the Supreme Court legislated that Bush (and not Gore) was to be president? Despite our grumblings and bumper stickers, everyone including the police, congress, the courts, and unions accepted Bush's role in the office and Gore became a private citizen. The last time that the President didn't enforce the will of the courts was Andrew Jackson who pissed off everyone when John Marshall recognized that Cherokee lands were sovereign. Jackson's policy of "Marshall decided it, let him enforce it," would immediately lead to impeachment today since this undermines all of the power of the judiciary granted to them by the constitution; Jackson essentially nullified the entire document.

Ultimately, you'd think we would agree because of your last paragraph. The Supreme Court is basically a group of tenured professors screened by the Senate. I'm not proposing that they went crazy but the possibility for extremism is much more liable when there is little oversight and fewer personal consequences.

Also, I don't think lifetime appointments are a bad idea since certain areas (education and adjudication being high among them) thrives with this independence. There will be abuses of it, sure, but a free judiciary is better than one that is a puppet of either the executive or the legislative branches. I was merely recognizing some of the problems and responsibilities that comes with this independence.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Amsterdam (2.83 / 6) (#7)
by jandev on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 08:28:51 PM EST

On top of this, there are countries in this world with more freedoms than ours. I'm thinking Amsterdam, and most likely your country's citizens enjoy freedoms we Americans have long been denied.
Come on mcgrew, do your research before you rant. The Netherlands may be one of the freer countries in the world, but beside the fact that pot ("soft-drugs") is semi-legal (Really, Vinnie Vega isn't that far off the mark in Pulp Fiction), and that prostitution is legalized (maily because you can't stop it anyway so you might as well tax it), you are not "freer" than you are in the US of A. When something unpleasant happens, the first reaction of the average Dutchman is "there should be a law against that".

He shouldn't be afraid. There probably already is a law against it.


"ENGINEERS" IS NOT POSSESSIVE. IT'S A PLURAL. YOU DO NOT MOTHERFUCKING MARK A PLURAL WITH A COCKSUCKING APOSTROPHE. APOSTROPHES ARE FOR MARKING POSSESSIVES IN THIS CASE. IF YOU WEREN'T A TOTAL MORON, YOU WOULD BE SAYING SOMETHING LIKE "THE CIVIL ENGINEER'S SMALL PENIS". SEE THAT APOSTROPHE? IT'S A HAPPY APOSTROPHE. IT'S NOT BEING ABUSED BY SOME GODDAMN SHIT-FOR-BRAINS IDIOT WITH NO EDUCATION. - Nimey

Lol (none / 0) (#315)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 11:45:49 AM EST

And in the US his first reaction would be "I must be able to sue someone for that!" followed by "well there should be a law against it!" and then a class action suit.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Why do you hate America so much? (1.25 / 4) (#10)
by wobblywizard on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:17:20 PM EST

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

--
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

Actually... (2.66 / 6) (#11)
by jd on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:44:18 PM EST

There were two court decisions involving DeCSS. One ruled it was free speech, the other that it wasn't. The one that ruled in favour of DeCSS was largely ignored by the Government, because it was inconvenient to them, the RIAA and MPAA.

Also, the Second Amendment entitles you to bear arms. It doesn't specify what kind. That is to say, the Second Amendment is not violated if the Government bans individuals from owning tactical nuclear weapons. In fact, the Government could ban all projectile weapons and still be covered. Except that the NRA would then invade Washington DC and seize power.

I don't agree with your other points, at least not in their entirity, but I do believe that you have raised issues for which there are no satisfactory answers from those in power. The Government cannot reasonably Govern, if it has no idea why or how.

Guantamalo is an interesting case, in that the Government lost when the case was taken before the Supreme Court. Despite losing, they have done nothing different and have made no effort to compensate those they illegally and willfully abused.

Quite the opposite. Because of that, and doubly now because of the Terry Schaivo case, the Republicans are hell-bent on impeaching "activist" judges (ie: those who disagree with the Government). For those unsure of what that means, it's quite simple. The judiciary would, in effect, cease to exist. The President would be law-maker, arbiter, judge, jury and executioner in a single person. Such a system would be akin to the rulership of the God-Emperors of ancient Rome.

The arguments by the military that (a) Guantamalo isn't in America, (b) the prisoners aren't Americans, and (c) they are Unlawful Combatants are all speceous arguments. Nowhere does the Constitution say that these are rights of the Americans. Rather, it states that these are constraints imposed upon those in authority in America.

In consequence, it is irrelevent as to where they are. Representitives of the Government are doing what they are prohibited from doing. Where, why or who to is of no consequence. It is NOT a "law", with a defined jurisdiction in which it can be applied. It is an obligation upon the State itself, no matter where it is.

Either the Constitution is to be applied as it is written - a "jail" in which the Government is confined, but within in which it is free to operate how it wishes - or we might as well get rid of it. If it's not followed as designed, it is a distraction and a hinderence.

Let's Enumerate Together, Shall We? (2.83 / 6) (#14)
by Peahippo on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:07:50 PM EST

On the Lost 1st Amendment ...

The thing I like to sum up about the so-called freedom of speech in America goes thusly:

    You are free to speak about things that don't matter.

When it comes to controlling this government, particularly the influence of corporations and the actions of the military and intelligence services, you have little to no speech rights.

The first cut in the liberty of speech is having your speech matter. When it comes to the important things (placing government under populist controls, and reigning in government attacks upon foreigners and domestics), your voice is almost impossible to get heard by the other mass of people whose voices are also suppressed.

THIS is the reason wackos like myself and you indulge in terminology like "our freedom of speech is illusory". And the matter is more complicated that any Conservative or Liberal (America's 2 great surface power groups that act in concert to support the only real power group, WEALTH) will ever allow to be heard in many of America's forums.

Of course and in contrast, the Internet does allow people like us to be heard. In the very act of complaining about "our freedom of speech is illusory", we are committing an act that is particularly real and has significant reach. The only other way we could achieve this kind of exposure in the non-Internet world (say, an alternate universe where we would still be using typewriters and would still be sending paper letters to each other) is by getting involved locally with media -- newspapers, flyers and pamphlets, community TV.

On the Lost 2nd Amendment ...

Freedom/liberty and safety are inversely proportional. There's no way around that. Unfortunately for us Sons of Liberty, we are depressingly outnumbered by the folk who prize safety over liberty. This understandable -- yet uneducated -- desire has led us down the road where the right to keep and bear arms has been significantly infringed, much in violation of the US Constitution. The 2nd Amendment's current status is one of the largest indicators that the US Constitution has lost its grip as the "law of the land", and has lost significant ground to the "rule of the mob". The great question of safety vs. liberty should have long ago been debated in the Congress and then each individual legislatures, as the proper procedure of amending the Constitution should have been followed to allow even one gun-ban law to proceed. But this wasn't done, and probably will never be done, since the US Constitution is simply being replaced by mob rule, where polls, popularity contests and money are the current basis of the American legal system.

On the Lost 4th and 5th Amendments ...

When it comes to drugs, in general the legal system is utterly uncontaminated by any hint of the prohibitions enshrined in the 4th Amendment. This is also expanded by considerations of "organized crime" and now the latest delusion, "terrorism".

Furthermore, the right to not "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against" yourself has also long ago been rescinded in practice, since there are many routes by which the legal system tries to acquire evidence on you that you made yourself.

On the Lost 6th Amendment ...

The terrorism thing has simply brought this particular goblin out of America's long-standing closet of fear reactivity. America has broken her 6th Amendment time and time again when the excuse of war arises.

On the Lost 9th Amendment ...

This is one of the most widely misunderstood parts of the American law of the land. People continue to assume that the US Constitution PERMITS us, yet it is actually the other way around ... it PERMITS government, leaving everything else not expressed as PERMITTED to us.

... sigh ...

Look, let's be honest. The US Constitution was formed by some rich White British who simply wanted to run their own Empire -- a monarchy of mercantilism -- here on the North American continent. From its very formation, the US and State governments have steadily (by fits and starts) eroded the rights under which the individual should have been protected from Imperial acts. As each generation goes by, the law's increasing complication makes for more restrictions upon individual liberty. This goes on since each generation gets bribed with sections of law that they (in all their selfishness and derangement) like and benefit from.

This great pig of a system has long since needed a revolution to re-adjust it to individual needs and to re-establish individual respect (--yes, this includes the rights of small businessmen (disclaimer: I'm not one of them)). The tree of liberty in America has withered for a long time without sufficient watering of its roots with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It needs to happen.


did you write that from starbucks or your suv? (nt (1.00 / 8) (#20)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:25:53 AM EST



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

[ Parent ]
Neither (2.33 / 3) (#41)
by Peahippo on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:34:28 AM EST

I don't attend to the coffee shops like Starbucks. Shops like that fail the coffee+cookie combo financial test (PASS = coffee+cookie < $2.50.) The latest effort I'm trying lately is to get some coffee on at people's houses; it's cheaper, it's more social, and it allows us thirtysomethings to adapt better to schedules with kids and such.

As for an SUV, I'm not the type of fool who bought one of those (as if I'd be so depressingly stupid to buy a new car in the first place). That brings up an anecdote I experienced just today. The cheap Cincinnati Jews who run the company that I was outsourced to only pay 22c/mi for when we run service calls for our support of a bank's IT infrastructure. My co-worker complained today that he has to get rid of his SUV (which he bought a couple of years ago, foolishly thinking that things like profit sharing would continue to be paid to the lowest workers on the bank's totem pole), but that he's rightly concerned that no one will buy it. There was nothing I could tell him. We have over 22 million of these gas-guzzling vehicles on America's roads, and that's about 20 million TOO MANY.

At any rate, as I type this on my 1995 PentiumI 100Mhz, 32MB RAM, 1080MB HDD machine, over a 56K modem dialup, I find the prospect of wireless Internet frankly amusing ... as in very yuppie, very expensive, very self-indulgent, and overall very foolish. I still remember typing out my letters on a typewriter I bought in the early 80s, and note that I sent many letters out over "snail mail" -- back when mail meant paper mail, as in the only form of mail.

In summary, you're barking up the wrong tree, CircleJerk. Go troll the high schools for your dates and dance partners. The urban yuppie digerati is a fucking idiot, and I'm not one of those.


[ Parent ]
Cincinnati Jews? (1.20 / 5) (#51)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:28:58 AM EST

you whine of revolution, yet you're rich (in the world)

you whine of the stupid digerati, yet you post on kuro5hin

and you whine of cheap jews and urban yuppies, yet you think you're enlightened

call me what you will, but i'd rather be me than what you're steaming in

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

[ Parent ]

Leading Questions Don't Go Where Intended (1.50 / 2) (#133)
by Peahippo on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:44:09 PM EST

you whine of revolution, yet you're rich (in the world)

I don't whine about revolution when I say it's inevitable.

I am rich by world standards, but I don't need to draw my daily water on foot from a community well a few miles away. I live in America, where there is a commonwealth, and I demand my share of it or there will be violence resulting.

you whine of the stupid digerati, yet you post on kuro5hin

I deride the digerati, yet I post on Kuro5hin. Yes, you're exactly correct. And I still note I didn't post from an overpriced coffee shop (as you intimated) and I didn't post from some big-dick SUV (as you intimated). I post from my home, where I have an old info-appliance ready for me, like a modern typewriter. This is at the level that I WILL afford, not what a CAN afford, since what I CAN afford is just overspending like the digerati.

You really are quite pathetic in your leading questions, CircleJerk. Like any Neo-Liberal, you try to bring back the Age of Stupidity dominated by "Political Correctness". Although I despise the current Fascist admininstration, they did get rid of the terror produced by PC.

and you whine of cheap jews and urban yuppies, yet you think you're enlightened

I complain about them, and I AM enlightened, Roscoe. The people fucking you over RIGHT NOW are almost 100% certain to be White; however, the prevailing media -- which contains a greater-than-normal concentration of Jewish names, hmm -- strives intensely to convince us all that the people fucking us over are darker skinned (via fears of violent crime). I complain about the cheap Jews (essentially all Zionists, which is Jewry's REAL problem) since they have been camoflagued by our fear of being labeled "anti-Semite" whenever we bring the subject up. The thing unexamined here has been taking control ... as should stand to reason, since anything not under reasonable oversight gets out of populist control, DUH!

You live in "Jew" York City, so no doubt you live in a low-level but pervasive fear of falling under the wheels of the ADL. I understand your reluctance to deal with the Truth. However, it does indicate that you're afraid or controlled ... and I have no respect for those.

call me what you will, but i'd rather be me than what you're steaming in

Fair enough, but you're still an Imperial Apologist who has bought into the idea of an American Empire which runs on the blood of the domestic working class, underpaid foreign immigrants, and slaughtered foreign sovereignties. This culture of murder-death-kill has earned you another utterly lethal "terrorist" (in reality, "freedom-fighter") attack. Since you live in NYC, you are apt to be one of the first people to die, to be maimed, or to be injured in the next, inevitable event. Sorry, but that's just a stupid way to live.


[ Parent ]
you think you know me? (1.66 / 3) (#149)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 02:30:04 PM EST

some facts about my existence:

i was engaged to a a jamaican woman for 5 years, and lived way in the sticks in jamaica for awhile, no running water, no electricity

yeah, i must hate brown people

and i have no jewish friends, i don't care about the jews, i don't like jews, i don't hate jews, jews simply don't register in my existence, because i am able to approach the world without being a racist

until 9/11, i worked at 5 world trade center, and lost my job because of that event, and was on unemployment benefits for 9 months after the event. i left work on monday, 9/10 at 9 pm, and woke up late the next day. lucky me.

and i see people like you, putting blame for situations in this world for evils that i have seen delivered to innocents in the form of death by agents not of the usa

and i have seen the 3rd world (i spent a month on the philippines last year and am going back again this year and am learning visayan) and i know what they suffer is the result of the local assholes more than anything the usa is doing, and in fact, the usa's actions are helping

and i know that saddam hussein out of power in this world is a good thing

and i look at people like you, who bitch and blame and moan, and know not one thing of a positive criticism or a solution, and i see how useless and empty you are, spoiled rich children of the west, so loud, so pointless

you're a child crying in your diaper because no one will change it

maybe someday you'll learn to look at the world and the human beings in it as it is, rather than as you imagine it to be, but i doubt it


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

[ Parent ]

now theres the deal (none / 1) (#154)
by army of phred on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:51:58 PM EST

You were close enough to 9/11 that you're no longer qualified to comment. You are emotionally involved.

Now sure we are saddened by your loss but you'll live the rest of your life in a cloud of revenge colored lust, and you are useless to us who want to view the world as just beings in the pursuit of what is right.

Because you were wronged, you'll spend your days wanting revenge, and any sense of impartiality or principles are mere impedements to your quest for blood. On the other hand, Bush loves you guys :-D

I'm sorry for you but thats the way it is and heck I bet you have no choice in the matter.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]

we're all emotionally involved dude (2.00 / 2) (#159)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:30:22 PM EST

i mean, just look at your choice of words ;-P

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

[ Parent ]
Im not emotionally involved. (none / 0) (#283)
by The Amazing Idiot on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 01:36:55 AM EST

So what? A bunch of "terrorists" (which most every other country has experienced) took 2 jets into the 2 trade towers and a chunk of the Pentagon.

Big deal.

How many exactly die from smoking every day?
How many unborn babies are "aborted"?
How many die from easily curable diseases (3rd world)?
How many die from plain and simple hunger?
How many die from simple and easily solved stuff?

So yeah, 3000 or so isnt a big deal to me. Yeah, I saw the towers fall and felt bad for em, but darn. It could have been MUCH worse.

Worse as how? Using RC airplanes to deliver aerosolized "you name it"(biotoxins, crop diseases, deadly chemicals, radioactive dust...) over a city. I saw at a flying show some people who had RC planes and only then understood how high they flew.  And Im sure those lil planes wouldnt be on any radar, now would they.....

And for those Secret service people who do read here, I do not plan to do it, nor considered it. It was a blend of that movie "The Rock" (using bios on a missle to hit 50k people in a stadium) and just seeing those RC planes and how high they go.

[ Parent ]

you're such a moron, really, quite stupid (none / 0) (#335)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 07:42:40 PM EST

INTENT

what does that mean to you, that word?

if i am driving a truck full of medical supplies to a hospital and i fall asleep at the wheel and crash into a school bus, killing 20 kids

versus

i watch the school bus coming and going for weeks, carefully plotting how to kill the kids in the bus, INTENDING to kill as many as possible, and i crash my truck intot he bus ON PURPOSE and i kill 4 kids

who is more evil? whos hould be punished?

what does the word INTENT mean to you?

quantity of dead?

so morality is math to you?

i killed 4 kids ON PURPOSE versus i killed 20 kids BY MISTAKE

but 20/4=5 so the guy who killed 20 kids by MISTAKE is 5x as evil as the guy who killed 4 on purpose?

what kind of retarded remedial moron are you?

no, really and for true: we're talking about a concept that YOUR AVERAGE FUCKING KINDERGARTENER CAN GRASP

why can't you?

100% bona fida truth: you seem to be low iq

you can't understand a simple concept like INTENT when you talk about the world

you have to be 8 years old, mentally, if not chronologically

and you're not emotionally involved you tell me?

okaaaaaaaaaay

let's look at the tone of your words again, and the fac tthat you REPLY to me as a judge of your emotional invovlement

LOL

some more remdial education most elementary school kids can understand:

  1. someone loves you
  2. someone hates you
  3. someone doesn't care about you
yhou say you are in category #3, when your average 3rd grader reading this thread would clearly identify you as #2

you're emotionally involved you moron, really

you know, i come to kuro5hin, and argue with a lot of fucks

but every once in a while i meet a fuck like you that puts it all in persepctive:

there are always people who oppose you in like, no amtter what you believe in

the value of kuor5hin is to come here and read the thoughts of those hwo oppose you, and to understand where they come from

and so when i meet someone like you, i only grow more certain in my beliefs

to know that someone like you, as genuinely fucking stupid- no i mean really low iq, not the the throwaway insult word, is the type of person who opposes my beliefs, then i know how right i am in the end

dude

you're a retard

a genuinely low intelligence person

you don't understand what "intent" means

you don't understand what "emotionally invovled" means

your average elementary school student does

you go on with your bad self, loud and proud

please

becuase every word you say leads everyone who reads your words to know people like me are right

because you're just SO GENUINELY FUCKING STUPID

LOL ;-P


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

[ Parent ]

You can't stand criticism of your Empire (none / 0) (#351)
by Peahippo on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST

You don't have to straw-man or even actualize a "hatred of brown people" to be an Imperial Apologist. You just have to worship the violent nationalism of the corporatized government that's killing all those darker-skinned folk. Invariably, your beloved killer government attacks and destroys a lot of poor communities across the world. Don't even DARE call this "collateral damage"! YOU are responsible ... as one of the mass of people who allege to be a part of a populist government, yet do not vote Fascists like Bush and Kerry out of office. This is one of the pillars of bin Laden's argument ... and you can clearly see from the USS Cole, African embassies, and 911 how he likes to argue. The effects of bin Laden's (and other "terrorists'") physical arguments are merely the logical consequence of running a murder machine known as an Empire.

If you kill people by remote control for decades, eventually some of the survivors are going to kill you. This is especially inevitable when you lay affluently engorged in the stupid squalor of your Empire.

As for racism ... it is hardly racist to take note the of the disproportionatly high percentage of Jewish names that have taken control of intellectual vectors in America. In fact, if it were not for Jews, by names alone I can tell that half of the soci-political works upon my personal bookshelves simply would not be there. YOU are merely following the falsehood of the Neo-Liberal anti-racism religion, where to even identify racial differences is a sin. But I well know the path that leads us down. It leads us to an America-Israel Axis of evil ... which is yet another pillar of bin Laden's argument.

and i see people like you, putting blame for situations in this world for evils that i have seen delivered to innocents in the form of death by agents not of the usa

I already wrote my congresscritters about this. In fact, here's the text of that letter:

2002 MAR 19 TUE
Dear Senator DeWine:
Dear Senator Voinovich:
Dear Representative Kaptur:

When the Congress gave the nod to the Executive Branch to go off and
perform military actions in response to the Sep.11 attacks, I did not
expect or want low-intensity eternal warfare carried out against select
sovereignties. I did not expect or want the military to destabilize --
then usurp -- the government of Afghanistan and kill untold numbers of
people.

I did expect and want Osama bin Laden and his directly responsible
companions to be apprehended.

We do NOT have this bin Laden character in hand to answer to the people
he has harmed ... but we DO have a more shattered Afghanistan and an
Executive Branch that is seriously out of balance with the other
government branches.

This entire affair is a travesty and IT MUST STOP. The American
military has had 5 months; it must now either produce Osama bin Laden
or return to the sovereign territory of the United States. Furthermore,
the American military has NO mission related to the Sep.11 attacks to
perform in the Syria, Iran, Iraq, or North Korea.

If my statements mean little to you, then how about those of Maxine
Waters and Dennis Kucinich? They are voicing the only acceptable moral
path for the Congress.


As you well know, 10 times the number of American troops were sent to Iraq (where Osama bin Laden is NOT), which only demonstrates the "War on Terror" is ONLY a war on sovereignty in the Middle East. Which is exactly what we'd expect a murder machine (i.e. Empire) to do. And which is why Imperial Apologists like you avoid such issues and harp on "my way or the highway" and "America, love it or leave it" sentiments.

America is the #1 rogue nation in the world. It has little respect for international law, especially those that impede its Imperial aims. This is so since the American CIA is the #1 terrorist group in the world. Bin Laden and his pack of murderers are CIA TRAINED, you unbelievable shithead. But you don't pay attention to that since it doesn't fit the "support the Empire" argument.

and i know that saddam hussein out of power in this world is a good thing

You therefore know what your Imperial masters wanted you to think. Hussein's fall was for the Iraqi people to accomplish, not anyone else ... and certainly wasn't worth invading an entire nation for. (That brings up the logical question: If "depose a dictator" was a real reason for the invasion and not one of the usual lies for Imperialism, then why didn't the US military leave soon after his capture? Hmm!)

you're a child crying in your diaper because no one will change it

That's EXACTLY what an Imperialist would say about a fellow citizen who tries to keep the murder machine under control, if not to actually put a stop to it. Since you will never see yourself as evil from this Imperial support, you will probably never follow this line of logic.

I look forward to however many future years are necessary to falsify your Imperial Arguments ... until (hopefully) a (somewhat more) just society returns to America, and people like you drown in your own venom.


[ Parent ]
I have to disagree here... (none / 1) (#433)
by Shajenko on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 12:12:08 AM EST

Freedom/liberty and safety are inversely proportional. There's no way around that.
I have to disagree. The closer either of these gets to zero, so does the other. For instance, if you give all your freedom over to the government, you are now at their mercy, and your safety is gone.

Similarly, if you give up all safety you have, get rid of the police, etc. in favor of freedom, whoever has the most power just uses their freedom to threaten everyone else, taking away _their_ freedom.

You need to give up a little of both to have either one.

[ Parent ]
-1, rusty yelled at vera. (2.00 / 3) (#15)
by the ghost of rmg on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:09:49 PM EST

that's just going to keep coming back to haunt you, mcgrew my man.


rmg: comments better than yours.
as it should (3.00 / 3) (#116)
by zorba77 on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:41:07 PM EST

Teachers pet + hippie = hypocrite
Return the West Coast to the Tribes of sasquatch!
[ Parent ]
And people say he doesn't care (1.25 / 4) (#187)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:09:46 PM EST

How would YOU like to see death threats against you, daily, in someone's diary? And how was that remark in any way related to the topic?

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

0, slander. (3.00 / 2) (#196)
by the ghost of rmg on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:34:03 PM EST

until you can provide documentation, please shut your bitch ass mouth.


rmg: comments better than yours.
[ Parent ]
Death threats? (none / 0) (#257)
by vera on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:48:14 PM EST

Excuse me, but you sorely lack reading comprehension skills at a level where you're qualified to interpret so much as a childrens' book.

I'll let you get away with it this time because you're so adorable in all your aged senility, you big ol' curmudgeon you!

[ Parent ]

Quit ranting, old man. (2.00 / 6) (#17)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:09:05 AM EST

You're simply not qualified to interpret the Constitution. You have no idea what rights it actually preserves.

Why don't you write about something you can understand, like sports?

What are YOU smoking? (none / 0) (#186)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:08:30 PM EST

I'm a nerd, what do I know about sports?

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure. (none / 1) (#194)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:16:22 PM EST

Your usual method of telling us how little you know about a topic is writing an article on it, and you haven't written an article on sports yet.

[ Parent ]
whine whine bith and moan (1.63 / 11) (#18)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:17:13 AM EST

i'm really not that concerned with westerner's rights and liberties, they are all rich and fat

i'm primarily concerned with the rights of those who aren't rich and fat

such a comparison is perfect in regards to guantanamo, mentioned above: americans couldn't actually care about the rights of those south of the rio grande, nor even understand them, EXCEPT WHEN FRAMED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT REFLECTS ON THEIR OWN RIGHTS

a perfectly self-serving position

the author is a typical selfish spoiled western rich useless fuck, of which the us has no monopoly on (cue canada and western europe)

the real struggles of this world are in places and with issues that would embarass you with the seriousness of them as compared to your petty concerns

so loud, so empty, so ignorant about the rest of the world

i feel for the horrible atrocities committed upon your fiery conscience, really

you're a useless asshole, righteously indignant and loud, just like a whiny teenager who knows nothing of the real world

and there sure are a lot of you useless fuckers in the west


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

What about refugees? (none / 0) (#24)
by richarj on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:45:20 AM EST

They flee to the west to escape persecution. Would they be better off at home? I know the answer is no, because I know the places they come from. You may argue fat rich westeners but what about those living in the west who are not rich, those who have emigrated. Are you saying they should have to put up with this as well?

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
and what, exactly, are they putting up with? nt (1.00 / 2) (#25)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:05:48 AM EST



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

[ Parent ]
Exactly what mcgrew says (none / 0) (#27)
by richarj on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:28:06 AM EST

You may now argue that those things are little compared to what they had in their previous country, but you might find that the US is on the slippery slope towards becoming just like their previous country. The big question to me is at what rate is that happening? How many people are heading to the US only to find out the grass is no longer green?

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
stand up, announce your uselessness loud and proud (1.33 / 3) (#30)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:49:08 AM EST

paraphrasing your words:

"the fat man is stumbling, prop him up, and you can continue ignoring the poor guy as you always have"

the only morally and intellectually defensible position to take on any issue in this world is a global one

so you won't find me weeping for the west

but you may continue to do so

but first you should consider the fact that your hypersensitivity to the west's supposed slide announces your appalling lack of concern for real suffering

while you bemoan the west's cracking pedicure, there are other areas suffering from liver cirrhosis

and you have the gall to think that their experience here is like where they come from, and you consider that caring for them!

we live in a world where fat old rich western fucks spend tens of thousands of dollars on their pet's health care, while millions of their fellow human beings scrape by under the boot of truly evil men

you're just another iteration of that example: purely selfish concern, complete unawareness and cluelessness to a wider world, only able to understand other people through the lens of your own selfishness: you can't even pretend to talk about people from other lands EXCEPT UNTIL THEY COME HERE

you're just another pathetic whining useless western rich fuck

you're completely useless to real problems in this world

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

[ Parent ]

you take a position (none / 0) (#36)
by richarj on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 02:25:51 AM EST

and you are not willing to waver from it, not because you believe in your position but because you believe in being right. Mcgrew at the end of his article states "Bush and every other American should just shut the hell up about our vaunted freedoms, especially when they all seem hell bent on removing them." I believe that America is deluding the world about its true freedom. BTW I wish I really was a "rich fuck" because then I would be helping the rest of world by giving money to the third world in real ways. Maybe you are a bit dis-illusioned about America but not everywhere is full of people thinking only about themselves. Australia recently has received a large number of Sudanese refugees. Many of them came to live in my town. I came to know one of them personally. She had lost almost everything except her children (her husband being educated was murdered). I was introduced to her by a friend because she had computer problems. I helped her no charge. She got a degree at our local University (yes our education is free) and has moved on to further help those left behind in Sudan. Since then the Sudanese community has started a special banking program where we Westeners lend money to them which they use to get more people out of their country. They then get the money back and build on the funds so that more people can escape. I haven't given much to this program because I am on social security. I cannot give much more in other ways because of mental illness. But I would if I could. You see there are some people in this world who do give a damn. Who can see past their earthly possesions and are willing to help those less fortunate than others in any way they can. Unfortunatley you seem blind to this fact. Probably as a result of being in the insular US culture. I knew what the word refugee was in primary school not because we were taught it but because they were our friends. To me guns are not something we should have a right to, guns are weapons used by cowards to kill the innocent. How many orphans have you helped, how much do you give to charity. I give what I can but sometimes I believe it is not enough. You watch on TV, I listen to displaced people about the reality that is our world.

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
i got this far and then stopped reading (1.00 / 2) (#56)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:40:28 AM EST

"not because you believe in your position but because you believe in being right"

how can you tell?

seriously: what if i am a true believer in what i am saying?


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

[ Parent ]

the fact that it stopped you reading (none / 0) (#342)
by richarj on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 12:16:09 AM EST

Actually the fact is I know you are smarter than your post posits. Mcgrew may be whining but you put people in boxes like westeners and third worlders. The real world is far more complicated than that and I know that you know it.

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
BUY LOW SELL HIGH (none / 1) (#57)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:44:47 AM EST

WE'LL SCRAMBLE OUR LEAR JETS FLY TO SUDAN FIX THEIR PROBLEMS THE NUBIANS CAN COME HERE FIX OURS THAT WAY LOCAL PROBLEMS NEVER ESCALATE INTO GLOBAL ONES BYE KIDS LOVE YOU HONEY MOHAMMED KHALIL WILL THE KEEP THE PRESIDENT HONEST WHILE I'M GONE. YOU THINK GOOD CTS YOU FOUND THE SOLUTION TO POLITICS: THINK LOCAL ACT GLOBAL.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

what would you do about sudan? nothing? nt (none / 0) (#58)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:46:29 AM EST



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

[ Parent ]
I'D LIQUIDATE HALLIBURTON AND BUY MEDICINE (none / 1) (#60)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:58:14 AM EST

YOU?

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

maybe you'll learn something today ;-) (none / 0) (#61)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:11:34 AM EST

and then what would you do with it? ;-)

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

[ Parent ]
OBVIOUSLY NOTHING MORE can BE DONE (none / 1) (#63)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:27:36 AM EST

SO INSTEAD I'D PREACH THE SUDANESE TO HATE THEMSELVES FOR NOT THINKING OF US.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

is that what it's all about? (none / 1) (#64)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:34:38 AM EST

and i thought i was trying to help the sudanese as a proof positive gesture of the basic goodness of humanity

of course, in your addled mind, the only motive you can imagine is self-hatred, probably because you've been stewing in it for so long you don't know much about anything else


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

[ Parent ]

SO YOU'RE HELPING THE SUDANESE (none / 1) (#68)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:34:28 AM EST

BY NOT ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING TO HELP THEM BUT BY TELLING PEOPLE WHO WANT TO MAKE A SMALL DIFFERENCE IN THEIR PATCH NOT TO BOTHER BECAUSE THEY'RE FAT. WHERE WOULD WE BE TODAY IF WE FOLLOWED THAT ADVICE WHEN OUR LOCAL POLITICICIANS WERE RUNNING SLAVES FROM AFRICA? OH WAIT WE DID FOLLOW THAT ADVICE AND THE OLD IS NEW AGAIN. I GET IT SAY NO MORE.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

if you talk long enough (none / 1) (#72)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:12:56 AM EST

flat is round and light is day

however, if you ever remember what it means to be human again someday, then it might shock you to learn that what is happening in darfur insults something called a "human conscience"

do you know what that is?

and people with this fancy notion called a "human conscience" want to do something about it when they hear and see genocide

of course, in your mind, refering back to evils that happened in history is a nice way of scrubbing away a human conscience

pray tell dear guru: if it is all so hopeless, why are you still talking?

;-P


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

[ Parent ]

yeah yeah less "meaning" more action (none / 1) (#74)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:39:58 AM EST


--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

without action what meaning is there? nt (none / 0) (#76)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:54:27 AM EST



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

[ Parent ]
lol what (none / 1) (#78)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 08:15:38 AM EST

"I want to thank everyone for making this day necessary."

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

talk is talk and talk is cheap (none / 1) (#79)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 08:27:49 AM EST

so if you will only talk and talk, what are you worth, what is the strength of your words? what will you fight for?

if there is no action behind your words, your words have no meaning


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

[ Parent ]

why are you asking me? (none / 1) (#82)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:23:18 AM EST

Who does not act? You are creating some verbal goods, turning the reader's attention away from the actual product: the tyrants in your own backyard. You are trying to sell a package, and especially the doctrinal matter around the package. CTS: all people act, or else they are dead. We are organisms adapted to protect ourselves against harmful stimuli, such as the Bush administration. Even a burnt-out drunk like McGrew does his fair share more than you, for you are the yammering intellectual whose pastime is to sit on high fences and deplore the innate stupidity of the herd. They are true craftspeople. They derive more meaning from the doing, trying to make a difference where they can, than the talking. When we hear a neocon say, "The masses are fat, noisy, and stupid" we are in the presence of a mythmaker singing on his perch behind the bars of a verbal prison.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

more (2.50 / 2) (#91)
by Battle Troll on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:17:13 AM EST

The masses are fat, noisy, and stupid

They are, but that doesn't mean that they're wrong. Everyone knows how Frederick the Great suggested that he might punish a misbehaving province.
--
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's funny (none / 0) (#131)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:35:47 PM EST

i would think you would be deploring the masses, seeing as they voted bush back in and are in iraq enforcing his ideas

i actually trust the masses: that's why we have a jury of our peers

a jury of "experts" correlates to nothing but a jury of people with an agenda, and so "experts" would dole out less justice than impartial unbiased average joes

education in subjective issues is really nothing more than indoctrination

and so the average joe on the street is more wise on pressing issues than a senior professor at a college: the professor has an axe to grind, the average joe has none

so you have me pegged wrong there buddy, i'm actually probably the biggest anti-elitist populist you'll ever meet

my faith in the "mob" is absolute


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

[ Parent ]

You count funny. (none / 1) (#177)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:39:56 PM EST

i would think you would be deploring the masses, seeing as they voted bush back in and are in iraq enforcing his ideas

The masses comprise billions of people stretched out across several continents and united in their opposition to Bush. "Voted" for Bush, huh? I prefer to think 75,000,000 people have low sales resistance.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

ahhhh ;-) (none / 0) (#237)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:49:04 PM EST

you're so sure of that?

i really would like to see a world wide vote on bush, i don't think he would be as universally despised as you posit, he's admired for fighting for what he believes in the third world

i've been there and TALKED to people about that

bush IS a moron, but what if in 20 years he's in the middle school history textbooks as a churchillian figure...

not the american textbooks, the IRAQI ones

he doesn't deserve that, bush is a fucking rich frat boy, and i don't like him, but it's possible, and i would love to see the face of someone like you in 20 years as some iraqi kid talks about bush like he was churchill

LOL


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

[ Parent ]

Huh-ah! (none / 0) (#246)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:22:58 PM EST

bush IS a moron, but what if in 20 years he's in the middle school history textbooks as a churchillian figure...

i've been there and TALKED to people about that.

What a coincidence.

As a dashing young Marxist I organized meetings, wrote pamphlets, prepared lectures, concocted programs for the public welfare and spread publicity with great enthusiasm. Those already inclined to my point of view attended the meetings, read the pamphlets, listened to the lectures, adopted the programs, but the hostility of the unconverted was colossal, baffling. Over time it became apparent I was wasting my time. What we reformers meant was not what people thought we meant. Often we were not heard at all; noises came through but no meaning. Few of the seeds we sowed bore out the theory truth mattered. Why? Why does Mr. Bush's dubious "war for democracy," as if slogans monkeys mutter past each other are face value, go over with military roars of "huh-ah!" while our carefully reasoned appeals drift listlessly down the columns of alternative newspapers?

Because guns.

When I realized that I shaved my angry beard and got a job.

It became clear what mattered was victory. Guns. Of course he'll be written about glowingly in history; in politics nothing matters but the victory and it is no accident victors write the history.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

but what goes around comes around (none / 0) (#253)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:41:46 PM EST

so that's good i guess

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

ps: look at china (none / 0) (#263)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:01:41 PM EST

decades of communist rhetoric results in the most ravenous capitalist culture in the world today tha makes the days of robber barons and child labor of the gilded age in the usa look tame

amusing

let a thousand flowers bloom indeed

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

[ Parent ]

lol (none / 1) (#268)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:29:52 PM EST

righty whitey will saying

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

sigh: will say anything (none / 0) (#272)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 12:17:01 AM EST


--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

hey moron, you missed something important (none / 1) (#262)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:00:09 PM EST

marxism sucks

the fall of the ussr didn't teach you that?

where were you, nepal? the last hold out

or the npa in the philippines?

i mean even the shining path of peru and angola and mavimbe are history, and they looked pretty good for awhile

there is in justice in places like bolivia still, but why do you place this at the feet of bush, why do you think marxims will correct this?

maybe it's the local bullshit that hurts the bolivians, just possibly?

gee, i dunno, quantum leap for you there...

fact is simply this, marxism is not compatible with human psychology as it plays out in society and politics

it's doomed by it's own bad design

it's a cure worse than the disease


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

[ Parent ]

Stop waving your guns around. (none / 1) (#267)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:24:43 PM EST

Someone could get hurt that way. Shame you didn't have enough to contain China. If it weren't for Marxism China couldn't fill the shelves of Walmart and where would you be then? Too angry and poor to buy Bush, that's where. Everything you stand for depends on Marxism. Everything is connected.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

sorry trotsky, but marxism is a fucking joke (none / 1) (#269)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:32:13 PM EST

where's your permanent revolution? ;-P

decades of marxist rhetoric in china results in the most ravenous capitalist culture in the world today that makes the days of robber barons and child labor of the gilded age in the usa look tame

amusing

but, i am certain you can find a way to blame bush for marxism's failure, right? instead of the fucking idea just being flawed?

cia mind rays made deng xiaoping say "let a thousand flowers bloom"?

;-P

see your problem, in the end, is not with bush, or guns, or imperialism, or any of your bogeymen

your problem, in the end, is with human nature itself

you don't understand facets of it, and have failed to incorporate it into your worldview, and rather than adapt and change, you've decided to pick an impossibly naive position, and yell and scream and defend it, to what effect?

your own uselessness to the problems in the world

good luck dude, you've got a lot of sobering up to do


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

[ Parent ]

bark bark bark (none / 0) (#271)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 12:13:20 AM EST

I am no longer Marxist. Call me SIGNOR SPAGHETTI, other labels confuse me.

There is no Marxism, only Marxists, for example the average person on Earth: Messrs Wu, Ying, Chow, etc. Did Marxism threaten the world? Unless you are conscious of the dangers lying in the use of abstract terms, you may take the question and circletimessquare seriously. You may personify "Marxism" as a real thing. You silly man, does "Democracy" threaten the world? No, but America does, because power rests on misery, as many Muslims can show you on a death certificate. If we can agree on a series of things in the real world that may be summarized by the label "Marxism," or "Democracy," then the question has meaning, and we can proceed intelligently to its discussion. Otherwise not. The label is not the animal, stupid. Can you and I, Ted and Alice come to an agreement about what is meant by "Marxism failed?" History is a conspiracy theory of words defined by the victors, stop writing fiction and try it.

Getting back to the topic at hand, you asked me a rhetorical question about Bush's place in history. You ignored the answer, which is always a good strategy when you have nothing further to add. Thus, I win.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

you seem to have a problem (none / 1) (#273)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 12:28:41 AM EST

"History is a conspiracy theory of words defined by the victors, stop writing fiction and try it."

no, i have to stop you right there

you really believe that?

that we cannot come to judge various -isms on their merits or lack thereof in a rational and coherent fashion?

so in your mind, the only reason slavery went down the tubes is because the north won?

that if the south had won the civil war, then slavery would be ok?

that fascism would be ok if hitler had won?

uh... no dude, even if the south won/ hitler own, we can find faul tiwht those ideas, understand?

so we can look at marxism, at what it says and what it stands for, and find fault with it

what's wrong with that?

the FINAL proof of which is that indeed, marxism failed in the real world, not because of CIA mind rays, but because it simply sucks

understand?

and then you say "You silly man, does "Democracy" threaten the world? No, but America does, because power rests on misery, as many Muslims can show you on a death certificate."

you seem to be confusing saddam hussein and the usa there, don't you think?

no, really: i'd like to here you coherently define america's power int he world as restin gon misery, and completely ignoring the home grown local asshoels whose power actually rests on misery and that the usa actually removed such a homegrown asshole

no, really moron: we're not whitewashing history, we're not talking propaganda: we're talking reason, logic: how can you say america's power reests on the misery of those in iraq when we removed the guy whose power really did rest on their misery?

see, it's funny, you talk of iraqis as if you champion them

i'd like you to actually go talk to an iraqi, and have them tell you the words i am telling you

then i'd like to hear you continue to spout your poorly conceived words, and think they mean anything to me, an american, or a real iraqi

so i think i have addressed your quesiton about bush's place in hisotry: it's more than just guns and money, it is also reason and the quality of ideas behind the mens with the guns: all of them, all of the actors

your idea of history sees no progress, just a changing of the guard form one guy with a gun to another guy with a gun

that oyu come to me with such an empty heart simply says to me you lack mental faculties: you can look at the span of hisotry and see no progress in the quality of men's ideas about how to organize society in a more just and prosperous way

really??????

you really are like some sort of dense child

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

[ Parent ]

my problem is you're a baby (3.00 / 3) (#287)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 02:01:05 AM EST

you really believe that?

Yes. I also believe hundreds of thousands of years of politics have nothing to show for progress. Life exploits life. We fight for a good hand, we bluff and we cheat at the table, but in the end the cards are returned to the misery deck to be shuffled. Is that "bleak?" No, it merely is. Bleak is a conspiracy of meaning. Read this comment and realize someone can take an intellectual position like this without "giving up," as you never fail to presume, because giving up is simply not possible. We are not zombies. No one, but no one, is a nihilist, and your talk of empty hearts and lacking conscience is embarrassing to read. You remind me of angry people God talks to. When you get like that, do yourself a favor, give sentences a break and find meaning in real people, the landscape, in repetitive motion or whatever.

My philosophical position is not felt as despair but in fact as a celebration. I find in the dissolution of narrative and belief the emergence of a consciousness and sensibility that is at once playful and receptive to the richness and depth of the world, and I can live perfectly well with any ambiguities or inconsistencies that might arise in your analysis.

Speaking of which analysis, you may not be aware of it but your argumentation technique is almost entirely manipulating tropes and examining the alleged motives and psychology of the person you are arguing against, turning every conversation into an opportunity for making sermons. Chill, little New York buddy, I'll save a comfortable place in Hell for you.

Snip

Again, viz a previous discussion I have a problem with words such as 'fault' and 'blame' but OK -- OK! I am wrong and you are right, nothing is the fault of the USA. Anyone who claims the most powerful state in history could have fuck all to do with situations in the modern world is a fucking pinko. It's like when we were little and mom would ask "who did this," all the kids would say "not me." Fine, 100,000 Iraqis committed suicide. Happy?

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

dude (none / 0) (#293)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 02:31:14 AM EST

when you destroy meaning, or deny meaning, as you admittedly do, you also deny your ability to comment on said meaning

as much of the problems you comment on in the world involve meanings you admit you deny exist or that you seek to destroy... so you are merely rendering yourself moot

you have two choices:

  1. stop talking about certain issues you identify as meaningless to you
  2. continue talking about them, but then admit they do have meaning to you
but your current position is logically unworkable

or... you COULD continue talking about issues which you also identify as meaningless

but then what am i or anyone else you talk to supposed to make of you then except that oyu are a crackpot?


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

[ Parent ]

you're not listening (3.00 / 3) (#298)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 03:26:39 AM EST

Do you think the SIGNOR SPAGHETTI experience is a logic puzzle? I comment on meanings all the time, so what exactly do you think you've proven? Since logic abhors a paradox, either I don't exist or your inferential dross is more ephemeral than your references.

when you destroy meaning, or deny meaning --

Stop right there. Meaning of WHAT, to WHOM? Chase the fucking referent. There is no Meaning, but different things have different meanings to different people. I do not have two choices. I have infinite choices (and constraints) at least two for every situation that comes before me. It's called life to distinguish it from a belief system, which functions as a limit for interpretation. I don't know how I arrive at my meanings, the same way a fly knows its way out of a bottle for I care or know, but it isn't by writing about them post hoc, as if the purpose of philosophy were to offer guidance instead of solace.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

what i mean (none / 0) (#299)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 03:47:48 AM EST

if you deny that there is progress in the world (as you do with your own words) then you cannot bemoan the lack of progress in the world

get it?

if you don't believe in progress in the world, then someone like gw bush doesn't bother you: he's just the latest iteration of genghis khan, of which there will be many more, so why worry about it, why complain about it, why even hate gw bush?

so now choose:

  1. gw bush bother you, because there should be progress away from such men
  2. gw bush doesn't bother you, he is yet another caesar that relies upon the gun in a long line of caesars who rely upon the gun that will never stop coming
which is it?

if you choose one, you are telling me you believe in progress

if you choose two, you are telling me gw bush doesn't bother you in the least, and there's nothing to complain about him

now choose

or babble incoherently about a billion choices and butterfly wings because you don't understand the concept of logical constraints


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

[ Parent ]

logic + gibberish = logic (3.00 / 2) (#302)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 05:43:47 AM EST

Life might not make progress but struggle makes life: stags butt antlers, apes fling feces, and we, too, can't stand still. I can't help but dislike Bush and struggle for my politics, I have intentions for the kind of world I want to live in same as for the sort of woman I will sleep with and the color on my walls. I don't think these preferences are "true" or "progress," though I might refer to them as such colloquially; I think that they are mine. Why isn't that explanation good enough for you? Look, you believe Bush is progress and I believe he is not. We can't both be right and neither of us can prove the other wrong. Maybe he is neither. Ever think of that? Maybe progress is the wrong metaphor or language game to describe what is happening with politics.

now choose

Ah yes, retarded dichotomies. You shall know the zealots by them. They refer to concepts such as belief and progress matter-of-factly, as if they were common substances instead of words rich in meaning and implication. You can prove anything with words if you're in charge of the definitions.

Do you confront Christians to justify their faith in God? I ask because Progress is your God.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

yes, progress is my god (none / 0) (#334)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 07:27:37 PM EST

and we all have faith in something, whether we admit to it or not

like you for example

if you choose #2, then gw bush cannot bother you, because you have painted a picture for me of how the world is just fly on top of the maggot pile followed by fly on top of the maggot pile, era after era, generation after generation

if that's your depicition fo the world, and you accept it wholeheartedly, and you see no progress, then gw bush is but another fly, but another petty tyrant, and so what? who cares?

and yet you say he bothers you

aha! ;-)

it's ALMOST as if your working out the inconsistencies in the implications of your own words IN THIS VERY THREAD

it's almost if i'm helping you get to the bottom of your own frustrations

it's almost as if... you're making progress

;-P

LOL

you owe me psychotherapy fees


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

[ Parent ]

Assume progress exists without my knowing. (none / 0) (#336)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 08:40:33 PM EST

How will that change my politics or conduct?

The answer is it won't.

Assume progress does not exist without your knowing. How will that change your politics or conduct?

The answer is it won't.

Let me test you with your own reasoning.

Since we're all going to die anyway, why do we even bother with politics? Why aren't our impending deaths considered "bleak" and good reason for doing nothing? If disbelief in progress is supposed to immobilize me in a state of apathy (it doesn't), why doesn't certain knowledge of your impending death do the same to you? It doesn't. 5 cents, please.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

you're lost (none / 0) (#358)
by circletimessquare on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 02:25:27 PM EST

you're using your brain to find reasons to stop using your brain

whatever

you keep doing what you do, you keep being you

which doesn't amount to much, by your own reckoning, and your own intent

so you've effectively made your existence empty

"clap, clap"

i'm real impressed ;-P

what you should know is though is that your emptiness has no implications for my existence

life is what you make of it, it is not a static rubric for you to uncover, it is an emergent phenomenon

life is almost completely self-fulfilling prophecy: if you believe in something, that's what happens, for just about whatever you believe

and then those people who actually believe in the things most effective in the real world of human behavior make the biggest impact

voila, there's life in a nutshell

you think believing in nothing is the answer

fine, whatever works for you

you reap what you sow

you reap: nothing

snore...


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

[ Parent ]

Yes that's all well and good. (none / 0) (#375)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 07:45:48 PM EST

I understand the value of belief, circletimessquare, I believe it's I who's been disabusing you of zombies and nihilists in this thread and which you continue to insinuate exist because they don't share with you this ONE interpretation, progress. One rap that is not immediately obvious for a phenomenon (politics) that exists regardless of what rap surrounds it (e.g. progress.)

Repeat: I understand people make mental representations of the meaning and significance of their behavior. What you need to understand is people who might have a different mental representation of the meaning and significance of the exact same behavior are still people. In addition, people acutely aware that these mental representations are in fact just that, mental, they, too, are people... serving a vital function in society containing zealots, or the Mental Peoples.

Are you a moral creature? I mean, aside from the trolling. Thus you must believe in God because without Him there can be no basis for morality. "Erm... Uhm... When I said progress was my God... Hurm... Progress is a different kind of god. You see --"

Shut up! Without God, your existence is empty. We've known this for two thousand years. I suppose you know more than wisdom accumulated in two thousand years of (quote) self-fulfilling prophecy? Admit it, there is no other interpretation. Get thee to a bible before it's too late.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

god is just a rubric (none / 0) (#378)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:16:45 AM EST

god is the "ultimate alpha male"

we're basically just monkeys, and respect and fear of the alpha male is imprinted deeply on our genes

that is why the meme of the invisible man in the sky is so powerful

however, why do we call boats "she", why do we name hurricanes?

because most of our intellectual capacity is geared towards the most important factor in our survival: other humans

so when we anthropomorphise, when we give nonentitites like fate, the ocean, creaky noises in the night, etc., when we give them a human face, we can begin to process those phenomena using the sweet spot of our intelligence: interpersonal intelligence, emotional intelligence

so don't be threatened by the idea of god, god is a joke, your frowning about god is silly, you're like a child who doesn't understand

taking god literally is like a moron not understanding the punchline of a joke and sitting there frowning while everyone else is laughing

god is not meant to be taken literally, so relax fool

it's just mankind's way of understanding his world in his most primal way: of anthropomorphizing the dark and powerful forces beyond his control

and because you have no humility about that which you cannot control: lighning, shark attacks, it does not make you wiser, it makes you a fool

see the problem with your whole bullshit take on belief is like this:

life IS absurd, as you suggest

but only when viewed from outside of the struggles of life

viewed from the moon the earth is very peaceful

millions are born, millions die, none of it matters

however, when you fall down a ravine, and your back is broken, and a wandering pack of dogs starts chewing on you while you still breathe, that absurdity of life becomes rather hard to fathom at that point in time! ;-P

because there you are: you're alive, you cannot step out of it

so it's absurd from a distance, but it's not absurd when you're in the middle of it

so i'm glad you can sit in your ivory tower and wave your benevolent hand and say "none of it matters"

but for me, someone who cares about the bullshit struggle down here in the mud, you just seem like an arrogant asshole

and more importantly, if you are not part of the struggle, you abdicate your ability to comment on the struggle

if you're not in the sturggle, if oyu have no stake in it, you also have no right ot comment on it, get it?

you say it doesn't effect you

fine, put your money where oyur mouth is: you say you don't care, so prove it with your actions and your words

so either get in the sturggle, and know the value of your words and beliefs, or stay outside of it as you are now, but understand that your words have no meaning for me or anyone else struggling down here on earth

right now, you're just an arrogant fool


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

[ Parent ]

hell's bells, who are you replying to? (none / 0) (#381)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:50:00 AM EST

circletimessquare, mommy needs some time alone. Sit here and rock a while.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

don't hate me because i'm beautiful (nt) (none / 0) (#382)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:54:01 AM EST



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

[ Parent ]
i was beautiful once (none / 1) (#384)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:08:29 AM EST

it was such an ordeal

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

I forgot the important bit. (none / 0) (#337)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 09:16:45 PM EST

The answer is it won't. [...] The answer is it won't.

Since it doesn't seem to make a difference either way, it's belief in the ghost progress that's the issue. To assert the existence of Progress in an established, time directional oriented intellectual tradition like Christianity or it heirs, liberalism and Marxism, is to ask the eternal question "why?" But this question why is dishonest intellectually because it predicates an external teleology: Christianity, liberalism, and Marxism, respectively. I.e. purpose is a fiction that makes itself possible. I have more sympathy with adaptationist explanations: look at the child circletimessqare is meant to create. You can see in this child what is essential to the business of being circletimessquare. Everything else is poetry.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

sounds like some orthodox theology rubbed off (3.00 / 2) (#344)
by Battle Troll on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 02:16:34 AM EST

Perhaps racial memory can be rehabilitated.
--
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 ]
um (none / 0) (#359)
by circletimessquare on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 02:26:30 PM EST

take a look at your average paleolithic encampment

lake a look at downtown shanghai

now tell me there is no progress again ;-P


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

[ Parent ]

lol communism is better than campingism (none / 0) (#366)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 05:50:17 PM EST


--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

shagnhai isn't communist (none / 0) (#367)
by circletimessquare on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 06:05:19 PM EST

it's capitalist now, more rabidly capitalist than the us has ever been

that's the fruits of decades of communist rhetoric

and that's pretty fucking funny if you ask me


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

[ Parent ]

lol the invisible hand (none / 0) (#376)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 07:54:47 PM EST

you'll have to pay for that one. progress was the first hit, that one's free

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

the invisible hand? the black hand? (none / 0) (#379)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:29:30 AM EST

ЦРНА РУКА УЈЕДИЊЕЊЕ ИЛИ СМРТ ДОБРОДОШЛИ

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

[ Parent ]
what is that, Belorussian or something? (none / 0) (#403)
by Battle Troll on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:22:38 AM EST

I can kind of read it but not really.
--
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 ]
serbian nt (none / 0) (#414)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:35:39 PM EST



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

[ Parent ]
I choose 2. (3.00 / 3) (#304)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 06:05:34 AM EST

if you choose two, you are telling me gw bush doesn't bother you in the least

Incorrect, he bothers me a lot. I have a powerful urge to fling feces at his head.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

The US and Asia. (none / 0) (#19)
by Armada on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:23:04 AM EST

On the other hand, children have been suspended and even expelled from school for evangelizing. They're being punished both for their speech and their religion.

And sadly, there are those on K5 that see nothing wrong with this punishment. Yet in the same night they write a scathing post about Christianity on K5, they turn around and write for their college newspaper about the Falun Gong persecutions in China. Give me a break.

On top of this, there are countries in this world with more freedoms than ours. I'm thinking Amsterdam, and most likely your country's citizens enjoy freedoms we Americans have long been denied.

My watchlist of countries that may possibly make true leaps for liberty in the coming decades are the Czech Republic, Lithuania, New Zealand, and a slew of Asian countries that economically are free, but still have a fair ways to go on personal rights, like Singapore, Hong Kong(In question now), Malaysia, and a few other (mainly small island) countries.

Granted, no one has the military might of the US, but ultimately, I think that the US will become more and more isolationist over time rather than really try to be the world's police (you're free to disagree, but no country can afford to actually do it IMHO), to the point that its citizens (I am one) will generally live in constant fear. The burdensome tax issues are also likely to escalate.

A report by the CIA has confirmed the likelihood of Asian economies growing exponentially, so fast that within a mere decade or less, they will be making strides that leave North American and European countries in the dust, at least economically, and most likely with that, with personal liberty.

This doesn't bother me.

While I would like to see the US grow, that will be impossible when you have stalwarts wanting to close borders and reject future geniuses because they are the "poor huddled masses". I'm strong believer in the idea that the best and brightest come from those who have had to live in the harshest economic conditions, and it does bother me to see my country change its philosophy in such a way that future entrepreneurs are deemed terorrist and turned away.

I'd like to see freedom legalized again. I'd like to see true liberty, but unfortunately, I don't think our country is capable of going back to it.

"i'd like to see freedom legalized again (1.00 / 5) (#22)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:32:49 AM EST

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

the parody just writes itself! ;-P

rich fat westerners, complaining about their awful burden of being rich fat westerners

there is no larger class of uselessness and cluelessness in this world than the likes of the author of this story and the above post

"listen to me whine about my lack of freedoms"

as compared to where?

fucking hilarious, how the rich and fat spoiled children squeal


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

[ Parent ]

CTS (none / 1) (#96)
by army of phred on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:48:09 AM EST

would wear a brown shirt and break windows in the name of "freedom."

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
why are you so blind? (1.33 / 3) (#129)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:30:20 PM EST

the people in guantanamo were caught hard at work doing exactly that

how can you ask me to give them equal rights when they are hard at work destroying the concept?

and then on what basis can you consider me equal to or less than those who work to destroy equality in the world, simply because i fight them?

doesn't that merit your recognition for that effort?

no? i'm working to destroy equal rights because i cage those who were caught destroying equal rights?

how does that logic work?

and what are you doing to promote equal rights in the world? extending that protection to those who work to destroy it?

okaaaaaaaaaayyy...... ;-P


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

[ Parent ]

why I don't read your posts anymore (none / 0) (#132)
by army of phred on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:40:30 PM EST

I guess I don't learn anything from them. I wonder if there was ever a time when you were a considerate, contemplative individual instead of the rabid skinhead that I now imagine you are.

I've even theorized that you could work as a pornographer, that would suit your redneck right wing yet at the same time anti moralistic view, but at the same time pornographers like larry flynt have a caustic realism which would seem far above your intellectual willingness (note I'm not judging your talent, I'm judging your will, the decisionmaking behind your thoughtprocess). For a time I imagined that you could be a valid critic but then upon further reading you are a simple force for brutality all too common in todays world. We should all just be aware of you and cross the street when needed but otherwise what else can we do. You learn no more, you debate no more, in your blind rage theres no insight, theres just cringeworthy zerobait. Oh well.

Really I know I for one wonder what happened in your life but this being the web I doubt I'll ever know.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]

when you have the time (none / 1) (#147)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 02:15:49 PM EST

to get your head out my ass, i'd like to hear you reply to what i have said, but odes to the glory of circletimessquare seems kind of a lame reply, no?


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

[ Parent ]
I'm serious too (none / 0) (#138)
by army of phred on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:47:41 PM EST

I look at your posts and I swear its like I'm reading "blah blah blah (whitespace) blah blah blah"

I do see all these threads you inspire and its like man where do these people get all of this time knowing darn well you probably read their posts just like I read yours, "blah blah blah". I look at those threads and marvel at the futility of it all, but thats k5 for you. I think I keep coming back here because of the morbid fascination with the sheer waste of lifespan we seem to exhibit here, yelling right past each other with some namecalling to boot.

Slashdot comments just seem more interesting lately.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]

answer my questions (none / 1) (#148)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 02:17:57 PM EST

or i take your absence of a reply to indicate i am correct about the holes i have revealed in your poorly formed attitude

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

[ Parent ]
why? (none / 0) (#152)
by army of phred on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:38:10 PM EST

I'd do it if it would do me good. Heck, I'd do it if it would do you good. But otherwise, why bother?

I can give you a hint, principles are something you adhere to even if it gets difficult.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]

agreed 100% (none / 1) (#160)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:31:40 PM EST

i just don't think you have fully worked out the ramifications of the principles you say you stand for


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

[ Parent ]
Consider this (none / 0) (#446)
by Filip on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:31:31 AM EST

You wrote: the people in guantanamo were caught hard at work doing exactly that

The exact problem with Gitmo is that the people there, are there because it could not be proven that they were at work doing that. If it were proven, the Bush administration wouldn't have needed the Gitmo loophole.

So: Considered not guilty, until guilt is proven, does not go for arabs.

You complain about people who would extend freedoms to the people who works against these values. You say that if a person works against the values of liberty, it is reasonable to take the liberty away from that person. Suppose you are right; I hereby declare your freedoms revoked on the ground that you work against liberty.

Please go directly to Gitmo, you can not use a "get away from jail"-card. You are confined to Gitmo for the rest of your life without a right to a fair trial. Any trial against you will be held by a biased military tribune, that may or may not sentence you to death, or lifetime imprisonment.

How will you get out of that fix?
-- I'm just a figment of your imagination.
[ Parent ]

Just so you're aware... (none / 0) (#475)
by Armada on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:54:11 PM EST

...I'm an opponent of the war in Iraq too. My posts don't necessarily reflect it, but like Matt Stone once thought, I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.

Due process should not be denied anyone except those that are caught actively engaged in a criminal action or combat. The fact that these people have been held without being charged sickens me.

[ Parent ]

rich and fat (none / 0) (#482)
by nobrowser on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 06:18:17 PM EST

I am neither.

> as compared to where?

The article gave one example.  If you are minimally
honest you can come up with a couple others yourself.

Your sentiment seems to be that it is wrong to
complain when the majority of the world would be
very happy with our level of freedom.  (That I
don't dispute.)  Are you saying I should feel better
because so many are worse off than I?

It is true that whining won't change anything,
but I don't think the article can be classified
as whining.

[ Parent ]

Czech Republic, Lithuania, New Zealand (none / 0) (#449)
by Cackmobile on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 11:44:26 AM EST

Um ok. how did you get those names. NZ has been a democracy since the beginning. It was the first country to give women the vote. Thats right before the US. Those other two are now in the EU. HAve to be democratic to be in that.

[ Parent ]
Selected from what I've read on them (none / 0) (#476)
by Armada on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:57:32 PM EST

Now granted, the web skews things, but from what I read about those countries (esp New Zealand) I get the sense of a citizenship that is appalled by some all-encompassing system of men and laws designed to "protect" or "nanny" individuals that are clearly capable of doing it themselves.

[ Parent ]
really (none / 0) (#477)
by Cackmobile on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:14:46 AM EST

what have you been reading. ok i might be able to understand czech etc but New Zealand. it has never been anything but free.

[ Parent ]
Don't need an article to answer this... (3.00 / 7) (#31)
by D Jade on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:51:30 AM EST

Just what liberties do we Americans have that other countries do not have?

Well, you can blow up anyone you want. If you don't agree with someone, they're called terrorists and you blow them up. You can tell the UN to go fuck itself when it doesn't agree with you, then tell them they are protecting terrorists. Then when someone points out the fact that the USA is a terrorist nation, you call the name callers terrorists.

Oh, and... You can cause more terror than all other countries IN THE WORLD and still not get called terrorists!

THAT'S GOLD!

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive

are you talking about the us government? (1.00 / 5) (#33)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 02:11:10 AM EST

or just the sort of nationalistic jingoistic moron who lives in every nation on this planet and always has?

and what kind of moron would that make you to be unable to tell the difference?


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

[ Parent ]

Oh so Americans don't run their government? (none / 0) (#38)
by D Jade on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 02:37:45 AM EST

Oh that's right, when we had elections, we were voting for YOUR president. Silly me, I thought I was voting for Bush to be OUR prime minister. Now I realise.

I am talking about United States of Americans. The USA Government is run by the people you and your countryfolk voted for. So therefore, whatever freedoms your government enjoy are your's!

There is no difference between the USA government and its people. The government represents the majority of people who voted. If citizens don't vote, then that's their problem. But whatever the US government does, it does so in the name of its people meaning you must take responsibility for your government's actions.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

circletimessquare is an Imperial Apologist (2.60 / 5) (#43)
by Peahippo on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:52:41 AM EST

Your comments are particulary true (tho' CircleJerk (circletimessquare) will deny it) when one realizes that 99% of the votes cast in the last American Presidental election were for one or the other Imperial candidate. Both of these candidates were for prosecuting the war against the Iraqi People. Also, both of these candidates were all for continued corporate welfare and working-class undermining (outsourcing, offshoring, income taxes, etc.).

114 million voting Americans told the world the following:

"We like the pro-corporation and pro-war stances of Bush and Kerry. We have bought into the idea of the Holy American Empire and will continue to put our big military cock up the anuses of the rest of the world. All that oil in the Middle East is OURS. And -- oh yeah, lest we forget -- if you don't support the murderous Zionists in Israel you are anti-Semitic terrorists."

Insofar as warfare goes, you are absolutely correct: Americans are inseperable from the actions of their government and military. CircleJerk and his ilk want nothing to do with taking the responsibility for all the death delivered across the globe from the constant actions of the attacking US military. They will continue to squat like parasites on the face of urban American and enjoy the (relatively) cheap Iraqi baby's blood (i.e. gasoline) dispensed at roadside pumps ... all the while muttering about "manifest destiny".

America has earned a terrorist nuke from her unprovoked attacks upon the Middle East. It's only a matter of time now. The ironic thing is, circletimessquare lives near Times Square, hence will be one of the first casualties from such an attack. There's a reason we call an Empire a double-edged sword, but Imperialsts like circletimessquare refuse to listen or understand that.


[ Parent ]
oh that's funny (1.37 / 8) (#53)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:33:37 AM EST

i just replied to the guy above saying that "there's a difference between the best of society and the worst of society" and look who showed up to demonstrate the difference!

;-P

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

[ Parent ]

Yet ... (2.00 / 3) (#140)
by Peahippo on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:59:55 PM EST

... your statements about the best and worst cannot put away the truth enshrined here, that 114 million voting Americans told the world the following:

"We like the pro-corporation and pro-war stances of Bush and Kerry. We have bought into the idea of the Holy American Empire and will continue to put our big military cock up the anuses of the rest of the world. All that oil in the Middle East is OURS. And -- oh yeah, lest we forget -- if you don't support the murderous Zionists in Israel you are anti-Semitic terrorists."

We American citizxens are ALL responsible, by morality and by the numbers. The world is very much correct in holding ALL Americans culpable for the Imperialist attacks in the Middle East, for the 10s of 1000s of dead and wounded, for the billions of dollars in damage. After all, if YOU are not in control of your populist government, then who is?

Since YOU are an Imperial Apologist, you certainly are an expert at dodging responsibility for all the American military acts that you benefit so highly from. Anyone can see that, despite your eluding rhetoric.


[ Parent ]
imperial? who are we invading? (1.00 / 3) (#145)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 02:11:35 PM EST

ok, let's see: afghanistan, a fundamentalist theocracy that banned the education of women

and iraq, a REAL imperial power, that invaded all it's neighbors

AFTER militant middle eastern fundamentalists attacked us

hmmm... i'm having trouble with your defintion of "imperial"


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

[ Parent ]

Haha... (3.00 / 2) (#153)
by JahToasted on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:43:03 PM EST

By your reasoning Rome wasn't an empire.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]
rome invaded it's neighbors (1.00 / 3) (#157)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:29:35 PM EST

for the purpose of expansion

much like iraq re kuwait, iran

so i support anti-imperialism in fact

are we keeping iraq for a 51st state?

no, we got rid of an imperialist, and are handing the country to democratic leaders

if the us WAS an empire, canada would be invaded (lots of oil, easy to defeat), and cuba would be invaded (easy to defeat, nice cigars ;-P )

so clearly, the us is not like rome

rome was an empire, the us isn't


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

[ Parent ]

Nope (3.00 / 2) (#165)
by JahToasted on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:55:08 PM EST

Carthage attacked Rome. Rome conquered Northern Africa due to a terrorist attack against Rome by Hannibal. Of course they didn't leave northern africa after the war because they had to ensure freedom in norther africa (freedom to provide rome with bread that is). The Romans took over Gaul to intervene on behalf of some greeks there that were afraid of some barbarians (they had to protect their freedom!). Many of Rome's conquests occured under similar circumstances.

There were also many nations Rome did not outright conquer because they didn't need to. Those nations gave Rome what they wanted.

Why would The US invade canada for its oil? most of Canada's oil industry is already owned by the US. Canadians shop at walmart and eat at mcdonalds. Why doesn't the US invade canada? because they already have a long time ago. Just further proves my point.

Invading Cuba would be easy? Google for "bay of pigs". What the hell do they teach in schools nowadays?

I'll beleive that America is anti-imperialist when Iraq is "Free" to sell oil to france and form strategic alliances with iran. until then, Iraq is a province of the American Empire.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

well ok then (1.00 / 3) (#167)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:12:24 PM EST

"I'll beleive that America is anti-imperialist when Iraq is "Free" to sell oil to france and form strategic alliances with iran. until then, Iraq is a province of the American Empire."

watch and see then

you threw down that gauntlet, i pick it up: watch it happen ;-)

the us has no problem with france getting oil from iraq- it's just oil, it's a marketplace, someone buys it, end of story... or forming strategic alliances with iran: they are both shia majority countries, it's inevitable

so you lose

of course, you'll resist the notions i've laid out for you, so revisit this thought in a few years when it happens and grant me my points ;-)

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

[ Parent ]

You do the same... (none / 1) (#169)
by JahToasted on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:25:25 PM EST

When the price of oil gets high enough America will change its tune from "we're here to bring freedom" to "to the victors go the spoils".

Remember Rome was very suspicious of empires at first too. Their goal was to spread civilisation. Pretty much the same thing as spreading democracy.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

well let me hit you on that point (1.00 / 3) (#239)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:51:28 PM EST

what exactly is wrong with screapind democracy?

what is exactly wrong with removing a dictator and replacing him with democracy?

really?


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

[ Parent ]

If a Democracy votes for.... (none / 1) (#278)
by The Amazing Idiot on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 01:22:29 AM EST

A dictator, is it a democracy or a dictatorship?

[ Parent ]
what a moron (none / 1) (#282)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 01:32:26 AM EST

you can't vote for a dictator you fucking moron, a dictator is someone who denies democracy

so if someone marches into the white house with a tank, he's a dictator

but if he's elected, HE'S NOT A FUCKING DICTATOR

understand fucktwit?

if, after 2 terms he says "you know, the terrorist threat impels me to remain in power because no other man can do the job as good as me, elections are suspended", and, in a healthy democracy where the people understand what is at stake, he still actually gets away with that shit then yes, at that point, he has become a dictator

but if you think the usa or gw bush is anywhere near such a scenario, you're really a fucking retard

the usa is a stable secular democracy despite moronic propaganda to the contrary

for real, you stupid fucking twit

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

[ Parent ]

No worries.. (none / 1) (#289)
by The Amazing Idiot on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 02:06:05 AM EST

Its just your <a href=http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2005/4/13/185954/110/149#149> bias </a> speaking.

Really CircleJerk, youre not as smart as you think you are.

And I can do this 1 sentence per line crap too.

And you can also go fuck yourself in the process, shitcock.

Cause you know Im right and youre.. well, CircleJerk.

[ Parent ]

you're amusing (none / 1) (#294)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 02:38:02 AM EST

so because i was close to 9/11 i cannot comment on it?

actually, the way the world REALLY works, is the reverse: those who are most deeply affected by something are those most likely to do something about it

this concerns just about every issue in the entire world! LOL

so you can deny my right to talk about certain things in the world because i was close to 9/11 when you also show it is wrong for:

iraqis to talk about iraq

AIDS victims to talk about AIDS

victims of drunk drivers to talk about drunk driving

etc., ad nauseum, about EVERY ISSUE IN THE WORLD

any other genius you want to enlighten us on about my horrible bias oh dear guru?

because the truht, dear moron, is that in this world EMOTIONAL INVOLVEMENT IS THE ONLY GAME AROUND

you think there's some magic class of people who are emotionally uninvolved in issues and making decisions about them?

oh really?

give me one example

(snicker)

dude, if someone CARES about something that's the beginning of DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT

when someone DOESN'T CARE ABOUT SOMETHING, THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT IT OR INVOLVE THEMSELVES!

lol

dude: THIS APPLIES TO EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ISSUE IN THE WORLD

jesus fucking christ you are dense


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

[ Parent ]

Um... But you weren't a victim (none / 0) (#428)
by D Jade on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:44:02 PM EST

so you can deny my right to talk about certain things in the world because i was close to 9/11 when you also show it is wrong for:

iraqis to talk about iraq

AIDS victims to talk about AIDS

victims of drunk drivers to talk about drunk driving

But by this logic, you were a victim of 9/11. Sorry, but you didn't show up to work that day. You weren't there because you're a lazy bastard and you slept in. You weren't injured and you didn't die in that building, so you're not a victim. Your logic is flawed.

What I love is that the only person who needs to resort to outright profanity and abuse in this equation is you. This is clearly the action of someone who has no basis for their arguments. If you did, you could actually provide a real argument for your case. As it stands, you've said everything and given nothing. IE: You are wrong... The worst part is that you cling on to the hope that someone might agree with you, even though you know that you are talking absolute rubbish.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Ill tell a story... (none / 0) (#435)
by The Amazing Idiot on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 01:07:56 AM EST

I live in a city of about 35000 people.. Columbus, IN.

In this city, there's a guy almost every resident knows. We dont know his real name not because of some "super-secret" thing about him. He calls himself "The Old Prophet".

He stands in front of shops like Wal-Mart, the 2 indoor malls, and many of those island things between the 2 opposing sides of the road. Unlike larger cities of 'cleaners', beggars and such riff raff that harass you for a buck, he yells at people to 'believe in what he believes'. He does this while shoving these inane flyers in your face.

Soem back history about him: He, a long time ago, was a preacher at a local church until his OWN parish threw him out for being too rabid. He then was just a parishoner at other churches, and was thrown out for hecklig the priest/preacher during the Sunday service. To my understanding, he is not allowed on any grounds of any church here in Columbus.. So he instead yells from the streets at the church parking lots. He also has bought his own time on a radio broadcast (1010KHz WCSI sunday 7:30-8:00 AM). Yes, he uses his own money to insult and such...

He has been picked up by the police on several occasions, mainly for distrubing the public and assulalt (THEY didnt take his pamphlets...). Even the Police here didnt keep him here for more than 2 or so hours because he'd preach at all of them too..

 He constantly says "Fat people are spawn of the Devil and will burn for aaAAAAAAaaaallllllll ETERNITY!".

Now, why did I bother telling a non-resident about this guy? He, just like CTS, are plain obnoxious trolls whom we all acknolodge and actively ignore. If you punish them, they just get louder.. They both double-talk, insult and curse while saying something the exact opposite. I guess its something you end up with when you do have a community: weirdos who cannot grasp communication and refer to 1'st gradeish tactics to attempt to deliver their point..

[ Parent ]

This was a beautiful story (none / 0) (#437)
by D Jade on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 01:30:35 AM EST

Are you sure this guy isn't CTS' father?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0) (#438)
by The Amazing Idiot on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 01:39:53 AM EST

This guy is his 60's to 70's.. I was lookinng to see if he was on the net, but all I found was his sunday listing on the radio website..

He's chaparoned (as all shows by 3'rd parties on broadcast) by a talkshow guy on there. John Foster recently threatened NOT to show up, as the 'ol prophet has recently been yelling and then hanging up at the few callers he gets.

He really does seem, at least to me, a real-life version of CTS. What does disturb me, are the teens who he preaches from the car doors

Many teens end up spitting while squealing their wheels.

[ Parent ]

Wow, I found a... (none / 0) (#440)
by The Amazing Idiot on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 02:13:18 AM EST

Sort of a refference on a Blog..

Link Here

In Columbus, IN where I live we have an interesting fellow named Fred Allman (and no, he wasn't not part of the Allman Brothers' Band) who calls himself "The Old Prophet." He has his own radio show. And he likes to walk the streets of Columbus, covered with sandwich boards that have various messages, and passing out his own literature.

Well after placing himself last Sundayin front of the First Baptist Church with a sign that read "You need Jesus, not religious propaganda", he was taken to jail. He wrote about the incident in a letter to the editor to Columbus' daily, The Republic (sorry, you have to be a print subscriber to have access to their content). And he promised the folks at First Baptist that, as a part of his "prophetic ministry" he would return to their church each Sunday until they could put him in jail permanently.

Having heard his show a few times, he's not your typical prophet. I'd describe as having a kind of Disciples of Christ perspective, advocating a 'No creed but Christ' faith. He's death on what he calls 'superstition' and is for all kinds of reasonable beliefs. Who would have thought that a prophet of the Enlightenment would be hanging out in Columbus, IN?

.
.
.
.
.

And I found another reffernce to this same guy as linked Here

 Dear friends,

Happy Valentine's Day! I love and miss you.

I just want to share a praise from Columbus, Indiana. I organized Sandy Hook's first large scale servant evangelism event. We gave away over 700 pieces of Valentine candy. God blessed us with permission to give it away at Walmart and a food court downtown. (This area is very difficult to do servant evangelism in. A guy they call the "old prophet" has trespassed and been beligerant with people. So the town has all kinds of ordinances against giving out literature. So getting permission to do this at Walmart and the Commons was miraculous.) I had 21 people participate. So that was major answered prayer too.

Please pray that one of these "touches" will draw someone to the church/Lord. Pray also for God to send funding. Someone made a negative comment about my spending the $78 for this candy and about $250 for some outreach marketing materials.


[ Parent ]

I assume you mean (none / 1) (#327)
by JahToasted on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 05:16:34 PM EST

"spreading" democracy.

Well really there is nothing wrong with it. And I really hope you are right. But on one side we have circletimessquare's gut feeling that everything is going turn out just fine and on the other side we have 6000 years of human history.

Did the US support democracy in Vietnam when the mojority of Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh? Did the US support Democracy when Nicaraugua voted for the sandinistas?

Seeing as how the people in power today are pretty much the same people who were in power when the US decided to oppose democracy in favour of realpolitik I'm guess the same will happen in Iraq.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

well so what (none / 1) (#329)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 06:17:43 PM EST

if you're looking me to admit risk and mistakes and those who don't mean well, yeah sure, you're absolutely dead on

but so what?

doesn't change the basic premise

it doesn't make me naive, it means i still have hope for a better world where you might be drowning in useless negativity

don't use your brain to defeat your goodwill


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

[ Parent ]

Making you Naive (none / 0) (#427)
by D Jade on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:35:10 PM EST

it doesn't make me naive, it means i still have hope for a better world where you might be drowning in useless negativity

Yes, this is the ideal many of us hope for. However, to defend the actions of the USA while saying that this is what you hope for is ludicrous. These are actions which are the antithesis of your hopes and dreams and when you think of moving forward to this "happy place" you hope for. Well, the actions of your country only put these ideals further out of reach... Much further.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

I have hope... (none / 0) (#455)
by JahToasted on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 02:20:06 PM EST

but my hope involves the US finally realising the error of their ways, and stop trying to force everyone to be exactly like them.

Of course realistically I know that it will take a lot of deaths before this happens.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

51st State? (none / 0) (#426)
by D Jade on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:30:42 PM EST

are we keeping iraq for a 51st state?

Well for some time after your country's invasion, Iraq was classified as a territory of the USA. In fact, there were no requirements for Visas because by law, when you arrived in Iraq, you were treading on US soil.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Self-examination is not an Imperial quality (none / 1) (#352)
by Peahippo on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 01:14:53 PM EST

Afghanistan: soverign nation with its own Middle Eastern culture

Iraq: soverign nation with its own Middle Eastern culture

What does the status of women in Afghanistan have to do with invading it?

And Iraq paid dearly for the last time it invaded a neighbor (back when there was a REAL international coalition to stop it, not like now with the SHAM coalition to coverup American Imperialism).

So much for your so-called arguments.

AFTER militant middle eastern fundamentalists attacked us

So, you're placing blame for such people upon the ENTIRE Middle East, which is NOT a single culture or government? Is "towelhead" or "raghead" part of your vocabulary? If not, they should be, since you have the underlying sentiments.

And you probably wonder why Iran is running a nuclear program? I would be running a nuke program if I saw an Imperial military looking to invade my home. It's the only sensible reaction to a threatened attack.

If you want to place some blame, just take a gander at the nationalities in the hijackers themselves: mostly Saudi Arabian, with some Yemeni. How strange, then, that no bombs fell upon both of those nations. But Saudi oil gets sold to the United States with little fuss, so I guess that takes care of THAT concern.

hmmm... i'm having trouble with your defintion of "imperial"

Of course you are, since it is YOU. America maintains bases around the globe = IMPERIAL. America attacks nations across the globe = IMPERIAL. America ignores international law as it pleases it = IMPERIAL. But you don't see these things as Imperialism since all of them benefit you personally and your Imperialist culture in the general sense.

Do you ever see cops hauling in criminals? The suspects about 80% of the time exclaim that they haven't done anything wrong ... even after having been caught in a shooting, a drug bust, a street fight, etc. These attitudes remind me of the Imperial attitudes expressed by people like YOU. You never seem to see yourself as evil for your direct actions and for the representative acts done in your name.


[ Parent ]
the only morally defensible position (none / 1) (#412)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:30:40 PM EST

on any issue, in the internet age and jet air age, is a global one

fuck the usa

fuck afghanistan

i fight for equal rights

an iraqi is my equal

someone like you, apparently, thinks rights end at the rio grande

to someone like you, what goes on in darfur, or what happened in rwanda in 1994 is perfectly ok

"oh well, some brown people are killing each other somehwere, not my problem"

you're a fucking racist

you're ability to empathize and care for and DIE FOR people outside the usa is zero

YOU ARE MORE OF AN AMERICAN THEN I EVER WILL BE

i am a globalist

you're a hopeless provincial peon

in attitude and spirit

and that marks the failure of you, morally, and intellectually

welcome to the new world son, care for your fellow man, regardless of where he lives, or shut the fuck up

you lose, not in this thread, not even in life, you lose in your entire attitude and the attidue of everyone like you, whereever they live

it's a small world now, we have no room for provincial dolts


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

[ Parent ]

How pathetic (none / 0) (#425)
by D Jade on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:27:00 PM EST

to someone like you, what goes on in darfur, or what happened in rwanda in 1994 is perfectly ok

Hmmm, well if he's an American, then yes. Like you, he wouldn't care. Your country certainly doesn't.

you're a fucking racist

Oh, and you're not? I'm sorry but you've basically stated that all in the middle east are towelheaded terrorists. Um, that's pretty xenophobic and blatantly racist.

you're ability to empathize and care for and DIE FOR people outside the usa is zero

As is your's. You don't care that your country has caused more deaths outside the USA than your so-called enemies. Nor do you really seem to care that much of the "terrorism" has been borne of your country's actions. From your words, it's clear that this is your position, you clearly don't have any empathy for these people. Otherwise, you would stop defending the disgustings acts your country has committed in the name of "freedom".

i am a globalist

No, you're an US American. If you were a globalist, you would realise that your country interferes with other's way of life. You would also realise that the actions of your country have resulted due to its needs, not to those of the people they are supposedly "helping".

you're a hopeless provincial peon

No, he's a US American and as such is more concerned by the issues that relate to him and his people. Issues which have nothing to do with pathetic wars that are waged by your country in far off places. I am willing to wager that matters of concern for him are more along the lines of Healthcare, education, employment and civil liberties, as anyone should be concerned about.

and that marks the failure of you, morally, and intellectually

No, it marks your failure.

welcome to the new world son, care for your fellow man, regardless of where he lives, or shut the fuck up

Hold on a moment, you tell him to care for his fellow man and then shut the fuck up... Um, yeah... Looks like you really care. Please explain how the destructive actions of your country are in any way examples of caring for your fellow men and women. I'm sorry, but nothing I've seen so far indicates that the USA cares for any fellow man or women other than their own, and even then, the USA only cares if these people have money.

it's a small world now, we have no room for provincial dolts

Um, the USA is full of provincial dolts. You ARE a provincial dolt. I love the US attitude of "we care about the rest of the world". It's bullshit. If you cared, then when the rest of the world speaks you would listen instead of doing an O'Reilley and telling them to shut the fuck up.

You want to know why so many people want to see your country burn to the ground? It's simple, just read your posts here. The prevalent attitude we hear from the US of America is, "We know what's best for you so shut the fuck up and do what we say". The fact is, you don't know what's best and you never will and rampant arrogance like you are displaying will only see more attacks against your people.

Quite frankly, I don't blame the rest of the world for wishing harm against your country and I would be far less moved to find out that the USA collapsed into anarchy than I was when I heard of the hundreds of thousands of people your countrymen have slaughtered in Iraq and elsewhere abroad.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

i got this far and stopped reading: (none / 0) (#431)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:34:11 PM EST

"Hmmm, well if he's an American, then yes. Like you, he wouldn't care. Your country certainly doesn't."

wtf?

dude, i spent my post saying fuck america, only a globalist position is defensible, i bought up rwanda, darfur etc...

and yet you attack me as an american who doesn't care about rwanda

wtf?

how is it you can be so fucking blind?

listen, fucktwit:

go back to my post

READ IT AGAIN

LOOK AT THE PRETTY WORDS

FIGURE OUT A PRETTY MEANING IN MY PRETTY WORDS

USE YOUR BRAIN, SQUEEZE REAL HARD

TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY, WHAT I STAND FOR

THEN AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH WHAT I SAY

NOT DISAGREE WITH THE FUCKING BOGEYMAN IN YOUR HEAD I BEAR NO RESEMBLANCE TOO

understand dipshit?


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

[ Parent ]

So clearly you are retarded? (none / 0) (#432)
by D Jade on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 12:03:11 AM EST

No?

dude, i spent my post saying fuck america, only a globalist position is defensible, i bought up rwanda, darfur etc...

DUDE! You've spent the whole time telling everyone who is saying Fuck america to get fucked and mind their own business... You've spent your whole time defending America and justifying their actions.

TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY, WHAT I STAND FOR

If you are saying "fuck america" then clearly we must all be retards. Everyone else in this conversation perceives that you are saying the opposite. Your comments say the opposite. It is only after a barrage of attacks from sane people that you now try and tell us that this whole time, you've been saying FUCK AMERICA!

I've gone back over your posts and nowhere can I see you saying "fuck america" where you are not being sarcastic. Um, hello? Next you'll be telling us that we've always been at war with Eastasia.

I don't think you're a bogeyman. I think you're a man who hasn't a leg to stand on in this argument and as such, can only resort to profane and pathetic insults... Oh dear, I say, oh dear.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

3 stages of political enlightenment (none / 0) (#434)
by circletimessquare on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 12:13:58 AM EST

"i love america": morons

"i hate america": you, another breed of moron

"i don't care about america": me, people who operate on principles rather than tribes

have a nice day, moron

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

;-)


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

[ Parent ]

If you don't care about USAmerica (none / 0) (#436)
by D Jade on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 01:09:51 AM EST

Why have you spent so much time arguing in defense of your government's actions. Contrary to what you think, I don't hate America. I love both North and South America. I love the United States of America. If you read what I have been saying, you will note that I hate the actions of your government who YOU voted for.

You do care about the United States of America. Clearly, the effort you've gone to to strike down any dissent in this thread is indicative of this. You're in the fourth category which is "Attack anyone who criticises the USA" in other words, you are an idiot.

And when people point you out for what you are, you say that you have the EXACT OPPOSITE viewpoint to the one you have spent hours expressing.

Believe me, I am having a very nice day. You have given me so much entertainment with your comedic antics that I doubt I'll be able to laugh for the rest of the week.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

corollary to the 3 stages of political enlightment (none / 0) (#439)
by circletimessquare on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 01:58:07 AM EST

person #1: the "i love america" moron:

can't understand why anyone would criticize the united states, so if person #3 criticized the usa, they must be person #2

person #2: the "i hate america" moron:

can't understand why anyone would defend the united states, so if person #3 defends the usa, they must be person #1

person #3: the enlightened "america doesn't fucking matter, who cares about america, america does good in the world, america does bad in the world, who gives a fuck, ONLY THE PRINCIPLES MATTER, NOT THE TRIBES, and anyone who is obsessed with america (obsessed= in love with blindly or hate it blindly) is a FUCKING PROPAGANDIZED MORON":

spends all his time getting called an america-hating communist terrorist traitor... and a gw bush asskissing imperialist neocon, sometimes in the same thread!

LOL

after awhile, you morons are just entertaining ;-)

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


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

[ Parent ]

Did your parents really treat you so bad? (none / 1) (#441)
by D Jade on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 02:33:00 AM EST

Or are you just disgruntled because you always got picked last?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Once again, Imperialism is NOT introspective (none / 0) (#465)
by Peahippo on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 06:53:21 AM EST

i fight for equal rights
an iraqi is my equal


Holy Shit! You finally said something correct!

Yes, an Iraqi is your EQUAL. He has the same rights as you do ... the same rights to depose his OWN government, as you have to depose YOURS. He has the same rights to shoot the invaders of HIS nation, as you have to shoot anyone who invades YOURS.

This is what sovereignty means.

Unfortunately, you view "equality" as you having the right to invade his country, bomb him, shoot him, and ultimately take his shit ... since you want HIS culture to be equal to YOURS -- which isn't equality: IT'S IMPERIALISM.

You have the conquest mentality. Congratulations. But don't go around speaking as if you value Human liberty. Your conquest goals are waaaaaay far from that.

someone like you, apparently, thinks rights end at the rio grande

Holy Shit! You finally said something correct AGAIN!

Yes, my rights to self determination DO end at the borders of my person and my country! You hit that nail right on the fucking head! YOU'RE TWO FOR TWO!

Anything I force beyond the borders of my person and nation can ONLY be termed an attack on the sovereignty of another nation or person.

Why is it you Neo-Liberals have a big, BIG problem with personal rape, but have no problems whatsoever with raping entire countries? (Oh, yeah, that's right: YOU'RE FUCKING IMPERIALISTS!)

to someone like you, what goes on in darfur, or what happened in rwanda in 1994 is perfectly ok

No, it's perfectly none of my business to the point of NOT sending ships, planes and soldiers to bomb and shoot them.

"oh well, some brown people are killing each other somehwere, not my problem"

Correct. It's the problem of the nations and cultures involved. The people being shot MUST resist and overthrow their OWN oppressors by THEMSELVES, if their liberty is going to mean anything real.

you're a fucking racist

I'm a fucking citizen of a Republic. The Rwandans et al are responsible for forming their own stable governments.

you're ability to empathize and care for and DIE FOR people outside the usa is zero

You only see it as zero since I'm not willing to drop bombs on them to "save" them (and incidentally, make the area legally approved for American corporations to own everything).

YOU ARE MORE OF AN AMERICAN THEN I EVER WILL BE

{sniff} CircleJerk, I ... that's honestly the best thing you ever said to me. Thank you. Thank you very much. My god, my god, you finally admitted that I'm the bona fide citizen of a sovereign, Constitutional Republic.

i am a globalist

Oh, gawd, yes, we noticed. You consider the entire planet to be under the legal and military heel of the US Government. Too bad a pack of determined men on 911 showed you how false that viewpoint is.

you're a hopeless provincial peon

If that's the label it takes for you to recognize that I mind my own personal and national business, then I accept the label. As for you, you clown, you should find your own navy and army to enact all the Fascist goals you want to fulfill, and don't HIJACK my nation's military to do it.

and that marks the failure of you, morally, and intellectually

The last famous moral and intellectual structure that followed your line of thinking was the Third Reich. I'd rather be a "failure", thanks.

welcome to the new world son, care for your fellow man, regardless of where he lives, or shut the fuck up

The Iraqis who are pulling dead family members from rubble today (as they do every day) can only hope that people like you are given less opportunity to "care" for them. For a guy who claims to "care" so much for people, your unashamed use of the Military Cock to fuck other nations is just alarming. The "destroy the village to save it" myth was long ago dispelled -- didn't you get the memo?

it's a small world now, we have no room for provincial dolts

If it's such a small world, it seems strange that you're so willing to invoke warfare across wide regions. In a REAL "small" world, people mind their own business lest natural, cultural differences rub each other the wrong way and lead to war. But ... ah, you like warfare. I see it now. Avoiding warfare is never on your agenda, is it?



You know, CircleJerk, I've decided to change my nickname for you. You're now to be called the Conquistador. Ole! Time for you to stomp into another country and make it safe for American corporations to own all of it ... either that, or your murderers-by-proxy known as the US Navy, Army and Marines. Since you're such a fucking chickenhawk (have you enlisted yet, bitch?), I figure it's the latter.


[ Parent ]
Look at your motives for war though (none / 0) (#424)
by D Jade on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:06:51 PM EST

I'm sorry, but if your country really cared about these issues, then it would have done something about it before 9/11. That's a fact, pure and simple.

The reality is, your country took action against these nations in the hunt for a scapegoat. These were misguided actions of revenge and to say otherwise is completely ludicrous and is a clear example of why, "Dumb ignorant American" is a popular term used by the rest of the world to describe your people.

Iraq, a real imperial power? Oh wow! Sorry, I never realised. Saddam, a supreme ruler? If he was so supreme, why the hell is it that all of his attempts at invasion were failed? Why is it that no WMD's were found? I thought if he was truly as evil as your country would have us believe and really such a mastermind, you wouldn't even have had the chance to invade because he would have nuked you.

Oh, that's right, absolute power is having power to use but not using it. Is that how it goes?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

there's a difference (1.16 / 6) (#52)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:30:46 AM EST

between the best of society and the worst of society

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

[ Parent ]
Your average is, nevertheless, scary (none / 1) (#98)
by nkyad on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:50:40 AM EST

You are right, but in a modern representative democracy the government ends up being formed by some kind of average between this two extremes. As it is, the average US has been showing to the world in the last few years is quite unsettling, to say the least.

Don't believe in anything you can't see, smell, touch or at the very least infer from a good particle accelerator run


[ Parent ]
really? (1.00 / 3) (#125)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:14:46 PM EST

then what do you think of militant islamic fundamentalism? 9/11? madrid? bali? chechnya? what do you think people like that would do if they got a nuclear bomb?

that doesn't scare you?

or is it that you are scared by mice and can't see elephants?

because to be scared by the usa and not even think about or mention the likes of al qaeda simply means you have failings in your intellectual faculties


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

[ Parent ]

The mice have rabies (none / 1) (#235)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:25:12 PM EST

But the elephants broke their chains

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

the toilets are made of ruby (1.33 / 3) (#240)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:52:23 PM EST

and the poetry sucks

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

[ Parent ]
These are reactions (none / 0) (#421)
by D Jade on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 09:52:08 PM EST

To the extreme actions your government has taken on your behalf. I am more scared by a country that will wage war and claim it was a mission to "liberate" the people of a country because they didn't find any WMD. If the actions of your government are really humanitarian, what about all of the other countries in as much, if not more, need of humanitarian aid than Iraq.

I am more scared of a country that ignores the mandate of an organisation such as the United Nations because they don't agree with the UN's decision. This scares me because it goes against many of the principles upon which the UN was founded.

I am even more frightened because your comment seems to suggest that the people responsible for Madrid, Chechnya, Bali and 9/11 are the elephants and that the US are the mice. I'm sorry, but your country has caused far more terror, destruction and fear than all the Islamic fundamentalists combined. Your country has also supported many of these fundamentalists and allowed them to reap the power they now have. The USA caused, 9/11, they are the elephant.

To say otherwise is folly.

because to be scared by the usa and not even think about or mention the likes of al qaeda simply means you have failings in your intellectual faculties

Why would I mention Al Qaeda? If I look at the USA and Al Qaeda and look at who has caused more destruction and terror and death since 9/11, then the US is the clear winner. I am sorry, but the destruction caused by Al Qaeda is not even comparable to that caused by the USA. If you disagree with this simple fact, then it is YOU who has failings in your intellectual faculties.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

I won't argue that, but... (none / 1) (#234)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:23:44 PM EST

I was talking about the citizens, not the government. Your point calls for a different but equally valid rant.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Government represents Citizens (none / 0) (#429)
by D Jade on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:49:27 PM EST

So if you are talking about citizens, then comments of the government applies. Your countryfolk are responsible for the freedoms the government enjoys and vice-versa. This means that the people are responsible for their government's actions.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
That poor tired document... (3.00 / 6) (#62)
by Arvedui on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:27:03 AM EST

...has been through so many wringers, and lots of people have had fun with it from all political angles, from the libertarian's Bill of No Rights through the Christian-conservative variations griping about gun control and anti-religionism, to Peahippo a few comments down.

My favorites so far, though, remain The Onion's Bill Of Rights Pared Down To More Manageable Six, and John Perry Barlow's Bill O'Rights Lite (see here for the article that accompanied the piece).

From The Onion's take:

"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791," Craig said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution never could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one day need to jail someone indefinitely without judicial review. There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants back then."

and

"The Bill of Rights was written more than 200 years ago, long before anyone could even fathom the existence of wiretapping technology or surveillance cameras," Ashcroft said. "Yet through a bizarre fluke, it was still somehow worded in such a way as to restrict use of these devices. Clearly, it had to go before it could do more serious damage in the future."


---
From BoR Lite:

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall encourage the practice of Judeo-Christian religion by its own public exercise thereof, and shall make no laws abridging the freedom of responsible speech (unless such speech is in a digital form or contains material that is copyrighted, classified, proprietary or offensive to non-Europeans, non-males, differently abled or alternativley prefferenced persons), or the right of people to peaceably assemble (unless such assembly takes place on corporate or military property or within an electronic environment), or to petition the government for redress of grievances (unless such grievances relate to national security).

and

AMENDMENT VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and private plea bargaining session before pleading guilty. He is entitled to the assistance of underpaid and indifferent counsel to negotiate his sentence, except where such sentence falls under federal mandatory sentencing requirements.

and of course

AMENDMENT II

A well-regulated militia having become irrelevant to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms against one another shall remain uninfringed (excepting such arms as may be afforded by the poor or those preferred by pushers, terrorists and organized criminals which shall be banned).


The constitution is dangerous (3.00 / 8) (#66)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:15:14 AM EST

It is a rhetorical document, a racket for interpretation no different than the Koran. It can be used to validate just about any act of power and, paradoxically, popular belief in its sanctity guarantees just about any act of power will be validated. Believe it, upstanding American heterosexual men with family values, or Republicans, will remain devoted to the Constitution even as they turn into something worse than Al-Qaeda. Burn it now before it's too late.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.

it is dangerous (1.33 / 3) (#67)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:23:15 AM EST

because it is full of ideas

good ideas

some of those ideas support your right to say what you say

while a religious fundamentalist might say that you don't have the right to say what you say

why don't you get that?


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

[ Parent ]

Fascinating. (3.00 / 4) (#70)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:48:24 AM EST

You don't trust people to be free without some quasi-religious rhetorical document insisting they are? I'm not surprised you're a preacher, circletimessquare, Christianity was the religion of slaves, too.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

educating the ignorant ;-) (none / 1) (#71)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:08:30 AM EST

why yes genius! no one needs a document to tell them to do anything!

in fact, before there were ANY documents, your local warlord certainly didn't have any constraints on doing whatever he wanted with you, no?

wait... what's that? he's infringing on your freedoms?

hmmm... you might need a document to protect you, a set of laws to describe what people can and cannot do, to constrain evil behavior and still allow for basic freedoms

fascinating the things you learn on the intarweb, no?

;-P


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

[ Parent ]

You are a silly man. (3.00 / 5) (#73)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:38:30 AM EST

The powerful will do as they wish to free men, constitution or no, same as always, but free men should not volunteer their slavery like so many Germans. What the constitution does is enslave minds. Belief in the sacred is what enables the black-robed priesthood tending the eternal fires to give objective rigid values to vague phrases like "illegal enemy combatants." Once these monsters escape, no one knows how to get them back into the zoo and they proceed to eat us out of house and home, and freedom. It is thus that Atlas Corporation became entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, same as a tender person was entitled, once.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

you argue a position of no hope (none / 1) (#77)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:57:15 AM EST

so what is your point in arguing?

the picture you paint is so hopeless and grim, why are you not just falling in lockstep with the rest of the slaves?

is it because you still talk because you believe in hope, which therefore paints all of your words to be a lie?

;-)


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

[ Parent ]

for the comraderie (none / 1) (#80)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 08:45:08 AM EST

We're all travellers, circletimessquare. There is no destination but death, but the journey's nice anyway.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

take your point to its logical conclusion (none / 1) (#124)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:11:53 PM EST

if there's no point in arguing with the inevitable you say, then you think you can convince me to stop talking and fighting

well then: why does that not also apply to you?

in other words, why are you still opposing all that you see as evil in the world?

there's no point, right?

but you are still talking nonetheless!

hmmm...

which means 1 of 2 things:

  1. you really believe what you say, but you have not yet come to realize that continuing to talk and fight is inconsistent with your belief, and so you will stop talking and fighting at some point... in which case i and everyone else here can ignore you in the meantime as i have revealed the flaw in your position to you clearly for all of us to see
  2. you still believe in hope for a better future, but you haven't come to realize yet that your own attitude works against that, in which case you must come to agree with me before you can move on
it's your choice, but your present position is logically untenable


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

[ Parent ]
hurr... (none / 1) (#168)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:24:15 PM EST

if there's no point in arguing with the inevitable you say,

I didn't say that, nor anything else you subsequently attribute to me as you venture into the psychological domain of SIGNOR SPAGHETTI's motives, association paths, complexes, fixations and the rest, padding your empty verbalisms into men of straw, always eager to make your political opponents the opportunity for psychoanalysis. Even if I hold the purely intellectual position politics is an act of futility, which is not unlike saying pigs are rightly named because they are filthy animals, struggle is still necessary, and anyway it is not a matter for choice: birds sing, wheels spin, and we, too, can't stand still.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

you'll figure it out ;-) (1.50 / 2) (#238)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:50:25 PM EST

you're like a teenager still growing up

so loud, so proud, so dumb

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

[ Parent ]

you're just leading me on for some strange purpose (none / 1) (#321)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 03:39:00 PM EST

i feel so... used.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

you argue a position of utopia (none / 0) (#114)
by speek on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:39:25 PM EST

Since we've apparently already reach utopia, why bother arguing? Things can't get better than this, could they? Why not just enjoy the perfection that is our world rather than come here and argue with people who can't see the utopia around them?

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

i would like to ask you what hope means to you (none / 0) (#121)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:05:55 PM EST

and how you live without the concept

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

[ Parent ]
I would like to ask you what utopia means to you (none / 0) (#331)
by speek on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 07:13:43 PM EST

and why does it make you so angry?

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

what the hell are you talking about? (none / 0) (#333)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 07:21:19 PM EST

i don't believe in utopia

i believe in making the world a little better

go ahead and prosecute me on that basis if you like! ;-P

and i am angry

angry at those whose blindness at not understanding the human condition makes them supporting actors of the injustices in this world with their ivory tower arrogance

naive fuckers like you for example

i'm not mad because i want to make the world a better place

i want to make the world a better place, AND i'm just an angry vindictive fuck anyways innately

so suck my dick or fuck off


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

[ Parent ]

no no no (none / 0) (#363)
by speek on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 04:30:07 PM EST

But everything's perfect, right? The US is perfect, Americans are all perfect, corporations are perfect. What could anyone possibly want to change? All is already bliss. You tell us that all the time, so why does our perfect and happy world make you angry?

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

seriously, what the fuck is your problem? (none / 0) (#370)
by circletimessquare on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 06:14:20 PM EST

do you fucking understand the difference between trying to make it better and trying to make it perfect?

i don't think ANYTHING is perfect, but according to you i have to think that before i try to make things better?

seriosuly, what kind of low iq person are you?


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

[ Parent ]

huh? (none / 1) (#406)
by speek on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:41:34 AM EST

Why are you trying to make things perfect when they already are? I don't get you.

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

FOOL! WE ARE NOT GOVERNED BY TABLETS BUT BY MEN (3.00 / 4) (#75)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:51:33 AM EST

WHITEY WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE YOU ARE GOVERNED BY TABLETS BECAUSE NO FOOL HE YOU CAN'T KILL TABLETS.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

not to worry (none / 1) (#111)
by zorba77 on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:36:41 PM EST

if liberals were in charge they would ignore the constituion more than the neo cons.
Return the West Coast to the Tribes of sasquatch!
[ Parent ]
Your head must ... (3.00 / 2) (#398)
by Peahippo on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 05:48:55 AM EST

... have been in a bucket of beer during the 1990s, but the (Neo-)Liberals WERE in charge then, and they DID ignore the US Constitution almost as much as the Neo-Conservatives do now. (If the US Congress was as ruled by Neo-Libs then as it is by Neo-Cons now, they'd ignore the US Constitution equally.) As far as Human liberty goes, both factions are essentially the same ... which is not surprising, considering that both factions are merely the same elitist culture -- Imperial culture. Any powers in the hands of the People (and not in the hands of the Elite and Corporations) is a danger to these factions.


[ Parent ]
Guantanimo (2.25 / 4) (#69)
by ehidle on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:38:07 AM EST

As far as I know, there are no American citizens in Guantanimo Bay. American rights dont pertain to POWs. You could still argue this fact as the legal system in the US is backed up out its ass, but you are going to have to do some actual research.

Besides... (3.00 / 2) (#89)
by bml on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:44:00 AM EST

it's "Guantanamo".

The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]
Not POWs (3.00 / 2) (#95)
by Sgt York on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:31:21 AM EST

It has been explicitly stated that they are not POWs. If they were, they would be subject to Geneva. (laugh. that was funny.)

The Constitution reads that the US govt has no right to hold a person in this manner. A strict constructionist (like me) would take this phrasing as applicable to all people, not restricted to US citizens.

The prisoners at GtMo are being held in an unreasonable manner. I have no problem with the fact that they were taken prisoner, nor do I have a problem with investigating them. Each person there potentially represents a threat to the US, and they should be investigated. It would be irresponsible not to. However, they need to be rapidly assesed by the judicial system as to wether or not they do represent a threat. If they are enemy combatants, they need to be held. If not, they need to be released. But that status needs to be determined quickly.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

they are a threat (2.33 / 3) (#109)
by zorba77 on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:35:17 PM EST

they should have any and all intel they possess extracted by any means nessicary and then have a gps  implanted inserted into them and be allowed to returned to the nest.

cruise missles are standing by

:)
Return the West Coast to the Tribes of sasquatch!
[ Parent ]

Are the prisoners at Guantanimo (1.33 / 3) (#110)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:35:41 PM EST

Being held for criminal prosecution? Didn't think so, dumbshit.

An actual strict constructionist would read the fucking document, you lazy prick.

[ Parent ]

I'd respond (none / 1) (#119)
by Sgt York on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:49:29 PM EST

But I try to actively restrain myself when someone starts spouting ad hominems. fuck off.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

That wasn't an ad hominem. (none / 1) (#122)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:08:13 PM EST

It was an insult. Learn the difference.

Serious question. Do you know anything at all?

[ Parent ]

Como? (none / 1) (#123)
by Sgt York on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:10:17 PM EST


There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Geneva convention is explicit (none / 0) (#158)
by Vygramul on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:29:56 PM EST

It has been explicitly stated that they are not POWs. If they were, they would be subject to Geneva.

They are subject to the Geneva convention. Geneva explicitly excludes the likes of those imprisoned in Guantanimo from the rights and protections granted to POWs. It is quite unequivocal about this point.

This is separate from the moral arguments for how one is to treat prisoners of their sort. It is merely an observation on the convention.

The Constitution reads that the US govt has no right to hold a person in this manner. A strict constructionist (like me) would take this phrasing as applicable to all people, not restricted to US citizens.

I don't recall there being outrage that German WWII POW's were held in the US for as long as three years without representation. But then, I'm unreasonable that way. And so were the founding fathers, who did not grant British POW's representation, either.


If Brute Force isn't working, you're not using enough.
[ Parent ]

typical detachment from reality (1.50 / 2) (#108)
by zorba77 on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:33:34 PM EST

That an obvious liberal wants to give American citizen equivalent rights to enemy combatants.

idiot.
Return the West Coast to the Tribes of sasquatch!
[ Parent ]

There is (none / 1) (#182)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 06:03:02 PM EST

He's a Chicago gangster. A hood, a thug, probably a murderer. But he's been in Cuba for a couple of years now, arrested in Chicago. Sorry, the only link I could find (Google has been failing it lately) is, alas, a hippie rag

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Evangelizing (3.00 / 4) (#84)
by Kasreyn on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:50:38 AM EST

On the other hand, children have been suspended and even expelled from school for evangelizing.

I don't think they were being punished for their religion. I think they were being punished for being obnoxious. I don't give a shit if you say your religion tells you to act in a certain obnoxious manner. If we start allowing that sort of excuse, then anything goes.

Agreed on permits for firearms and protesting. If they're specifically granted by the Bill of Rights, it does seem odd to have to go through a special extra step. Basically it's to keep tabs, and to provide a "chilling effect" to passively discourage people from even bothering. They basically erect a wall of red tape and time-wasting around anything they don't want you to do.

The drug seizure laws are, of course, blatantly unconstitutional and always have been. And there also seems to be zero political will to get them changed. There appears to be a strong SEP field at work.

Apparently zapping a man with 90kv in order to kill him isn't cruel, nor was it unusual when it was first done.

Well, come now. Everything's "unusual" by that sense of the word the first time it's done. Once upon a time, hanging was unusual. I'm personally in favor of dropping the "unusual" line, and simply banning cruel punishment. "Unusual" is too hard to define as a standard.

How are drug laws Constitutional?

To provide for the general welfare, establish domestic tranquility, etc.? Those in favor of drug laws feel that without those laws, our nation's tranquility and general welfare would suffer greatly.

why does she not have the right to put anything she wants into her body, whether it be food, cocaine, or rat poison?

Ah-ah-ah! Rat poison would mean a suicide attempt, and in this country, police can enter your home without a court order and forcibly prevent you from taking your own life. So much for respecting the choice of the individual, indeed. What could be more fundamental proof of respect for the individual's life than respecting their control over its ending?

especially when they all seem hell bent on removing them.

Shouldn't that be "heaven-bent"? The funny thing about America is, only the extremists think of it as a dedicatedly religious nation, but almost *everyone* in it has a viewpoint derived from modern Christianity. There are these assumptions, such as "life is good and death is bad", and "success means god approves of you", and "people should be protected from themselves when they make 'bad' choices", that most Americans have. I think they show how Christianity has molded American culture enough that even the mildly or non religious in this country are affected by it.

...Eh. on reading my comment, I realize it's a load of incoherent, poorly-focused rat shit. But I expect your story will die in queue, and I probably won't wake up by then. *thunk*


"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.
Not always (none / 0) (#94)
by Sgt York on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:24:09 AM EST

Although I agree that freedom of speech and religion does not give you the right to stand up and shout your viewpoint to a captive audience, this isn't the only thing that happens.

I know kids that got in trouble (detention, personal effects taken until end of school) for reading their Bible during lunch period, between classes, or during free periods. This happened to 4 kids that I know until one of them stood up for herself and threatened to make a stink about it. It wasn't one teacher, either. Two different teachers doled out the punishment, and several others executed it (held the kids stuff or monitored detention), knowing what the punishment was for.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

well........ (none / 0) (#107)
by zorba77 on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:32:16 PM EST

"Although I agree that freedom of speech and religion does not give you the right to stand up and shout your viewpoint to a captive audience, this isn't the only thing that happens."

take that notion and apply it to a hippy sit in, how is that any different?
Return the West Coast to the Tribes of sasquatch!
[ Parent ]

It's not different (none / 1) (#118)
by Sgt York on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:43:43 PM EST

You have the right to protest and have the right to speak your mind. You do not have the right to disrupt other people's activity. What you are protesting or talking about is irrelevant.

A lot of people confuse the right to speak with the right to be heard. You have the former, you do not have the latter.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

bingo (none / 0) (#136)
by zorba77 on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:45:07 PM EST


Return the West Coast to the Tribes of sasquatch!
[ Parent ]
Am I missing something? (none / 0) (#139)
by Sgt York on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:48:03 PM EST

What was your point there?

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

I think he just forgot the en tea. (none / 0) (#285)
by Kasreyn on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 01:49:34 AM EST

Just like I did!
"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 ]
Punished? (3.00 / 2) (#97)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:50:20 AM EST

Being ejected from the public school system is more along the lines of being rewarded.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]
incoherence (none / 1) (#106)
by zorba77 on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:30:44 PM EST

breeds the same, you are not fault.
Return the West Coast to the Tribes of sasquatch!
[ Parent ]
Christianity... *sigh* stealing morals again :) (none / 0) (#481)
by A synx on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:01:29 PM EST

a viewpoint derived from modern Christianity. There are these assumptions, such as "life is good and death is bad", and "success means god approves of you", and "people should be protected from themselves when they make 'bad' choices",

Ohh, yeaah, really.  Christianity is the original, and only source for those beliefs.  Why, without Christianity we would all think that death is good, and that god hates successful people, and we'd all naively assume that nobody ever should be stopped from making bad choices.  Thank goodness Christianity is the only ideology ever that fulfills those social needs.

Guess what? Breathing is derived from modern Christianity. (it's true!  There is breathing in the bible!)  So if you breathe, you have to call yourself Christian.  Wow!  Suddenly 122% of the USA's citizens are Christian!  That means we should all support the faith based initiative and anyone who complains that it's all going to Christian churches is a God damned hypocrite since because they breathe, they are Christian too.

[ Parent ]

More Freedoms? (3.00 / 8) (#127)
by schrotie on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 01:26:46 PM EST

I'm from Germany which has the reputation of being one of the most tightly regulated western Democracies. There are laws for everything. There are probably some freedoms Germans enjoy that Americans don't, but there are lots of freedoms Americans enjoy that Germans don't. And that's good!

Most obviously Germany mostly respects international law and its restrictions: Geneva convention and Den Haag court, bio.- and chem. weapon control, nuke ban, UNESCO human rights, Kyoto. America has violated every single one of those - what a great exercise of freedom.

But it's rather the small things that matter: My neighbors and the people on streets most likely don't wear guns. Landlords are not allowed to exploit their tenants: if the rent is unreasonable, they can be sued. Same goes for unreasonable prices in retail. People are not allowed to insult me. They have to have health insurance and if somebody causes havoc with a car, his mandatory insurance will cover that. There are thousands more such laws. Many of them suck, some suck big time (like drug laws which are rather American, though the punishments are not as drastic). But I would not want to change that for the American way.

Really? (2.00 / 2) (#211)
by spectra72 on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 08:08:46 PM EST

How has the US violated Kyoto? It's provisions don't come to fruition until 2008-2012. It didn't become a fully binding treaty until Feb 2005. Are you saying the US has violated a treaty in force for 2 months where the verification phase is 3 years away at the very least? Not signing it does not constitute a violation. By all accounts, come 2012 there will be plenty of countries violating the treaty by not making their target reductions. Actually, I'd wager the US has a better shot through voluntary reductions, which are happening btw, than many other countries will via government mandate.

Which Nuke ban are you refering to? Test Ban? Non-Proliferation? There is no blanket ban on nukes you know. Nuclear powers that existed before the Non-proliferation treaty went into a effect were not expected to give up their weapons, they just were expected not to give them to non-nuclear powers.

How has the US violated the International Criminal Court? By asking for changes in its rules? *ASKING* now constitutes a violation?

Your loose language betrays your loose thinking. It does not reflect well on you.

[ Parent ]

You are right (none / 0) (#213)
by schrotie on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 08:22:02 PM EST

Neither has the US broken the bio. and chem weapon treaty to my knowledge. As with most other points the US just told everybody else to fuck themselves and leave the US alone.

It has however broken (or claimed to do so) a nuke control treaty with the former USSR by developing (or claiming to develop) mini nukes, bunker busters or whatever you call them. Short of dropping some bombs not even the US can "break" Dean Haag. They have however violated international law on many occasions (invading Irak, dropping cluster bombs, torturing prisoners, holding prisoners without trial, I think even DU ammunition is banned, or isn't it?). And they can't be charged by Den Haag.

Your loose language betrays your loose thinking. It does not reflect well on you.
Are you trying to be funny?

[ Parent ]
Mostly wrong (none / 0) (#229)
by Polverone on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:13:16 PM EST

The US has ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. It has ratified the Biological Weapons Convention treaty. It is actively destroying its old stockpiles of chemical weapons by incineration. Its stockpiles of biological weapons were destroyed in the 1970s. There may be newer treaties that the US hasn't signed on to, but I hardly think it's fair to say that the US told the world to "fuck themselves."

I pay fairly close attention to nuclear weapons proliferation. The US has not developed any new nukes in the last several years. There has been some research money earmarked for studying the development of new "bunker busters," but the funding is too small to develop and deploy a complete weapons system or even a single prototype weapon. I agree that full development of the weapons system would be a bad idea, but I cannot think of any treaties that it would violate.

Invading Iraq and torturing prisoners may be good examples of US violation of international law. Using cluster bombs and depleted uranium ammunition are not by themselves good examples of US violation of international law. Neither is categorically illegal. The US has been criticized as being careless in using cluster bombs where civilians may encounter them. Carelessness in use of cluster bombs can violate international law, but mere use doesn't. I believe the same applies to depleted uranium projectiles. There are people who would like to see DU weapons declared categorically illegal, but I do not think they are currently illegal.
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]

Treator (none / 0) (#303)
by schrotie on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 05:54:02 AM EST

The US has ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. It has ratified the Biological Weapons Convention treaty.
Yes, but it is not allowing weapon inspectors into US laboratories and has thus violated the treaties.
There has been some research money earmarked for studying the development of new "bunker busters," but the funding is too small to develop and deploy a complete weapons system or even a single prototype weapon.
I'm not to judge. Maybe the US did not break it yet, but Bush leaves the firm impression on people worldwide, that he does not consider nuke bans binding for the US. A source I found holds the opinion, that the US is gravely undermining two nuke ban treaties and is violating a third (test ban from 1996). Germany is BTW also breaking that last treaty by delivering technology to France and the US.

[ Parent ]
followup (none / 0) (#369)
by Polverone on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 06:11:36 PM EST

I agree that the US has done poorly in allowing inspection/verification for the terms of the chemical and biological treaties, but this was imposed by Congress, not the president, and happened before Bush took office. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to say that the US is completely snubbing the world in this regard since it unilaterally decided to destroy its chemical and biological weapons stockpiles well before the corresponding treaties even existed, and it has carried through with the destruction (biological stockpiles are gone and chemical stockpiles are in the process of destruction).

The US never ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, so it cannot be in violation of it. Still, the US has not conducted a full nuclear test since 1992.

The actual text of the Treaty On The Non-Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons places remarkably few restraints on the nuclear weapons states in existence at the time (UK, US, USSR, France, China). The nuclear states are supposed to gradually work toward disarmament but there are no timetables or provisions for enforcement, and in practice this clause is/was practically ignored by all nuclear weapons states from the beginning.

To make a long story short, I agree that the US government under Bush has behaved fairly unilaterally but I don't agree that it has engaged in a lot of treaty violations in this area by his leadership.
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]

My screws aren't too tight tonight (none / 1) (#232)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:18:11 PM EST

How can you violate an agreement if you didn't agree to it?

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Have you actually read Kyoto? (none / 0) (#355)
by issachar on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 01:39:19 PM EST

It doesn't do jack to help the environment. It looks good and sounds good, but if you actually sit down and read it, you'll notice that it has this wonderful little thing called "carbon credits" which make the whole thing useless for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon Credits are based on the idea that your country might be more willing to or technically inclined to reduce greenhouse emissions than mine. If you exceed your reduction targets I don't have to meet mine as long as I give you money. The idea is to create a financial incentive for some to exceed targets.

Sounds good, but it doesn't actually help the environment because several countries have had big economic slumps since the 1990 reduction benchmarks were set. As a result, they actually below targets. The action that makes the most economic sense and will disrupt voters lifestyles the least is to simply buy credits from one of those countries for a big stack of cash. The effect is that the government can say "We met Kyoto" and make everyone feel good, but not have actually reduced emissions any more than they would have been if we hadn't ratified Kyoto. What was supposed to be an environmental treaty has become a money transfer shakedown treaty.

I want to have a healthy environment. It's incredibly frustrating that so-called "environmentalists" are busy villifying anyone who doesn't sign on to a bill that doesn't help the environment, costs a lot of money, but sounds nice.


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

Surprise, Surprise (none / 0) (#402)
by schrotie on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 07:52:23 AM EST

Indeed it's rather shocking. Some 170 countries (or how many were it?) reach a compromise, and it's not what you (you as in issachar) expect? That's downright naughty of the world. Democratic sissies!

Meanwhile there is nothing better, indeed meanwhile there is nothing else. Nobody knows if and how the man made part of the greenhouse effect will affect us. But it is obvious, that without internationally respected treaties the rain forests will go, every major fish population will be destroyed, most larger land animals will be extinct, the whole biodiversity will be reduced to some mere percents of what was there before humans. And that will likely become very expensive, if that is the only argument that still has any momentum of its own.

The only way to stop that madness - if there is such a way at all, because it looks like time is very short - the only way to stop that is internationally respected environment protection treaties. If the only such thing ever attempted - Kyoto - fails because those guys who by very, very far emit the most greenhouse gases, then chances for saving anything of the above look rather depressing. And it's the US' fault as well as everybody else'. Maybe just a little more the US'.

[ Parent ]

it's not better than nothing... (none / 0) (#463)
by issachar on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 05:10:09 AM EST

Kyoto IS nothing. When it's cheaper to buy Carbon Credits created by an economics slump (than to actually reduce greenhouse gases that's what our governments will do, because Kyoto let's them get credit for being "green" without actually having to be green.

I don't care if the US is as fault or not. I don't live there, and their politicians don't care about me as I don't vote. But I do object when my politicians spend the time their environmental efforst supporting useless but nice-sounding ideas get in the way of real science getting done. When I ask a politician what he's planning to do to reduce greenhouse gases and he says "implement Kyoto" I know that he's either a fool who doesn't know what Kyoto actually does or he thinks I'm a fool he can buy my vote with some environmental sounding words rather than actual results.

Kyoto distracts and gives the false sense of having achieved something. It also costs money. Money that can no longer be spent on actually reducing greenhouse gases as we've already spent it producing another variety of hot air.


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

As a University-educated Physicist (3.00 / 5) (#156)
by MichaelCrawford on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:27:08 PM EST

I assert it is my right as an American to carry hydrogen bombs, provided I observe the necessary radiological health precautions.

Now, as a resident of Canada, I acknowledge that I don't have the same right to bear arms here that I do in the US, but I do feel I ought to take back up possession of my atomic weaponry back up when I go back to the States to visit Mom and Aunt Peggy.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


exactly! (1.66 / 3) (#162)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:42:24 PM EST

technology is not neutral

a gun can be used to hammer nails, start fires, and shoot clay pigeons

but what is a gun created for, bought for, and used for?

plutonium's just an element, right?

so why is plutonium illegal, it's just neutral technology right?

:-/

you get it, gun nuts don't


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

[ Parent ]

Plutonium is a valuable educational tool (none / 0) (#170)
by MichaelCrawford on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:25:54 PM EST

We had a gram or so of plutonium in the undergrad physics lab that we used as a neutron source. One day I bombarded a silver disk with the neutrons to transmute it to a couple different isotopes, then measured their decay with a geiger counter to determine their half-lives. Having two different isotopes with two different, but short half-lives made the measurement more complex because I had to separate the two decay curves.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


[ Parent ]

That's not any more complex (none / 0) (#258)
by Cat Huggles on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:53:00 PM EST

Just use gnuplot's fit function. :)

[ Parent ]
BWAHAHAHA (1.50 / 2) (#264)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:03:07 PM EST

well so is smallpox, let's hand it out ;-P


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

[ Parent ]
it's not simply illegal (3.00 / 2) (#179)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:48:02 PM EST

It's effectively illegal.

For example, you don't possess mineral rights on your property and it's illegal to transport into the country without government approval. Every sale is also monitored by the government. As best as I understand it, a private citizen can own it but the effects of these other requirements make it impossible to obtain.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
It's illegal because they don't trust you (none / 1) (#222)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:08:27 PM EST

Same reason drugs are illegal. In case of the plutonium I actually have to agree, that's some nasty shit.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Same reason as drugs? (none / 0) (#453)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 12:00:20 PM EST

So, they don't want you to smoke plutonium cigarettes?
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
I'm surprised that (3.00 / 5) (#163)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:47:39 PM EST

We haven't made a successful fourteenth amendment approach for the right to bear arms. If military personnel can get access to nuclear weaponry, this should be within the reach of private citizens, too, provided they satisfy the same standards required of military personnel.

Otherwise, this is class segregation that doesn't even aspire to the low standards of separate but equal; it's just out-and-out discrimination!

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
IAWTP (none / 1) (#178)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:40:21 PM EST

I know you were being facetious, but I personally believe I SHOULD be able to posess a hydrogen bomb.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

You seem to read selectively (none / 1) (#308)
by Exergetic Analysis on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 09:10:06 AM EST

And consequently, you missed the subject line of his post, which read: "As a University-trained physicist..."

That means he's qualified under the term "well-regulated" (which is taken to mean "trained") to possess a hydrogen bomb. You, on the other hand, shouldn't be permitted to possess anything more malicious or complex than your own shoe laces.

[ Parent ]

piffle (none / 1) (#324)
by Polverone on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 03:59:52 PM EST

The average physics major who's earned his BS is no more qualified to own a hydrogen bomb than the average McDonald's manager. Thermonuclear warheads are weapons, not science experiments. Do you think that metallurgists are more qualified to own knives than the general public?
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]
At least I understand radiation shielding (3.00 / 2) (#339)
by MichaelCrawford on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 09:23:20 PM EST

A soldier might have more weapons training than me but he could get cancer if his bomb needed to be dismantled for servicing.

I on the other hand would know about proper handling of radiological materials.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


[ Parent ]

I suppose (none / 1) (#340)
by Polverone on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 09:49:56 PM EST

But you probably don't make your own tritium, so when it needs a refill you mail it to the service center just like the McDonald's manager would. McDonald's managers might be less educated so some of them ignore the "no user-serviceable parts inside" sign and mess around with the warhead's guts, but the physics major will ignore the warning sign because burning curiosity compels examination of the weapon's internals. So now I'm starting to think that it's actually more dangerous to let a physics major have a warhead, compared to the general public. It's like letting EEs and programmers play around with new electronic gadgets: you just know they're going to take your innocent consumer product and turn it into something dangerous. I would hate to see that happen with thermonuclear weapons as well as digital music services :-(
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]
Fine, I'm in a militia. (none / 1) (#354)
by issachar on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 01:22:30 PM EST

My ex-marine buddy who got disillusioned with the government after Vietnam started this militia and I joined it. He makes us train every Saturday and I show up all the time. Now I want my H-Bomb.

See... It's a stupid argument. So go change your constitution instead of pretending it says what you (and probably most Americans) want.


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

There has never been a Constitutional (2.14 / 7) (#164)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:50:19 PM EST

Right of firearm ownership apart from use in a well-regulated militia, which is today understood to be the National Guard. The NRA invented the private right of ownership, but has yet to get the courts to acknowledge it.

4th Amendment jurisprudence has grown up around a distinction between real and personal property, as well as an expectation standard of reasonableness. This easily explains the different standards for searching a car and searching a home and hardly means the rights preserved in the Amendment are meaningless.

The seizure of property suspected of being used in drug transactions is an exercise of the police power, not the power of eminent domain. The latter is governed by the Fifth Amendment while the former is not. This is easy to see why, since a drug-related seizure is effected to disrupt drug dealing, not for public use.

The prisoners held at Guantanimo are not being subjected to criminal prosecution and are not citizens of the United States, so the Sixth Amendment is irrelevant.

"Excessive bail" in the Eight Amendment must be understood in the context of the compelling interest the government has in protecting the community from dangerous persons while they await trial. "Excessive" doesn't mean "more than the person can pay," and it has never been understood to mean that. The grant of bail is intended to assure that the accused has the ability and freedom to mount a defense while being still having a strong incentive to return to court for trial.

Obviously the Ninth Amendment can't mean that you have the right to do anything at all. Read the Amendment again. It says that the people may have rights beyond what are listed in the previous eight amendments, but it doesn't say what they are. Why exactly do you think you have the right to do drugs, anyway?

As for the Tenth Amendment, the Article I grant is so broad that it's hard to say what exactly would count as a violation of it.

In summary, you were unqualified to write this article, and you should pull it.

see now, you're reasonable (3.00 / 2) (#166)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:07:22 PM EST

therefore, you won't have a chance of making an impression on those here who are drunk on hyperbole

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

[ Parent ]
That should be somebody's sig (none / 1) (#221)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:06:38 PM EST

+3 for you =P

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

you're an idiot (none / 0) (#197)
by esrever on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:06:44 PM EST

I'm sorry, I'm not even a USian, and yet I am capable of understanding that the phrase 'well regulated' means 'trained' in the language of the day.

The entire rest of your argument falls down at that point.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

It's not my argument. (none / 0) (#201)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:26:41 PM EST

It's the US Supreme Court's.

[ Parent ]
you used it as justification (none / 1) (#202)
by esrever on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:31:40 PM EST

in your post, not the supreme court.

If you accept the position that whatever a court says is 'right', well, good for you.  I take the position that whatever a court says is the law, for now, and whether they were 'right' or not is moot.  For now.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Listen. (none / 0) (#204)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:41:55 PM EST

The Second Amendment does not provide for a right for private individuals to own firearms, except as necessary to maintain a militia.

This has always been the majority opinion in this country. This has always been the law that was applied. Only NRA members, libertarians, and sundry other nuts disagree.

The state National Guard is the militia contemplated in the Constitution. This is how the law is universally interpreted and applied. There is no room whatsoever for argument on this point.

You might think things should be differently, but in terms of what actual legal authorities have held the Constitution to mean, my post gave a fair representation.

Listen, ranting on the Internet is fun, I know, but the law isn't necessarily what you want it to be, and the law isn't necessarily what your untrained opinion makes of a cursory reading of the Constitution.

[ Parent ]

my untrained reading of the Constitution (none / 1) (#242)
by esrever on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:57:38 PM EST

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you were a lawyer, nor that I offered any opinion about what my qualifications were.

Nevertheless, there is plenty of extant evidence that documents the fact that 'well regulated' meant 'well trained' in the language of the day.  Whether your court system agrees with that is a moot point; it does not change the reality of it, which is exactly what I was pointing out in the GP

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Pop quiz. (none / 0) (#248)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:33:04 PM EST

What does the Constitution really mean? (100% of your grade)

A) What the authorities tasked with interpreting it take it to mean.
B) What some guy on the Internet thinks it means, based on his "extant evidence."

What's a moot point is what "well regulated" meant in 1791. Originalism isn't exactly popular in the courts at the moment. Look, this isn't some academic exercise where all views are equal and valued. The plain truth is that there is widespread disagreement about what the Constitution means, but only a few people's interpretations actually matter.

I've been trying to explain the views that matter, as best as I can and as best as I know them. You, I don't know what you're doing.

Come on. The reality of it? The reality of what? Reality is ink stains on a piece of paper. Your reading isn't any more "reality" than the other guy's, but in some cases, the other guy's reading has a hell of a lot more muscle behind it.

[ Parent ]

so you advocate (none / 0) (#251)
by esrever on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:38:46 PM EST

that might makes right?

Ok.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Not at all. (none / 1) (#255)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:42:37 PM EST

I'm saying might makes law.

[ Parent ]
well (none / 0) (#256)
by esrever on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:47:37 PM EST

exactly

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
Reality opposes your opinion ... (none / 1) (#397)
by Peahippo on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 05:34:37 AM EST

... so shut the fuck up.

Every time -- yes, EVERY FUCKING TIME -- I have gone into a store or stopped in a gun show to purchase a weapon, no one every conducted a "militia check" on me. And you know why? :

BECAUSE YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A MILITIA MEMBER TO ENJOY THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN AMERICA, YOU MORON!

This happens every day in America. It's happened for over TWO CENTURIES. Why don't you understand this? This thing that happens every day IS THE LAW. The NRA didn't set it up that way ... it's ALWAYS been legal to go into a gun shop, into a gun show, or up to a private citizen and buy a gun in America.

You are a fucking moron. You insist the sky's green when anyone can stick their heads out and see that it's blue. You are the stereotypical 100% agenda boy -- you just want to ban guns in the hands of citizens -- and it's just embarrasing how you continue to insist your opinion is the Law of the Land.


[ Parent ]
Research, please (none / 0) (#457)
by MoebiusStreet on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 04:46:41 PM EST

Before you say something so stupid.

There is ample reason to believe that the Constitution says, quite explictly, that EVERYONE has a right to bear ANY weapon.

First, is it an individual right? As has been said elsewhere, the term "militia" was understood at the time to mean all able-bodied men of the specified age. That's what the authors meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Once we factor in equal rights, we're left with "everyone".

So does it mean that the National Guard could get the right for us, since they're *currently* our "militia"? No, because of the phrase "the people". Elsewhere in the BoR (1, 4, etc), that phrase is unquestioningly taken to mean "each individual person". It makes no sense to redefine the term only in the scope of this sentence (and indeed, jurisprudence forbids reading documents in that way). Read the Dred Scott decision; while it's nutty in other ways, you can see the SCOTUS citing the individual interpretation.

Does this mean that anyone can carry an AD-47? Yes. In fact, the Miller decision of 1939 (the only SCOTUS decision directly addressing this; see http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html ) explicitly says so. Miller was convicted of carrying a short-barreled shotgun. The SCOTUS found against him -- because they saw no evidence that such a weapon would be used by a militia member (which they essentially equated to infantry). Given this decision, today's infantry weapons of M-16s, AK-47s, and even BMG-50s are fair game.

[ Parent ]

That one has always bugged me... (none / 0) (#353)
by issachar on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 01:19:44 PM EST

The plain meaning of the phrase seems to be that American citizens can possess "arms" without restriction. The bit about "militia" seems a red herring even if one doesn't accept the premise that that meant "trained".
"You're not in a militia, you can't have that gun"

"Fine, me and my two buddies here are starting a militia. We train on weekends".

The problem if you admit that the Consitution gives that right, then you can't have any limitation on "arms". It's hard to see how you can restrict an American's right to possess any weapon.

I'm guessing that most Americans don't want anti-aircraft guns or the like in the hands of just anyone. But for some reason they're content pretending the Constitution means what they want rather that changing it so that it does mean what they want.

Very intellectually dishonest I say, but it seems to be a common response from people who wish the constitution said something, but don't seem to be prepared for the effort it would take to actually change it. So let's just all pretend...


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

as you said, (none / 0) (#206)
by Phil Urich on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:58:44 PM EST

"The prisoners held at Guantanimo are not being subjected to criminal prosecution and are not citizens of the United States, so the Sixth Amendment is irrelevant."

That's what the Administration has argued. They've also mentioned that they aren't bothering to follow the Geneva Convention either. They have rationalizations for that as well. See how easy it is to argue away rights and freedoms?

[ Parent ]
Whatever. (none / 0) (#209)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 08:05:42 PM EST

I don't care about that. The article appeared to claim that the detainment of enemy combatants at Guantanimo bay violats the Sixth Amendment, and it obviously doesn't.

[ Parent ]
It does when they're American citizens (3.00 / 2) (#227)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:12:31 PM EST

Jose Padilla belongs in a prison, but he's an American citizen and deserves a fair trial. Seems after he spent over two years at gitmo the US Supreme Court agreed. I would hardly call two years "speedy".

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

heh (none / 0) (#243)
by esrever on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:02:47 PM EST

Nice finesse.  Seeing as how he's already argued over here that the Supremes are infallible, I guess he won't have much comeback to this one...

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
Except, oh, that they never (none / 0) (#245)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:21:01 PM EST

Ruled anything remotely close to what that moron claimed.

[ Parent ]
I suggest (none / 0) (#249)
by esrever on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:34:00 PM EST

that you read carefully and contrast against this comment here

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
Two points (none / 0) (#252)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:40:22 PM EST

First, Hamdi and Padilla aren't at Guantanamo.

Second, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld wasn't a Sixth Amendment case.

Now, just what point were you trying to make?

[ Parent ]

sorry, you're right. (none / 0) (#254)
by esrever on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:42:14 PM EST

It doesn't violate the 6th, it violates the 5th.  My mistake.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
You'll note a couple things. (none / 0) (#244)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:20:09 PM EST

First, I don't think Padilla was ever at Guantanamo, and he certainly hasn't been for a long time.

Second, the Supreme Court never ruled that Padilla deserved a trial. I don't know where you got that from. You seem to have made it up.

[ Parent ]

"Point" one. (none / 1) (#214)
by Cousin Ed on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 08:33:38 PM EST

You don't even seem to understand the context of that ruling or what it means. You probably couldn't name the defendent off hand.


I endorse large-scale foreign wars.
[ Parent ]
You're going to have to do better than that. (none / 0) (#215)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 08:41:53 PM EST



[ Parent ]
I'm sorry, I don't converse with (1.33 / 3) (#216)
by Cousin Ed on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 08:43:35 PM EST

niggers or liberals.


I endorse large-scale foreign wars.
[ Parent ]
Convenient. (none / 0) (#217)
by the dead on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 08:44:14 PM EST



[ Parent ]
I'm sorry but... (1.50 / 1) (#225)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:10:13 PM EST

you just did. The gentleman you replied to is not only a liberal but black. And he's not only blac, he's a slave!

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

If you don't talk to liberals (none / 0) (#452)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 11:56:37 AM EST

WTF are you doing on K5?
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Have you actually read the Consitution? (none / 0) (#275)
by godix on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 12:34:57 AM EST

I'm just curious because out of seven ammendments you talk about you were wrong on five of them.
Right of firearm ownership apart from use in a well-regulated militia, which is today understood to be the National Guard.

You might understand the militia to be the National Guard but our forefathers, you know the guys who wrote the Constitution, didn't. Try reading the Militia Act of 1792. It calls for "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia". Toss in later ideals of equality of sexes, equality of races, freedom to everyone, equality for the handicapped, and equality of ages and you end up with 'each and every citizen of the respective States...' Sounds like the definition of who should be enrolled in the militia that our forefathers used translates to 'everyone'.
This easily explains the different standards for searching a car and searching a home and hardly means the rights preserved in the Amendment are meaningless.

It is totally legal for the police to stop me and force me to prove that I am sober. If I refuse to provide breath, piss, or some other result of my bodies function I can and will be arrested. Notice at no point was some indication I might be drunk required to allow the police to stop me from traveling, detain me, force me to prove I'm innocent or go to jail, and flat out require me to provide various body excretions. Just because I'm in my care does NOT mean I've given up 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons'. It's my piss, I shouldn't be forced to give it to the police (arguably also a 5th ammendment self incrimination issue here as well)
The seizure of property suspected of being used in drug transactions is an exercise of the police power, not the power of eminent domain.

Mcgrew references the wrong section of the Constitution here. He should have quoted the frangment just prior to what he did quote. Namely "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;". Since impounded vehicles are kept even if the suspect is found innocent it sure sounds like some people are being deprived of property without due process of the law.
Obviously the Ninth Amendment can't mean that you have the right to do anything at all.

Why not? The 9th means that just because the Constitution doesn't talk about some specific right that doesn't mean we don't have it. The Constitution doesn't talk about drugs, it's fair to assume we have that right unless otherwise prohibited. How else could we be prohibited, well that's easy. The government would need the power to prohibit it. Since the 10th basically says the government can only do what the Constitution says they can then we gotta look at the Constitution to see if they can prohibit drugs. Care to point me to the ammendment that says 'the government may tell you what substance you are not allowed to put into your body'? You may find it difficult to figure out what's a violation of the 10th ammendment but it's not all that hard, honest. Does the Constitution say the federal government can do something? If not then they can't. Pretty simple shit to understand actually.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
One comment... (none / 0) (#276)
by The Amazing Idiot on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 12:52:02 AM EST

---The government would need the power to prohibit it. Since the 10th basically says the government can only do what the Constitution says they can then we gotta look at the Constitution to see if they can prohibit drugs. Care to point me to the ammendment that says 'the government may tell you what substance you are not allowed to put into your body'? You may find it difficult to figure out what's a violation of the 10th ammendment but it's not all that hard, honest. Does the Constitution say the federal government can do something? If not then they can't. Pretty simple shit to understand actually.

They DO have the power to "prohibit" objects.

You simply put a tax on the item, require a licence of the said tax, and not hand out any licenses. Wow, you just baned anything you wish...

[ Parent ]

I got them wrong, you say? (none / 0) (#280)
by the dead on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 01:27:18 AM EST

You mean my reading was contrary to your own naive understanding of what the document means.

Of course I've read the Constitution. Many times. The difference between us is that I didn't stop at reading just it.

You can't possibly hope to understand what the Constitution means today if you ignore the past 200+ years of history, legislation, and jurisprudence. You can't read the document, think really hard, and have any chance of arriving at what it actually means today to the people who are in power, applying it.

You have to step outside your own narrow conception of the document and look at what is being done and said by the countless judges, politicians, and scholars shaping the role the document has today.

[ Parent ]

There's the difference between you and me (none / 1) (#291)
by godix on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 02:15:36 AM EST

I think a person can read "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" and figure out that if the Constitution doesn't say Congress can then they can't. You seem to believe that phrase means nothing; instead we have to spend years researching what Judge Judy, every congresscritter ever, and all the pencilneck geeks with their noses buried in the Congressional record of 1841 thinks before coming to the conclusion this statement means 'Congress can do whatever the fuck it wants'. From the basis of how government does work you're correct. I personally think this isn't a lack of understanding the Constitution though. What the Constitution says is pretty clear. No laws establishing religion. No laws prohibiting guns. No forcing you to confess to crimes. No searching you without reason. No telling you what you can't say or print. And if the Constitution says the government can do something then it can't. Any person who's literate and has an above simian IQ can understand what the Constitution is talking about. Unfortunately the last two hundred years have seen lots of judges and politicians who aren't literate or aren't above simian IQ which is how we got in the mess we call government currently. Some days I think SCOTUS should just make a red X over the Constitution and write above it 'Just kidding'.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
Rewriting the Constitution (none / 0) (#456)
by MoebiusStreet on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 04:28:45 PM EST

You're wrong.

The 200 years of history between the authoring of the Constitution and today has no effect on the meaning of that document (except to the extent that it has been amended). In particular, the Bill of Rights can't be interpreted in this way.

The BoR lists a set of "natural rights", things that all people have regardless of [insert demographic here]. These are, in the spirit of Thomas Paine, inherent in the state of being human. As such, they are not subject to any re-interpretation at all.

In particular, it's incorrect to say that, say, 4th Amendment requirements for warrants must be "viewed in the context of a post-9/11 world". Aside from this very issue being one of the specific things the Colonists fought over, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to acknowledge that all people must be secure in their property..., and that the government must operate within that framework.

It most certainly does not grant a right to the people, and so there is no way for the government to rescind it. And since such authority was never granted to the gov't, it has no power to do so (see Paine again).

And at its very core, it means that all people, in all places and at all times, have these rights. The fact that a war has intervened, or stunning new technology arisen, can do nothing to change that fundamental, intrinsic right that you, and your children, and your great-great-great-grandparents, all share.

All that said, there is a margin of truth in the fringes of what you're saying. In some cases, we need to learn how to apply those fundamental truths to situations that did not exist before -- say, how can high-tech surveillance gear in the hands of the police fit into our 4th Amendment.

But you can't say that our values, or priorities, or world outlook has changed, and that we can no longer "afford" to "allow" so much privacy. Our system is built to assume these rights are fundamental, and that no one can take them (and indeed none of us can even cede them!).

[ Parent ]

powers of the government (none / 0) (#311)
by samu on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 09:35:05 AM EST

Since the 10th basically says the government can only do what the Constitution says they can then we gotta look at the Constitution to see if they can prohibit drugs. Care to point me to the ammendment that says 'the government may tell you what substance you are not allowed to put into your body'? You may find it difficult to figure out what's a violation of the 10th ammendment but it's not all that hard, honest. Does the Constitution say the federal government can do something? If not then they can't. Pretty simple shit to understand actually.

Unfortunately there are various clauses in the Constitution which are so incredibly vague as to allow nearly any activity to be interpreted under those clauses.

Hell, look at the preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Phrases like "more perfect Union", "establish Justice", "insure domestic Tranquility", "promote the general Welfare", etc. Vague, vague, vague. Could outlawing guns and/or drugs fall under one of those phrases?

"But Samu," you might say, "Those aren't listed as Powers for the government, that's just the preamble!"

True. But how about this nugget of Power actually granted to Congress: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Anyway, I don't have the time to get into this too much today, but a stack of lawyers can pretty much get the Constitution to say whatever it is they want it to say. It's actually quite difficult, in other words, to determine what does or what does not fall under the 10th Amendment.

[ Parent ]

Militia (none / 0) (#345)
by thejeff on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 09:50:47 AM EST


You might understand the militia to be the National Guard but our forefathers, you know the guys who wrote the Constitution, didn't. Try reading the Militia Act of 1792. It calls for "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia". Toss in later ideals of equality of sexes, equality of races, freedom to everyone, equality for the handicapped, and equality of ages and you end up with 'each and every citizen of the respective States...' Sounds like the definition of who should be enrolled in the militia that our forefathers used translates to 'everyone'.

I'm not sure this argument leads where you want it to go.
You seem to be saying:
2nd Amendment allows arms to everyone in the Militia,
Militia Act defined militia as everyone.
therefore everyone is allowed arms.

But that is only because the Militia included everyone. If that changes, then this argument doesn't apply. And it has changed, I believe. Is the Militia Act of 1792 still in force? Or is there some similar law in place today. Am I, legally, a member of some militia I don't even know about?

[ Parent ]

Current status shouldn't matter (none / 0) (#423)
by godix on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:05:09 PM EST

Quick question, if the common meaning of 'the people' changed over the last two hundred years to mean 'only Ivy League graduates who are now politicians' then would you sit here claiming that only George Bush has the right of assembly, be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc?

This is exactly what has happened to the phrase 'militia'. My using the Militia Act of 1792 wasn't an attempt to claim it's still in force, it isn't and hasn't been for a long time. It was rather an attempt to show that what the founders meant was that everyone should have the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates are basically claiming that even though the founders meant 'everyone' we should allow that to be twisted to mean 'almost no one' and to even make that claim they have to ignore half the amendment ('the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed' is pretty unequivocal).

I personally think that if we allow the words of the Constitution to be redefined to almost the exact opposite of what was originally intended then there are no rights guarenteed in the Constitution at all. Instead you have a laundery list of things that can be taken away from you by any judge who decides that a word means something other than what it originally meant. By claiming 'If that [a words definition] changes, then this argument doesn't apply' you're saying you have no problem giving up every right you have the second Webster decides to change their dictionary. Is that honestly what you believe or do you only apply this belief to the second ammendment and no other?


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

Changes (none / 0) (#445)
by thejeff on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:12:51 AM EST

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

I can't find a way to read that that makes sense if 'Militia' is just a synonym for 'everyone'. I suppose "An armed populace" instead of "A well-regulated Militia", might be meaningful, but it certainly has different connotations, even back then.

It seems much more straightforward to read it as "Because a Militia is needed and because everyone is  part of the Militia, everyone should be able to bear Arms." Since everyone is no longer part of the Militia, the logic no longer follows.

If the intent actually was, as you seem to be arguing, to ensure an armed Militia for military defense, then it's the current claims of unlimited rights to arms for purely private purposes that don't match the original intent.

It's not a good argument. It would be much better to write off the first part as an explanatory and not truly part of the right. Focus on the, as you said, unequivocal second half.

[ Parent ]

Why I think I have the right to do drugs (none / 0) (#325)
by trane on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 05:06:25 PM EST

"Why exactly do you think you have the right to do drugs, anyway?"

Because I'm not harming anyone by smoking pot. (Even my doctor said it was less harmful to me than alcohol.) And because evidence can be provided to show that prohibition causes more problems for the "general Welfare" than legalizing the drugs.

What gives you the right to prevent me from doing drugs?

[ Parent ]

Remove your head from your ass (none / 0) (#395)
by Peahippo on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 05:22:12 AM EST

There has never been a Constitutional Right of firearm ownership apart from use in a well-regulated militia, which is today understood to be the National Guard. The NRA invented the private right of ownership, but has yet to get the courts to acknowledge it.

BULLSHIT!! With over 2 centuries of armed Americans, and you come up with this blatant falsehood.

Look over my response to some other gun-ban fucker. That should tell you all you need to know. You're as dead wrong as he was.

The US Constitution is the Law of the Land. It explicitly allows the keeping and bearing of arms by citizenry. There is no legal logic to deny that right if a militia is not chosen. At any rate, the militia of the nation is clearly the mass of citizens. This is the language of the era in which the Constitution was written. If you don't like that FACT, get your Congresspeople to start the amendment process.

Until then, I demand you obey the US Constitution.


[ Parent ]
ok (none / 0) (#448)
by Cackmobile on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 11:36:27 AM EST

but how about we should ban them cause they kill people. I think its 50,000 a year get shot in the us. in sydney (a city of 5 million so not small) if a drive by occurs and not one was injured its all over the news. thats because we have gun control. its a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun.

[ Parent ]
We should also ban cars (none / 0) (#451)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 11:51:17 AM EST

Far more people are killed with cars than with guns, even in the "trigger-happy" US. Banning guns would just mean that the criminals would have their illegal guns while the law abiding citizens would be unarmed.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Sounds reasonable to me... (none / 0) (#461)
by bob6 on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:31:09 AM EST

As a positive side effect it would make oil lords lose some cash.

Cheers.
[ Parent ]
so ban them... (none / 0) (#464)
by issachar on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 05:17:51 AM EST

It's your constitution. Amend it. Peahippo's right. If you think an unrestricted right to carry weapons is a stupid idea, than change it. Don't pretend that your nation didn't create that right in law.
---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]
Jurisdiction (none / 0) (#417)
by maru on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 05:45:39 PM EST

"The prisoners held at Guantanimo are not being subjected to criminal prosecution and are not citizens of the United States, so the Sixth Amendment is irrelevant." Ahem. I direct your attention to the Bill of Rights, where in the relevant amendment (and the three preceding ones) refer to 'people' 'persons' &etc only. They do not reference citizens. If the distinction seems non-existent to you, I wonder if you are qualified to criticize the article.

[ Parent ]
-1, mcgrew (1.09 / 11) (#224)
by FreeBSD on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:09:58 PM EST

God I'm sick of you.

It's easyy, son (none / 1) (#266)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:23:00 PM EST

When you see "mcgrew," just don't click the link. Easy.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

What the. (none / 1) (#290)
by kitten on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 02:06:09 AM EST

How is he supposed to vote you down if he doesn't click on the story link?
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
The problem with the Constitution (3.00 / 9) (#241)
by cburke on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:53:50 PM EST

is not so much in the document itself, but in how it is viewed.

Traditionally, the Constitution is viewed as a list of what we have.  The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and so they shan't.  We have freedom of religion, so long as the 1st Ammendment says so.

Unfortunately, that isn't true.  Reality is quite capable of disagreeing with the words on a piece of paper.  

Instead the Constitution should be seen as a list of demands.  It came from the same society that issued the Declaration of Independence, and could be followed by another.  We expect certain things of our government, and will be watching to make sure they comply.

That's how you get these rights respected.  You can't just write down the law and expect it to be followed.  I claim that the extent to which we've  kept our rights is the extent to which we've made it clear that it is unacceptable to abrogate them.  The extent to which we've lost them is our failure to react when they are taken.

The onus should be on the government to demonstrate that they are in compliance with our demands.   Of course people are corrupt and will either abuse power or allow power to be abused for their own benefit.  That's not a problem with the Constitution, though.

-1 mcgrew (1.00 / 11) (#247)
by Wallas A Hockpock on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:28:05 PM EST

mcgrew is full of bullshit.

-1, nullo (1.60 / 5) (#265)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:20:20 PM EST

But thanks for registering an account just to vote against my story.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Trolling? (2.00 / 3) (#270)
by balsamic vinigga on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:59:13 PM EST

OK, you must not have read the fine print when you got your driver's license?

Driving on public streets is a privledge not a right.  As such, in some states you must consent to having your car searched in order to use the public streets.

That's right, you gave consent, why would they need a fucking warrent???

4th ammendment is well and good.

If your car is parked in your private property, they'll need a warrent for that.

Now that's some states.  Apparently in whatever state Jay-Z was driving in back in 94 this wasn't the case:

[Verse Two]
The year is '94 and my trunk is raw
In my rear view mirror is the mother fuckin' law
I got two choices y'all pull over the car or (hmmm)
Bounce on the devil put the pedal to the floor
Now i ain't tryin' to see no highway chase with Jake
Plus i got a few dollars i can fight the case
So i...pull over to the side of the road
I heard "Son do you know why i'm stoppin' you for?"
Cause i'm young and i'm black and my hats real low
Do i look like a mind reader sir, i don't know
Am i under arrest or should i guess some mo'?
"Well you was doin fifty-five in a fifty-four"
"Liscense and registration and step out of the car"
"Are you carryin' a weapon on you i know alot of you are"
I ain't steppin out of shit all my papers legit
"Well, do you mind if i look round the car a little bit?"
Well my glove compartment is locked so is the trunk and the back
And i know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that
"Aren't you sharp as a tack, you some type of lawyer or something'?"
"Or somebody important or somethin'?"
Nah i ain't pass the bar but i know a little bit
Enough that you won't illegally search my shit
"We'll see how smart you are when the K-9 come"
I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one
Hit me

Of course the line at the end about the k9...  if a k9 was sniffin that shit out then that would qualify as probable cause.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!

That's not quite right (3.00 / 2) (#281)
by The Jewish Liberal Media Conspiracy on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 01:31:57 AM EST

It's not a question of consent to search being required to drive on public roads. The law varies from state to state.

In some states it can be searched if the officer has reasonable cause (I think Kansas is an example of that).
In some states it can only be searched if you're being arrested (North Carolina), although even then they can't search the trunk.
In some states a warrant is required (Washington, I think).

For reasons I'm not entirely clear on, the trunk seems to get a lot more protection than the glove compartment... maybe that has something to do with ease of access by the car occupants. Who knows.
This account has been anonymized.
[ Parent ]
Here's what actually happens. (3.00 / 3) (#288)
by kitten on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 02:04:43 AM EST

If you don't consent to a search, the cop may decide you're not worth his time and just forget about it. However, if he's in a bad mood that day, this is what happens: He'll ask to search, you'll say no. He'll tell you to cool your heels for a few, radio his buddies, and one of his chums will drag himself away from the donut shop long enough to grab a warrant from a judge (they hand them out like penny candy) and trot on down to your location. Now they've got a warrant and they'll do whatever the fuck they want.

Or, the cop just searches you and if you raise hell about it, all he has to say is he thought he saw a baggie or a gun or something half-hidden under the back seat or whatever. Gee whiz, it turns out it was nothing at all, but he had "probable cause", and what are you going to say to that?
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
heh yeah or like... (1.50 / 2) (#313)
by balsamic vinigga on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 11:04:07 AM EST

if there's eye witness reports of a bomb in the trunk.. lol

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]
Good grief. (none / 1) (#368)
by Harvey Anderson on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 06:05:28 PM EST

Paranoid lunatic.

[ Parent ]
how is it not quite right? (none / 0) (#312)
by balsamic vinigga on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 10:57:03 AM EST

i said it varied from state to state... including those which require consent to search.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]
Again.. that makes sense. (none / 0) (#319)
by mindstrm on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 02:24:29 PM EST

However, to any outside observe with a 4th grade education, the constitution clearly says you shall be free from unreasonable searches. It doens' tsay "Unless there are some complicated rules in place to let the authorities stop you and search you without probable cause or a warrant"

[ Parent ]
second amendment you have it way off. (2.50 / 4) (#307)
by xutopia on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 08:56:50 AM EST

I disagree with your point regarding the second amendment. You like many other Americans have missed the point regarding firearms. Mind you it was poorly written and should be ammended (you can do that can't you?).

The point of the amendment was that to protect the people from invasion. It isn't about the freedom to carry weapons with you and never was. Ask any lawyer if it's legal to have a hydrogen bomb in your garage he'll tell you.

Now how many people actually want to carry a gun so they can protect the country from invasion?

Anyways the 2nd amendment implies that if you aren't part of the militia you shouldn't even have the right to bear arm. Any firearm not owned for the purpose of protecting the country shouldn't be allowed but I can understand some people being handed out permits by the government for such usage as hunting. I don't believe that people should have weapons to protect themselves though. It is a good way to make everyone feel the need to own a gun in a smaller level arms race.

"part of a militia" (3.00 / 2) (#317)
by mindstrm on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 02:15:51 PM EST

But you see, a militia isn't just an organized group of people, like a private army.. a militia only shows up as an organized group when it's actually needed.  A militia is any group of people organizing to fight.

The able bodied men, women, and whatever of the land  ARE the militia, or at least, they can be, IF they have weapons.

I'm not american, but the wording is quite clear to me, and quite clear to just about anyone else who reads it.  The framers of the constitution were quite specific in their language.


[ Parent ]

bullshit (none / 1) (#343)
by xutopia on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 02:16:05 AM EST

It sounds an awful lot like you are telling me that "a well regulated militia" doesn't need to be well regulated... so are we talking about a well regulated militia or a bunch of dicks who think it's cool to own a dangerous piece of metal which goes bang?

[ Parent ]
Well regulated (none / 0) (#385)
by aragorn on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:13:53 AM EST

In the context of the time at which the bill of rights was drafted, "well regulated" should be taken to mean competent and ready to fight. The framers were pointing out that, among other reasons, it is particularly important for the people to be armed at all times so that they can be proficient with their weapons.

Anyway, there's no point to arguing about what the milita may or may not be. For one thing, it is explicitly stated in law. The militia is comprised of all able-bodied, free males of a certain age. For another, the ammendment does not say that the right of the people comprising the milita... it says the right of the people. That means all of us.

Finally, you should know that the contstitution does not grant any rights. It places limits on the ability of the government to infringe upon rights which are inherent in the people.

Liberty is dangerous. If you want it, you have to pay the price.

[ Parent ]

Interpretation (2.33 / 3) (#347)
by Eight Star on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 10:07:30 AM EST

I don't think it was poorly worded, I think it was very clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (That contradicts most of your post by itself.)
I think that the parent article establishes pretty well that lawyers are not good authorities on a sane interpretation of the constitution. Not even the supreme court.

It says 'the right of the people' not the Union (which can already raise an army) not 'people in the militia'. The 'implication' you assert contradicts the reality of the day, many people owned guns, for hunting and for personal defense, and at the time, for killing british soldiers.
It is not about invasion, it is about rebellion.


[ Parent ]
I've often thought about... (none / 1) (#405)
by Shajenko on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:20:38 AM EST

... what I'd do if I had a time machine and could go back to the time when they were writing the Constitution, and let them know how their writings would be perverted.

Rewording that amendment to be a bit clearer would be at the top of my list.

[ Parent ]
And another thing (none / 1) (#348)
by Eight Star on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 10:21:23 AM EST

THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT YOU.
Learn That, the framers knew it, it is true today. Police are almost useless. Border checks are almost useless. <br>
If someone wants to kill you, it is you versus them.

[ Parent ]
I think you need to rethink... (none / 1) (#362)
by mikelist on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 04:30:06 PM EST

...the bullshit about non-military weapons 'not even allowed'. At the time these documents were authored, guns fed families in a very real sense, so your implication is absurd.

[ Parent ]
futility (none / 0) (#388)
by syncrotic on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 03:23:30 AM EST

For some reason I'm reminded of this.

[ Parent ]
You're Dead Wrong (none / 1) (#393)
by Peahippo on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 05:09:09 AM EST

Anyways the 2nd amendment implies that if you aren't part of the militia you shouldn't even have the right to bear arm.

That's one of the myths promoted by the people who want to ban guns in America. But you really need to go back and read the fucking 2nd Amendment again without that perverse desire, until you understand it.

The amendment clearly says that the right shall not be infringed. This non-infringed right supports the necessity of a well-regulated (i.e. outfitted) militia. If you aren't part of a/the militia, there's no legal logic to remove your right to keep and bear arms. The militia-involvement thing is simply your choice. The right is still retained either way.

If you want to get into a fucking nitpick about this amendment, let's talk about the word "necessary" in it. I'll flippantly say that means YOU MUST be in a militia. How do you like them apples, Roscoe? We'll send some cops around to collect your militia-evading ass, put a rifle in your hands, and send you off for some training to eat dirt a while. Sheesh!

You're no Constitutional scholar, that's for certain. But even more frightening, you don't even understand the simple wording of the 2nd Amendment, as I expect any citizen to. And it's all because of the MOST frightening thing: You do understand it, but you don't agree with it, hence you are perfectly willing to deny the amendment entirely.

I can only submit to you what I endlessly submit to the fuckers who try to ignore the 2nd Amendment:

The US Constitution can be amended. Write your Congresspeople to get the amendment process started to change the 2nd Amendment to explicity ban armaments in the property and hands of citizens. Do that or SHUT THE FUCK UP.


[ Parent ]
As mentioned elsewhere... (none / 0) (#462)
by Arvedui on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:49:18 AM EST

AMENDMENT II (updated!)

A well-regulated militia having become irrelevant to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms against one another shall remain uninfringed (excepting such arms as may be afforded by the poor or those preferred by pushers, terrorists and organized criminals which shall be banned).

[ Parent ]

Before the ad hominems begin to fly (too late) (none / 0) (#480)
by A synx on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:44:17 PM EST

Here is the exact text of the 2nd amendment, just in case any of you would like to fool someone into thinking it says something it doesn't.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And also here's a pretty nice analysis of the amendment.

[ Parent ]
You need to read more (none / 0) (#483)
by The Real Lord Kano on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 12:41:28 AM EST

Now how many people actually want to carry a gun so they can protect the country from invasion?

Everyone who owns a gun. So roughly 90 million people.

During WWII, one of the things that kept the Axis from seriously considering an invasion of the US was that so many of us are armed.

You think the Iraqi insurgents are bad? Just imagine what a force that tries to occupy the US would encounter?

Anyways the 2nd amendment implies that if you aren't part of the militia you shouldn't even have the right to bear arm.

The US Code defines the militia as every able bodied male over the age of 17 and all members of the armed forces.

Do you think that we should deny the right of firearms ownership to women?

I can understand some people being handed out permits by the government for such usage as hunting.

Hunting must be regulated because wildlife is a finite resource.

I don't believe that people should have weapons to protect themselves though.

Then don't buy a gun. Just don't try to impose your will on me.

LK

[ Parent ]

The meaning of "liberty" (none / 0) (#310)
by StephenThompson on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 09:33:40 AM EST

Liberty is just another word "for nothing left to lose"

+1 FP Pro-drugs (none / 0) (#328)
by trane on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 05:16:40 PM EST



Liberty, like morality, cannot be codified (3.00 / 5) (#349)
by gidds on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 11:20:14 AM EST

The problem here is that while we all (think we) know what 'freedom' is, very few of us can actually define it -- and all definitions seem to be either incomplete or inconsistent (or both).

For example, you may like to think of freedom of speech as an absolute. But that would include speech which slanders others, speech which advertises falsely, speech which is fraudulent, speech which offends or intimidates others, speech which breaks promises or contracts, and so on. If you want to restrict any of those, then freedom of speech isn't an absolute, but a freedom which is moderated by other concerns. (And if you don't, then some of those represent other freedoms which must be moderated.)

You can express almost any desire or state as a 'freedom', but these freedoms contradict each other. Another example: the freedom to move from place to place contradicts the freedom to imprison people we think dangerous. And another: the freedom to breathe easily contradicts the right to have a bonfire in my garden. And another: my right to walk on a clean pavement conflicts with your right to drop litter.

Law, ethics, politics, and morality are in effect the study of these contradictions, looking at how best to moderate the various individual freedoms, justices, and rights, how best to draw the line between these various conflicting requirements. But first you must recognise that they are conflicting, that almost no rights are absolute.

Of course, some subsets are particularly stimulating (and relevant). Where do you draw the various lines in dividing rights and freedoms between individuals and the government? Give them all to individuals, and you have an anarchy; give them all to the government, and you have a totalitarian state. Most people would prefer something in between -- which needs careful drawing of those lines.

(It's interesting to note that that distinction is largely independent of the standard left-right political spectrum; both left-wing and right-wing governments can be more or less authoritarian. That distinction only appears when we introduce a third group: business.)

Anyway, the point is not whether a country has lots of freedoms, but how it divides those freedoms between its people, individually and collectively. Personally, I much prefer a western-style liberal democracy, in which the government is given only those rights and freedoms that are clearly necessary, and in which individuals are generally given the benefit of the doubt in other cases. (Though, it must be said, these days the US seems a little less liberal than many of the others... and it distresses me when I see the UK here following its lead.)

Andy/

indeed (none / 0) (#444)
by pakje on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 05:19:36 AM EST

this is the best answer sofar. The people making and enforcing the laws should be controlled by every citizen. So they wont adapt everything to their own views. which can sometimes look ridiculus in others eyes. (like delaying live events to censor undecency, which isn't a law, but a good example of what might be one) also note: good people do not need laws to live properly while bad people always find way to elude the laws.

[ Parent ]
Good people? (none / 0) (#458)
by gidds on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:22:07 PM EST

good people do not need laws to live properly while bad people always find way to elude the laws.

There's some truth in this, but I think it makes unwarranted assumptions: can you divide people into 'good' and 'bad'? IME, everyone is capable of great good and of great evil. Most of us try to do good most of the time, but for various reasons sometimes we fall short. (Laziness, self-deceit, mistaken idealism, inertia, self-righteousness, cultural bias, lust, peer pressure -- there are lots of reasons. Or at least, excuses.)

Your quote implies that laws are completely pointless, but in Real Life(tm) I think we'd all agree that while not all-powerful, they're generally far better than having none. They provide an indication of what society considers 'bad', and they provide an incentive for people to stay on the right side -- neither is infallible or comprehensive, but I think they're still useful.

But I think we have to get away from labelling people. After all, who'd accept that they were labelled 'bad'?

Andy/
[ Parent ]

Liberty can indeed be codified (none / 0) (#490)
by Belanth on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 04:22:57 AM EST

It is important to differentiate what a 'freedom' is - any desire one has is not automatically a freedom. It is also important to realize that when someone violates the freedoms of others, then they are in actuality waiving their own rights away.

The example you mentioned about prisons is a good one to use: A person who violated another persons right to a fair trial (ie, due process under the law) by slandering the person in court will incur the loss of his own freedoms for a time. There isn't a conflict of rights involved, because the right itself is only valid when not used to violate the rights of others.

Therefore it is the real duty of any government to protect its citizens from the violation of their rights, and as an extension to mediate differences between citizens in the application of their rights. Any other action by a government other than to moderate contracts (an agreement based on consented use of freedoms) and to protect freedoms is corruption of that government. This is why the US Constitution reads as a set of limitations on the government, and not simply a set of powers that it maintains.

Governments cannot have any rights in of themselves - they can ONLY have the rights granted them by their citizens.

[ Parent ]
We haven't lost anything. (none / 0) (#350)
by FatHed on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 12:57:39 PM EST

The constitution doesn't govern the people. It's our contract for the government. When the government is in violation of the constitution it's up to the public to do something about it. Be it complain or attempt to rebel. I really don't think enough people here support the rebel option, and at the rate of the complaints it seems that people would just assume to let the government change the contract.

The US Code is the law the people are expected to follow.

Intelligence is a matter of opinion.
If freedom is what you want... (2.33 / 3) (#360)
by skyknight on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 02:30:25 PM EST

then stop voting for higher taxes. Where do you think the government gets the money to do all the stuff that you hate? Massive budgets create the possibility for corrupt government.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
a little naive don't you think? (none / 0) (#364)
by Cloud Cuckoo on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 04:53:00 PM EST



[ Parent ]
No! (none / 1) (#371)
by Polverone on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 06:36:55 PM EST

Reducing tax revenue would naturally reduce the size and scope of the government. If the government attempted to spend money it didn't actually have, the scoundrels who attempted the ruse would be tossed out faster than you can say "budget deficit."
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]
rofl! [nt] (none / 0) (#373)
by Phil Urich on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 07:25:34 PM EST

nicely sarcastic!

[ Parent ]
eh, higher != lower (none / 0) (#443)
by boxed on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 04:20:11 AM EST

Both the arms of The Party always campaign for lower taxes, who the hell do you vote for in the US to get higher taxes? And more importantly: has anyone of these gotten any amount of real power the last 30 years or so?

[ Parent ]
Supports higher Taxes? (none / 0) (#487)
by Frank Anderson on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 05:08:21 AM EST

Former presidential candidate John Kerry opposed tax cuts and voted for tax increases. (That's the least biased link I could find.)
Many voters liked Kerry's idea of increasing taxes to send more money to states for education.

[ Parent ]
Film at 11... (none / 1) (#361)
by joib on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 02:37:49 PM EST

So there's a large bunch of people who are willing to impose their view of what's right and proper on you (e.g. smoking grass is bad for you and makes you a homosexual or whatever). And by some miracolous coincidence, these people gravitate towards politics. So what else is new? Personally, I fear that western society is on the march towards servitude of the totalitarian state that Hayek warned about so many years ago. But the pace of change is slow enough that we don't notice it and pull the brakes. The law, although made by in principle well-meaning politicians is becoming so big and complex that nobody can understand it, thus paving the the way for government to interpret the law as it likes; in other words arbitrary government not bound by the rule of law (e.g. Guantanamo).

Rubbish! (none / 0) (#466)
by CaptainZapp on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 07:58:46 AM EST

e.g. smoking grass is bad for you and makes you a homosexual

Masturbation makes you a homosexual and grows hair in your palms.

Grass on the other hand makes you go blind.

Just ask the gubynmynt.

[ Parent ]

Traditional and liberal civilizations (3.00 / 7) (#365)
by paranoid on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 04:54:28 PM EST

Everyone needs to realise that there are really different cultures. China is not sub-USA and Cuba is not sub-Europe, these are different societies that are equially valid. When you are talking about a despotic dictator, such as Pinochet, Norriega, Kim Chong Il, etc., who rule through fear and intimidation, you can call them wrong, criminal, etc.

But then there are cultures where an authocractic or ideocratic regime may look like an evil dictatorship, but in reality be perfectly compatible with the society.

China is a traditional civilization, that doesn't share the liberal ideas. The differences are really obvious - the main one being the relative importance of the individual and society.

In the USA you may declare that the freedom/well-being/choice of the individual are the only things that are important. In a traditional society such as China people believe that the well-being of all is important. There is no right and wrong here, it's just that people have different values.

Yes, in Cuba, China, Iraq under Hussein, etc. you can't criticise the government/the party. But this is consistent with what people believe is right, this is a choice that the whole society makes. When the society is attacked by external or internal enemies (the criminal US embargo in Cuba, hunger and poverty in China, the threat from Iran and the danger of islamic fundamentalism in Iraq), it is natural to give more power to the state, it is natural to consider the well-being of all a priority. That happens even in liberal democracies, the only difference is that some countries, unfortunately, are under constant pressure and can't let people loose.

But please realise that by giving up some personal freedoms the society ensures its strength without which it can't survive. By forfeiting some freedoms the citizens ensure that their kids will have food to eat (China, Cuba), that everyone will have access to medical care (Cuba), that the society will remain civilized, with universities open, water running and gas stations working, with no fighting between different religious and national factions (Iraq).

When you understand that, you will stop putting the unjustified blame for "repressions". You will realise that the freedom of speech for 150 Cuban dissidents is not worth destroying the Cuban economy (you know how monopolies operate in the USA, how do you think they will act if socialism is destroyed on Cuba, and all enterprises are forcefully privatized?) and condemning a huge part of the population to poverty.

I live in Russia and I know exactly what happens when you take a widely successful traditional civilization (the Soviet state), destroy it and try to force a democractic liberal market society in its place. Let me tell you, it ain't pretty. You may believe that traditional societies are somehow inferior to the super-advanced model of the Western democracy, but this is simply wrong. By many criteria life in socialist states is much much better than life in democratic liberal economies.

But an American citizen, who hasn't studied alternative civilizations (i.e. not liberal Western) in detail (and no, state propaganda about the evils of communism doesn't count), preferably using papers and books of decent authors (that is not venal lying shills like Bzhezinsky or Fukuyama or feeble-minded traitors such as Solzhenitsin), simply can't fathom that life in other societies can be based on principles other than individual rights and freedoms. And so he feels compelled to judge other countries using criteria that are absolutely not applicable.

rolfflcoprter (none / 1) (#372)
by Polverone on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 06:42:50 PM EST

a widely successful traditional civilization (the Soviet state)
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]
I disagree. (none / 0) (#383)
by syncrotic on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 AM EST

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the freedoms which are fit for us to enjoy are too much responsibility for some societies, and certain groups of people are really just better off without them.

"...these are different societies that are equially valid."

"...an authocractic or ideocratic regime may look like an evil dictatorship, but in reality be perfectly compatible with the society."

No, these 'different' societies are NOT valid, and they should not be respected just because they're different. In fact, maybe we shouldn't even tolerate differences like the belief that, say, only men are allowed outside the house.

You seem to suggest that, just because the people of a nation don't seem to rise up in opposition against oppression, they must like it or it must be the collective will of society. Maybe it isn't, and a people are just too poor and powerless to do anything about their lot. Even if it is the will of most of society, as in Iraq where a majority wants a militant theocracy, we should instead consider the minority that will lose its freedom.

I'll go further and say that, you know what, America got it right. Not the mess that is America today, but the ideas upon which it was founded. With respect a person's freedom, there should no relative standards and no compromises between individual freedom and "societal freedom," better described as the will of the majority to impose its will upon those it doesn't like. Every single person in the world deserves the freedoms set out in the American constitution, at a minimum.

I'm not saying America should go around the world and fight wars to deliver that freedom, but I certainly think that despotism should be challenged wherever it exists in the world. That said, maybe America should clean up its own act and return to the principles upon which it's supposed to be based before it goes around telling others to follow its lead.

Opression simply isn't acceptable, even it serves the interests of the majority and keeps the trains running on time.

[ Parent ]

You don't understand at all (none / 0) (#389)
by paranoid on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 03:25:55 AM EST

You twist my words. I am not saying that some freedoms are "too much responsibility for some societies". I am just saying that the choice between "freedoms, but no universal health care" (the US) and "universal health care, but without some freedoms" (Cuba) is not as clear-cut as you may initially believe.

You CLAIM that these societies are not valid. This is expected from an American, who was trained (brainwashed?) to believe that there is ONE TRUE WAY. People living in these societies disagree. Scientists (politologists, sociologists, historians), who try to study different social orders objectively, also disagree. There are different valid social orders and some of them are not as liberal as the US. And democracy there works differently (and in some aspects they are more democractic than the US).

I am not suggesting that all oppressive governments are implicitly supported by the people. There are examples, where it isn't so. But equally there are many regimes that you consider oppressive, which are supported by the vast majority of the people. Cuba is one such example. Any poll, any survey, any study that you can carry out there will show that Cubans support communism, and support Fidel Castro. I dare you to find a respectable source claim the opposite. There is, of course, a small minority of devout liberal dissidents, who shout very loudly about Cuba missing a few of the precious freedoms.

Have you tried reading the Constitutions of other countries. I suggest you read the Soviet 1977 Constitution. It gives Soviet people more freedoms and rights than you will ever have in the US. And most of these freedoms were real, supported by the state's obligations. The obligations of the state to ensure unlimited personal development of every citizen, to support art and culture of small nations, to replace workers at unpleasant and unhealthy jobs with machines and robots, to guarantee everyone a job, free health care, free education, access to museums, theatres, etc. These weren't empty words designed to hide the covert oppression of the population a la "1984". These were real goals, that the government strived to achieve and generally succeeded.

But you are an American, you are a child of American propaganda and you simply can't fathom how the world can be different than what you were told. When Reagan called Soviet Union "the evil empire", you didn't stand up and ask him for proof, for justification, you simply accepted what you were told as gospel. Well, that was a lie. And so it's the lie when repeated about Cuba, about Iraq or about Venezuela. Ironically, the only country where such claims would be justified - the infamous North Korea, enjoys nearly absolute immunity from the United States.

You say oppression isn't acceptible, but who are you to decide? What if the majority is not simply served by the [what you call the] oppression, but welcomes it and supports it? What if the people realise that without knowingly and voluntarily giving up some of their liberties, the survival of themselves, their children and their very country is at risk? During World War 2 Americans temporarily surrendered many of their freedoms and few would argue that it was wrong. But what about countries which are forced to be constantly vigilant, constantly on guard. Cuba was attacked by the USA and USA-sponsored terrorists (haven't you heard the recent news about Luis Posada Carriles?), so it makes sense that some freedoms are limited, as it happens under martial law.

Please, be rational and don't just repeat what you were taught.

[ Parent ]

a reply (none / 1) (#394)
by syncrotic on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 05:11:46 AM EST

So you say that sacrifices must be made for the common good, because in some places the standard of living must necessarily come at the expense of individual freedom.

I can think of no situation in which that's true. The only reason for a state to take away the personal freedoms of its citizens is to maintain a grip on power through fear. How else could it benefit the state to restrict your right to do and say as you wish?

So I ask: how is universal healthcare at odds with personal freedom? Why must it be that in some places, the latter must be sacrificed in order to have the former? Why can Canada have universal healthcare and a (mostly) free society at the same time, while Cuba cannot? How would a free Cuban press and the ability to elect a leader interfere with the government's ability to provide nationalized services?

"But equally there are many regimes that you consider oppressive, which are supported by the vast majority of the people."

Freedom isn't about the majority, no matter how vast. The majority may want a theocracy, for example, but they aren't the ones that need to be protected from it.

"You say oppression isn't acceptible, but who are you to decide?"

A human being with a free will who thinks that certain freedoms are not up for compromise, no matter what the standards of society. Not even if, as i said before, the trains are really punctual.

I'm beginning to understand, however, that you're not talking about the right to free speech and such. You're defending socialism, and the rights you think are worth taking away are mainly the rights to property.

When Reagan called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire, I was either a twinkle in daddy's eye or a small child, depending on when exactly that speech was made. My ideas are not those drilled into me by school or the media. I have my own opinions, and by the way I don't appreciate being called a parrot; you shouldn't assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you is brainwashed.

My parents might have heard that evil empire speech if a free press were allowed behind the iron curtain. Maybe you can explain to me why the workers' paradise needed to protect the people from the outside world? Maybe if they found out that every American household had a fridge in 1960 they would have revolted. I don't know. The soviet constitution can enumerate all the freedoms it wants, and I won't deny that the USSR had adequate public healthcare in a system where the doctors were paid as much as the janitors, but the fact remains that people in the soviet union and its satellite states were incredibly poor and definitely not free.

[ Parent ]

You need to read more (none / 1) (#400)
by paranoid on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 06:35:17 AM EST

Why can Canada have universal healthcare and a (mostly) free society at the same time, while Cuba cannot?

Have you ever heard about such thing as economy? Income distribution in traditional civilization (i.e. socialist countries) is more equal than in highly liberal free market societies. Canada and the United States can afford to have huge income disparity and still provide a somewhat decent living to the  poorer people. A country with a 1000$/per capita annual GDP can't. That's why poor people in Central African Republic live on 77$/year (share in GDP, the personal incomes are certainly lower), and people in Tajikistan (a former Soviet republic) live on 320$/year, despite the country having a lower GDP per capita overall.

The simple logic dictates that in poor countries society MUST ensure fair distribution of wealth and income tax is not a sufficiently strong instrument for that. You need to have strong control over the economy, you need to be able to keep the opposition in check, because when the state weakens, its ability to support the life of its citizens is destroyed.

If you don't understand it, you don't know enough and must start reading decent books to understand the situation. Alternatively you are a close-minded American idiot. I hope the former is true.

A human being with a free will who thinks that certain freedoms are not up for compromise, no matter what the standards of society. Not even if, as i said before, the trains are really punctual.

Which means "A human being with a free will, who denies that free will to everybody else. A human being, who knows what is right for everyone, but who is offended when a government somewhere decides what is right for some people. You are either a damn hypocrite or an idiot.

My ideas are not those drilled into me by school or the media. I have my own opinions, and by the way I don't appreciate being called a parrot; you shouldn't assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you is brainwashed.

Yeah, sure you have your own opinions. You are absolutely immune to manipulation, of course... not. I am NOT saying that EVERYONE who disagrees with me is brainwashed, I am saying that YOU are.

Maybe you can explain to me why the workers' paradise needed to protect the people from the outside world?

May be you need to read what the ideologists of the Cold War wrote? It's all available. That Soviet Union was threatened by the United States is not communist propaganda, the Cold War was started by the USA deliberately, openly and knowingly. Soviet Union changed its underlying ideology in 1940s to abandon the idea of the world proletarian revolution and concentrated on building communism at home. The United States, on the other hand, never really stopped meddling in others' affairs. How can you ignore the bloody history of US-sponsored and US-supported coups in South America, the history of unprovoked attacks on Cuba, the biological terrorism, the training of terrorists everywhere? And then you ask why Soviet Union needed to defend its people from the outside world. And to add insult to the injury you claim that you are not brainwashed and all these arguments are perfectly rational and make sense...

where the doctors were paid as much as the janitors

This is a lie, plain and simple.

fact remains that people in the soviet union and its satellite states were incredibly poor and definitely not free.

That is definitely not a fact. I mean, you can check any factual source and you will see that it's not true. But you don't even care to do that, you just espouse lies that you were told, that you read in American propaganda (press, books, etc.). How can you say that there was a universal health care and in the same sentence claim that people were incredibly poor? That doesn't make any sense at all!

You are a typical American idiot. Seriously, this is not an insult, but an attempt to characterise your ignorance, your stubborness and your irrational clinging to the tired old lies.

[ Parent ]

another reply (3.00 / 2) (#418)
by syncrotic on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 06:37:13 PM EST

You know, it's possible to have a conversation without calling the other guy an idiot every 228 words. It's also not necessary to appeal to the authority of the numerous books you've read and insist that dissenting opinions are a distortion of reality caused exclusively by external influences. I'm not immune to external influences, but neither are you. What of all those books you've supposedly read? Have you not merely formed an opinion by absorbing the information and opinions of others through a bias of your own ideals? You're no different from anyone else - when you read something that resonates with what you already know and believe, it strengthens your argument, and when you read something that doesn't, you approach it with skepticism.

Yes, I am offended when a government somewhere decides what is right for some people. I happen to think that people, being given a mind of their own, should have the right to decide their course in life. The role of the government should be to set up a framework of law in which people can conduct their private affairs with security.

The bottom line is that you're a socialist, which means you'd use the plight of the poor as an excuse to deny people the right to the fruits of their labours and you'd do it through the power of the state. You think this is acceptable, I don't. What we have here is a fundamental difference of opinion.

I know what socialism does to a nation, being the child of parents who escaped their soviet liberators in the eastern bloc. Socialism is a system in which personal gain can only be attained through corruption or manipulation of the system.

As for doctors making as much as the janitors under communism, I was wrong. They made less, because they were fully expected to supplement their incomes in other ways. What we have here is an indisputable primary source: my father was a doctor in communist Hungary. Doctors received almost nothing from the state, forcing them to create a system of semi-official bribes in which the amount of money you gave the doctor in an unmarked envelope determined the quality of care you received. You didn't have to pay, but if you didn't, you were put in a room with twenty other people, most of whom were among the nearly-dead. My father was a pediatrician, and he made his money by doing technically-illegal house calls to people who could afford them. Engineers, for example, weren't so lucky - they don't deal with people so they were forced to divert building materials for profit and accept bribes wherever they could. That's the spirit of socialism, and if you had lived amid the sort of dysfunction that it creates, maybe you'd think a little differently.

But hey, at least everyone was nearly equal in their poverty, right?

A government that truly works in the best interests of society is one that respects the freedom of the individual, in both the right to expression and the right to private enterprise. The decay and collapse of the soviet system all over the world is a testament to that. Except for your beloved paradise of Cuba, in which several generations have grown up truly brainwashed, not the way you suggest that I am. Imagine being a parent and watching your children come home from school at the age of nine spewing party propaganda, and being powerless to stop it for fear of the consequences. Maybe that's why you'd be hard pressed to find a Cuban who doesn't love his government.

By the way, I read the soviet constitution you linked to. All I can say is that the law can enumerate all the freedoms it wants, but freedoms that exist on paper alone mean nothing.

[ Parent ]

re-reply (none / 1) (#420)
by paranoid on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 07:41:35 PM EST

I may be wrong in my assumptions, beliefs and guesses, but at least they are internally consistent and agree with the reality.

When you claim that health care in the Soviet Union was adequate, then lie about salaries (a doctor in the USSR earned 170-190 roubles per month on average). A janitor earned about 70 roubles. A minister in the Union ministry earned 700 roubles, BTW.

I am not forcing you to lie, you did it voluntarily. Thus I am justified in calling you a fucking liar or an idiot. There is nothing wrong with that.

Now, after you lied about the salaries you espoused some blatant lies about 20 nearly dead patients lying in a room. That's fucking pathetic.

May be it's not your fault, may be your father was a liar (not to mention a grafter), that's entirely possible. But that simply means that you were indeed brainwashed. You don't know anything.

As for books, well, anything decent goes. For example, if you read the memoirs of Conrad Lorenz, a famous etologist and a former Nazi soldier, you will find how surprised he was at the high level of medical service provided by Soviet doctors even to captured Nazi soldiers.

I grew up in the Soviet Union and live in Russia now and your jabbering about socialism and Soviet order is ridiculous.

I won't refute everything that you said in your last post, because most of it is patent nonsense and it would be a waste of my time. Simply said, you don't know what you are talking about. And since you are nevertheless so confident, there can be no other explanation than you being brainwashed rather effectively.

It's up to you whether to stay that way or change. But remember that by succumbing to propaganda you risk becoming a retarded abomination like circletimessquare. The alternative is to become both open-minded and sceptical, to examine everything you learn with a critical eye, to be open to alternative points of view and to do your homework.

[ Parent ]

this is hopeless. (none / 1) (#430)
by syncrotic on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:01:05 PM EST

I'm amazed at the impossibility of carrying on a civil conversation with some people.

You win. Your namecalling, baseless accusations, and general hostility have effectively terminated the dialogue.

Feel free to reply: I wouldn't expect you to give up the satisfaction of getting the last word.

[ Parent ]

or perhaps (none / 0) (#473)
by Battle Troll on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:24:04 AM EST

Life in the USSR was different from life in Communist Hungary.

Since you grew up in the USSR, you must be aware that good Communists are contemptuous of 'traditional societies,' and that there was explicitly a project to 'create a new man' among the Soviet elites. The degree to which they succeeded is, of course, open to question, but in this light, I can't help but find rawther dubious your description of the USSR as a 'traditional society.'
--
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 ]

Tradition (none / 0) (#484)
by paranoid on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 06:37:30 PM EST

It was a traditional society only in a sense that it emphasised communal values, as opposed to individualistic values of the Western civilization. This is one of the reasons why the communist model was accepted so well by the Russian people - the village commune was not destroyed by capitalism as it happened in most of Europe (during industrialisation, when peasants lost their land and were forced into cities).

In other aspects, of course, such as allowing women to wear pants, vote and generally have equal rights, Soviet Union was anything but traditional. :)

[ Parent ]

confirmation (none / 0) (#472)
by Battle Troll on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:18:31 AM EST

My wife grew up in Ceausescu's Romania, and unofficial bribery was the means of access to better medical care there too. She tells me that the best job you could have under that regime was running a grocery store or working in the merchant marine. In the former case, everyone had to bribe you every time they wanted to buy a goddamn egg. In the latter, you could smuggle in panties, chocolates, and dolls, and sell them in an environment of total scarcity, making a huge profit over the official exchange rates.
--
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 ]
how fucking racist and condescending (1.50 / 2) (#387)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:43:37 AM EST

everyone in the world deserves democracy, right now

period, end of story

no other position on the issue is even remotely morally or intellectually defensible

no really: if you don't believe that, you're a genuine fucking racist

to say something like "iraqis aren't ready for democracy yet" just reveals you to be a fucking condescending racist

if a society succumbs to a dictator, you make excuses for that to be somehow ok? that they deserve it, that a dictator is more right for them?

you want to know how dictator's come to power? through people thinking just like you

you want to know what the problem with the world is today? people just like you asshole

take a look in the mirror: you're looking at the kind of thinking that led to saddam hussein

no really, your attitude is to excuse evil, explain it away, accept it

you're the enemy of anyone who tries to do good in this world and you aid those who mean wrong

you're one royal fucking asshole


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

[ Parent ]

Oh, realy? (none / 0) (#390)
by paranoid on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 03:27:35 AM EST

everyone in the world deserves democracy, right now

period, end of story

For such a fan of the periods, you certainly don't seem to use them much... But then again, you are nothing but an incompetent troll, what do I expect.

[ Parent ]

so... (none / 0) (#391)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:05:47 AM EST

it's ok to be a condescending racist, as long as you have good grammar?

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

[ Parent ]
Wrong! (none / 0) (#399)
by paranoid on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 06:13:59 AM EST

I pointed out that you are a troll. Or may be just a stupid sincire person. Pointing out the lack of punctuation was just a personal attack, because rational discource with you is impossible. If you can't possibly realise that you may be mistaken, the only thing I can do is insult you and may be feel a little bit better.

If you think I am a "condescending racist", you are simply missing all points that I made. Not to mention the fact that Soviet citizens never were racists, unlike the Americans, who were lynching negros up until what, 1964? You accusation is ridiculous.

[ Parent ]

laff (none / 0) (#407)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:17:03 PM EST

the soviet union, peaceful and non-racist

no pogroms

no attacks on a monthly basis on foreign students

this is PURE FACT:

the root of your words in your post above is racist

you are a racist, you think some people aren't ready for democracy... the root fo that thought is racism, for to believe in racial equality, then democracy for all is an inescapable consequence of that belief

so to not believe in democracy for all has at its root something that thinks people are inherently unequal

ie, racism

so yoou are a racist, whether you realize it or not

just like you think the soviet union russia is a peaceful nonracist place

(snicker)


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

[ Parent ]

Retard (none / 0) (#408)
by paranoid on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:37:03 PM EST

You are seriously retarded, circletimessquare. You can shrug it off, try to laugh at it, but the fact remains - you are severely mentally handicapped (i.e. a retard).

The first link clearly says that pogroms happened in Russia before the Revolution and ceased in Soviet Union. The second link is dated 2005 and the Soviet Union does not exist for almost 15 years. I don't understand what you are trying to prove, but whatever it is, you are failing.

There was no racism in Soviet Union. The relations between people of different nationalities were as peaceful as it can reasonably get.

The rest of your comments are the same moronic gibberish. WTF let you on Kuro5hin, this was supposed to be a place for intelligent people?

Of course you, retarded fuck, can't understand what I was saying about democracy. I won't even try to refute your incoherent ramblings, just go back and reread my parent posts. Preferably a thousand times, because you clearly have extreme difficulty comprehending written text. And learn to use punctuation and capitalisation properly, for fuck's sake.

[ Parent ]

yes, i am a retard ;-) (none / 0) (#410)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:11:52 PM EST

so what does it say that this retard understands what you do not?

;-P

so you admit there was racism before the soviet union

and you admit there was racism after the soviet union

and it is your genius-like contention, of an intellect i can not possibly fathom (snicker) that says in the years in between, that stalin or trotsky waved a magic wand and racism just disappeared?!

and gorbachev said, i suppose "let racism return!"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

maybe dear fuck, THAT A COMMUNIST STATE THAT CONTROLLED THE STATE AND PROPAGANDA DIDN'T FUCKING TALK THAT MUCH ABOUT IT

gee, i dunno, i'm just a retard after all, i'm just submitting the possibility for your humble consideration dear wise guru

;-)

and furthermore, i said it twice, i'll say it one more time, maybe you'll finally fucking get it:

all humans are equal

right now

therefore, all human beings deserve democracy

right now

papua new guinea, mongolia, turkmenistan, mozambique, bolivia, vanuatu:

THEY ALL DESERVE DEMOCRACY

RIGHT NOW

ANY OTHER THOUGHT "aw, the cute brown people, they're culture isn't ready for democracy"

THAT'S CONDESCENSION

THAT'S PATRONIZATION

THAT'S RACISM

THAT'S YOUR WORDS

but what do i know, i'm just a retarded troll

...who, i guess, knows more than you

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

;-)


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

[ Parent ]

Proof (none / 0) (#415)
by paranoid on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 05:00:50 PM EST

You are a living proof that humans are not equal. Some of them are so stupid that they should not be given access to the Internet.

Seriously, a monkey with half a brain would understand what I said better than you do.

[ Parent ]

your problem is (none / 0) (#419)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 07:01:58 PM EST

that i understand the implications of your words better than you do ;-)


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

[ Parent ]
I've heard this Third Reich shit before (3.00 / 2) (#392)
by Peahippo on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:47:51 AM EST

everyone in the world deserves democracy, right now
period, end of story
no other position on the issue is even remotely morally or intellectually defensible


Since the United States has invoked World War Three to get this done, your argument is completely undermined. You cannot free people by killing them. That lie was well advertised and then well falsified in the American attack on North and South Viet Nam in the 60s/70s.

Like liberty, democracy cannot be given. It must be taken. Those in the world who want democracy must depose their own dictators by their own damned selves. And that means without the use of 1 American trooper, bomb, plane or bullet ... and it especially excludes the presence of the murderous American CIA for advisory purposes (in reality, foreign subversion).

Your mantra of bringing democracy to the world is the tired falsehood of attacking the world to make it safe for American corporations and the American way of raping native resources.

Your unholy religion of attacking other world sovereignties is the REAL immoral and intellectually indefensible position.

The Iranians are well advised that your Crusaders are coming. Why the fuck do you think that they are gearing up a nuclear program? Iraq was disarmed, and then they were invaded AGAIN by the United States. Did you think the Iranians didn't notice that? Do you actually think nations will ever again comply with disarmament demands from the United States and the UN?

you're the enemy of anyone who tries to do good in this world and you aid those who mean wrong

Dropping bombs on other nations is a poor way to be a good person, CircleJerk. In fact, it's an IMPOSSIBLE way. By ignoring that fact, you've drowned, awash in a sea of your own stupid viciousness. Your self-induced spite embolism is long overdue, to save us from your brainless Neo-Liberal Chickenhawk talking points.


[ Parent ]
after awhile, it gets funny (none / 0) (#396)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 05:31:12 AM EST

because no one is imposing anyone on anything

something is being removed!

durrr...

it's funny to hear in your voice this righteous indignation about somebody imposing something on you unwanted

when all that is happening is A HATED DICTATOR is being REMOVED, and the people are getting WHAT THEY ALWAYS WANTED

are you telling me iraqis don't want dmeocracy? they liked it under saddam?

that's your position?

so it's funny in the end: in the name of not imposing something on somebody, you are defending the imposition of all you despise on people, except because it isn't gw bush doing the imposing, but someone else, anyone else, it's ok by you

what is your problem, really?

why the monomania?

why is it more important to you to prosecute a stupid us administration that will be gone in 3 years, than it is defending the very principles you yell so loudly and proudly about?

why the FUCK can't you work out that what the us did in iraq IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU STAND FOR

but you can't CONCEIVE that anyone but gw bush can do the evil things you see him doing?

what exactly in your mind was saddam hussein doing in iraq? growing cucumbers?

really, what the FUCK is the source of your colossal blindness?

it's absolutely astounding to me how propagandized you are

how can it be you are so propagandized that REMOVING A DICTATOR AND GIVING DEMOCRACY THAT IS WANTED is in your eyes an IMPOSITION of american will?

are we keeping iraq as a 51st state?

how is it you are so blinded and propagandized that the FUCKING OBVIOUS becomes something you can't see?

and the black is white, white is blakc fiction in your head becomes the truth?

it's amazing how people like oyu can be so completely and utterly deluded about the most fucking obvious of things

EVERY SINGLE IDEA THAT YOU DESPISE THAT OYU IMAGINE GW BUSH DOING TO IRAQ

IS WHAT SADDAM WAS DOING TO IRAQ

AND THE US REMOVED THAT FUCKER, AND GAVE THE FUCKING PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT

WHY THE FUCK CAN'T YOU SEE THAT???????????????

look: gw bush is a dumb rich frat boy, but he's way smarter than you are

gw bush does not deserve it, but in a few years, he will be thought of in iraq as fucking churchill, the school kids will learn of him as hero in their textbooks

imagine that shit!

i really would like to go on a trip with you to iraq, and have you take your post above, and read it to iraqis...

and see them laugh at you and explain how it really is

dude you're such a fucking moron

every single principle you say you care baout, you apparently can't understand

because your so blinded about this pointless hatred for a stupid frat boy, it's more important for oyu to hate him than care about the actual principles you say yuou care about

that the dumb frat boy advanced in the world!

fucking hilarious how deluded fucks like you are

;-P

;-)


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

[ Parent ]

Get that sand out of your ears, nose, etc. (none / 1) (#409)
by Peahippo on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 02:50:16 PM EST

are you telling me iraqis don't want dmeocracy? they liked it under saddam? that's your position?

No, that's the straw man that you Imperialists are constantly erecting these days. You can't admit that Saddam Hussein was for the Iraqi people to depose, not you, not Bush, and certainly not the American military. That's what SOVEREIGNTY means. By your own logic, a UN coalition can morally invade America, deposing a George W. Bush that they eventually find in some hole outside his Texas ranch.

CircleJerk, you clearly think you have exclusive control of the War debate in America. Looking at Fox News, it's easy to understand why you sit in your simpering confidence that this is so. But we Free Men have had more than enough of these Imperial shenanigans.

This permanent state of war is not happening in our names. It's happening in YOUR names -- you, and all the vicious chickenhawks like you. And to add to the crime, you have the unmitigated gall to pretend that you're "liberating" Iraq when you daily bomb it and shoot it up.

You are just an Imperial murderer. In civilized terms, you're a sociopath.

I'm never going away, CircleJerk. I'd already taken the First Step towards undermining the American federal government (and no, I'm not telling you what that is) in 1997 -- a government that had long ago ceased to care about my citizenship, since it considered me a subject of an Empire, and not a citizen of a Republic. (Yes, I knew America had gone Imperial back in the midst of the Clinton Era.) Pray that you're not around when I take Step Number Two. Jefferson had it exactly correct: The tree of liberty must be refeshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Not to insult the Iraqis and Afghanis who die every day from the "liberating" murdering of your Christian Crusaders, but the REAL war is happening here in America. And the time of shooting grows closer with each faux election.


[ Parent ]
it's timothy mcveigh! (none / 1) (#411)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:19:10 PM EST

back from the dead!

LOL

look, go get a bunker, load it up with guns

go sit in it, we'll call you when we need you, ok?

(snicker)

it's funny, but you could take every single word you say, and it's basically how iraqis feel about saddam

;-P

so if i had a billion dollars i would fly you to iraq, and let you read your diatribes to random iraqis on the street

let their reaction to your words educate you, oh dear mr. roid rage revolutionary

they need some comic relief over there right now!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

but for now, you'r emy entertainment

you say you're never going away?

PLEASE DON'T EVER LEAVE!!!!!!!!!

i need to laugh! ;-)

dance fucker, dance!

tell us all about the blood your going to spill at walmart!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


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

[ Parent ]

Keep something in mind (none / 0) (#447)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:08:33 AM EST

There's nothing wrong with the US helping people get rid of a tyrant. We got help against King George, from France (of all places). The relevant question is, were we helping the Iraqi people get rid of a dictator, or were we butting in where we weren't wanted? Or both?
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
both (nt) (none / 0) (#459)
by circletimessquare on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:34:38 PM EST



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

[ Parent ]
True (none / 1) (#404)
by WreckingCru on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:04:00 AM EST

You have hit the nail on the head, Comrade. I'm from India (though I live in NYC), and I always felt that the American version of democracy just cannot be imposed on the rest of the world - and the reason everyone else hates America so much - is because this country just doesn't get it. I'm a little tired of seeing America compared to North Korea and Iraq and hearing nonsense like 'what a great country we live in'. That is a very childish argument, and everyone should know that. Compare yourself to the Europeans and the great Asian nations like Japan and India - where freedom of speech means that one can actually say "SHIT" on television, and freedom of religion is truly enforced (eg., In school we were not told explicitly about Hinduism because mostly the country is full of Hindus - nor was there any Christianity-esque evangelism like I see on TV everyday here). Grow up America, and smell the bullshit. My Russian friend here has made a very valid statement about cultures and the lack of it in America. (It's a country of immigrants, what "culture" could they possibly have!!)

[ Parent ]
Aside from your feeble minded... (none / 0) (#454)
by cr8dle2grave on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 01:50:09 PM EST

...embrace of Soviet era platitudes and propoganda (no racism in the Soviet Union my ass, just ask the Chechens), I must enquire after the striking oddity of your conflating traditional societies with socialist ecomomic systems. Outside of the framework of Marxism-Lenninism, can you please clarify for me what exactly it is that binds traditional societies (among whom it is extraordinarily odd that you include the USSR) to socialist economic models?

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Igorance is bliss (none / 0) (#460)
by paranoid on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:53:02 AM EST

I am the objective and knowledgeable guy here, kapish? You are a victim of propaganda.

O sancta simplicitas. Did you know that a very large number of Chechens betrayed the Soviet Union and deserted to the Nazis? After the war was over, the Soviet government had a simple choice:

  1. Try the traitors according to the law (you know the punishment for traitors in war, don't you?)

  2. Spare the traitors, but send the whole nation to special settlements in Kazakhstan

I don't know about you, but if I had a choice between having my son rightfully executed for treason and being deported with him and the rest of my family, I would chose deportation. But now Stalin's act of mercy is depicted as a manifestation of racism...

what exactly it is that binds traditional societies (among whom it is extraordinarily odd that you include the USSR) to socialist economic models?

Communal farming is a prominent feature of traditional societies. Socialism is an extention of that. Also, traditional societies often believe that a close connection exist between the government and the people, that the government is responsible for the well-being and safety of all. Traditional socities are often ideocratic to some extent and Soviet socialism was ideocratic too.

[ Parent ]

Stalin's mercy? (none / 0) (#467)
by cr8dle2grave on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 11:47:45 AM EST

Oh my, found a left over stash of the old Comintern brand kool-aid, did we? That particular nugget of agitprop is so 50's. Or haven't you heard? Since that "traitor" Solzhenitsyn, nobody--or at least none of us civilized folk--is buying the kind ole' misunderstood Papa routine.

And as for the rest, I explicitly asked for the connection outside of a Marxist-Lenninist framework. You've just given me the grade school version of the same.

Chomsky? Hogan? Spaghetti? Are you in there?

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Facts (none / 0) (#468)
by paranoid on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:04:29 PM EST

Well, may be it sounds like agitprop. But do you disagree with the facts as I presented them? I am asking you to rationally consider the history of Chechen deportation, not tell us how you feel about it.

I didn't really understand your question about connection, sorry.

[ Parent ]

The facts don't seem to be in dispute... (none / 0) (#469)
by cr8dle2grave on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:51:54 PM EST

Some few Chechens were Nazi conspirators--or more appropriately, counter-revolutionary anti Soviet conspirators--and Stalin forcibly exiled most of the nation. All that remains to be said is how we feel about it, and your "feelings" smack distinctly of ready made apologetics handed down from the official party organs.

Feel however you wish, just don't expect much sympathy for your views. And the charge of racial bias remains untouched, as ethnic Russians were hardly subjected to the same indiscriminate policies as were the Chechens and the Ukranians, in spite of the fact Russian anti-revolutionaries were in no short supply.

And as for the connection, I wanted something other than the canned party tripe about natural affinities between socialism and pre-industrial societies. There's no shortage of anthropological, economic, and historical analyses--of both liberal and leftist persuasions--of pre-industrial societies and the structure of their social organization, but, with a few notable exceptions, facile comparisons with socialism fell out of favor long ago even among self-indentified methodological dialectical materialists.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
no kidding (none / 0) (#471)
by Battle Troll on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:12:51 AM EST

Dogmatic Marxism considers tradition trash and primitive societies objectively inferior to modern states. Communism is a post-capitalist phenomenon, not a return to naive pre-feudal innocence.
--
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 ]
Indeed... (none / 0) (#474)
by cr8dle2grave on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 08:11:34 PM EST

Marx himself considered England's colonial projects to be, on the whole, a net positive for everyone involved (wogs especially). It was Lenin who turned everything upside down and inside out, and I've always considered that to have been primarily a tactical manuveur, not a true shift in theory.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
HWBT? (none / 0) (#478)
by Battle Troll on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:40:16 AM EST

I think so.
--
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 ]
By Lenin? I couldn't agree more ;-P [n/t] (none / 0) (#479)
by cr8dle2grave on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:19:21 PM EST


---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
The decline and fall of K5 (none / 0) (#374)
by tarpy on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 07:27:38 PM EST

This god-awful drivel is further proof of the decline and fall of the voting queue.

Look, we might not be perfect, but think about this, we're not going to line you up against the wall and charge your family for the bullet we put into your head for writing this absolute drivel.


Sir, this is old skool. Old skool. I salute you! - Knot In The Face
What you're saying is.... (none / 0) (#380)
by syncrotic on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:32:43 AM EST

"...hey, it could be worse."

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be better.

[ Parent ]

wrong, proof it works (none / 0) (#386)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:35:48 AM EST

a well-written ideologically correct article that everyone claps for and no one comments on can get voted fp +1

a train wreck grammatically incorrect vaguely incoherent and drunken burst of anger that some people absolutely loathe BUT EVERYONE COMMENTS ON can get voted away and out

but here we have a welcome blessing: the train wreck got voted in

halleluah

i say fuck the well-written pc crap that everyone agrees with but no one comments on

this shit right here is what it's all about

because while i loathe what the author is saying, at least he's saying it honestly and angrily

so i hate this article, but i respect it

that is MUCH better than an article i just don't fucking care about

perhaps even better than an article i like


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

[ Parent ]

At least we're not Trashcanistan (none / 0) (#470)
by badtux on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 03:58:28 PM EST

See, here in America we might ruin you for saying the wrong thing, but at least we're better than Trashcanistan, where they would flay you with a whip, then dip you in a vat of burning oil to finish you off, then charge your relatives for the cost of the oil.

Boy, we DO have high standards, don't we? Comparing ourself to Trashcanistan (read: various central Asian nations ruled by vicious tyrants) rather than to other nations that claim to be free and democratic? Hey, we may kill thousands of Americans per year by not providing even minimal medical care to millions of Americans, but at least we're not Trashcanistan, where medical care is a bullet between the eyes if you're sick and unable to work!

Of course, compared to civilized nations we suck... but hey, we conveniently ignore those nations while making these kinds of comparisons because, well, at least we're better than Trashcanistan...

- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
[ Parent ]

Agreed (3.00 / 2) (#377)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sat Apr 16, 2005 at 08:08:47 PM EST

Here's something not many people realize about this First Amendment:  It's been dead for two hundred years.  You see when John Adams was president there was something called the Alien and Sedition Acts.  It was a horrible piece of legislation which called for much censorship and unfair detention of citizens.

The worst part is that the Supreme Court upheld the Alien and Sedition Acts.  It was upheld on the grounds that while it is illegal for the government to prevent your speech, it is completely legal for the government to punish you for your speech after the fact.  This awful precedent has been upheld by the Supreme Court over and over again.  I'm sure many of you were unaware that the First Amendment has been completely castrated and there is effectively no guarantee of freedom of speech in the Unitied States.

Also, I wanted to bring up cruel and unusual punishment.  I can think of no punishment more cruel and unusual than rape.  But our prisons are so overcrowded that the prisoners cannot even be provided such basic security.  (It is also interesting to note that over two million Americans are in prison.  Is this a sign of a free society?)

Well, at least they aren't quartering soldiers in our houses, yet.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

Sort of (none / 0) (#422)
by Polverone on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:01:23 PM EST

It depends on what is meant by guarantee. The US government is currently violating or has violated in the past nearly every provision of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in one way or another. At the same time, there remains a fairly high level of freedom in practice for the median citizen. The US is supposed to be a nation of "laws, not men" but it's unfortunately always people who have to take action. I wish the Constitution could climb out of its display case and stab government officials in the face and groin whenever they act to weaken its protections, but documents don't do that. So in the US and elsewhere there is no absolute guarantee of any freedom, and citizens must hope that officials are just and freedom-loving if they want to experience freedom in practice.
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]
In america we take the children's minds first. (none / 0) (#442)
by krkrbt on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 02:33:12 AM EST

All other freedoms are easy to take, once we own their little minds.  Just think:  13 years of indoctrination, and it's trivial to get the kiddies (who happen to get larger, but never really grow up) to think what we want them to think.

ref:  John Taylor Gatto's Underground History of American Education, or any of his other books, for that matter.

Bearing arms (none / 0) (#485)
by aros on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 07:56:56 PM EST

This bearing of arms is an American obsession. Al Capone was a great believer in that right. Surely you hate and distrust the police! Before you go gun-psycho I do agree with some of the other things you say, but comparison between the US China and Saudi in terms of religious freedom comes out strongly in the favour of the US.

Congratulations on reaching the Oedipal Stage (none / 0) (#486)
by Frank Anderson on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 04:38:37 AM EST

You have discovered that "Dad" (the old folks who run things) is stupid and/or hypocritical. If only you were in charge, how different things would be! True freedom. Everyone would run around protesting, demonstrating and waving his weapons. Might this impinge on some good things you currently take for granted?
The bottom line is that many generations of wisdom in legislation and court decisions have enabled us to enjoy our freedoms while sheltering under the roof of civilized society.
Your ideas about freedom are all about "ME ME ME". That's fine, but you should realize that you are part of a bigger picture. The art of democracy involves balancing the freedom of the individual with the ongoing health of the state. It's like tuning a piano, but turn the wrench too far in one direction and the string snaps. It took a few hundred years to make that string, so we're not keen on having to redo it.
If a woman has the right to remove a zygote, blastocyst (which, btw and beside the point I do support) from her body, why does she not have the right to put anything she wants into her body, whether it be food, cocaine, or rat poison?
Quite a puzzle, isn't it, when you look at "a woman" as an isolated atom? But that isolating viewpoint has already peaked, and is on its way out. How would you feel if you labored for 18 years to craft a work of art, and then found it senselessly smashed? Well, that is how long it takes to raise an adult human being. You see, there are other people affected when a person starts on a road to ruin. I urge you to read the words of sadness on this site.
And that is only one of the roles your hypothetical woman plays, the role of daughter! What about wife, mother, parishioner, volunteer, worker? How many lives does she hurt by turning to drugs or suicide?
And that example really expands to cover your whole complaint - freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum, but is a consequence of a strong, democratic state. It took discipline, sacrifice, and even a surrender of freedom (such as the draft) to maintain that state.

Circular Morality (none / 0) (#491)
by j0n on Sat May 07, 2005 at 05:19:41 PM EST

My mother is pretty crushed that I'm not a Christian despite her 18+ years of psychological engineer...ahem, righteous teaching. Of course, to people who think emotional investment is a valid moral imperative, they don't ever consider THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS A COMPETING EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT. Seeing the moral conundrum yet?

[ Parent ]
You speak the truth - one example... (none / 0) (#488)
by starry on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 09:09:43 PM EST

My little personal tale LINK

Sincerely,

Starry


oopse... bad link (none / 0) (#489)
by starry on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 09:11:56 PM EST

My little personal tale LINK

Sincerely,

Starry


Liberty? What liberty? | 489 comments (365 topical, 124 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!