Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   George Bush leads us into the world of Kafka.
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 61 of 150 (350310)
09-19-2006 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 12:12 PM


Re: A general reply
America, just like any other nation, has every concievable right to protect itself against any enemy, foreign or domestic.
I agree with that as well as the fact that we'd likely be criticized no matter what we did. However, the right to protect onesself does not legitimate all forms of response, and that we will face criticism does not mean all criticism is without merit or that some responses will meet with less criticism.
I don't enjoy debates using stock dilemmas, where it was either what he did or throwing up ones hands.
The irony is that Germany and the UK have been monitering its own citizens much longer than the US ever has, yet, not a word of dismay or such a backlash as is seen in the US-- this coming from people who overtly or covertly support Communist ideals! I couldn't help but notice the blatant irony.
Well, I'll ignore the communist commentary, but yes I agree with your assessment and I am trying to advance that point to European critics. I was watching a Michael Moore movie in a dutch theater and people were tut-tutting at some of the stuff Bush was trying to do, and I felt like standing up and yelling "You know you guys already gave those rights away back in '98?"
My life is exactly the same as its ever been. What have you lost in the process? Is the FBI harrasing you?
That was an incorrect response to the quote you put out. Granted I mentioned that civil liberties are eroded, I said the worst part was an increased centralization of power to the executive branch. You have been losing power whether you feel it or not.
As to the civil liberties questions, actually I do not people that were searched by the FBI, and thankfully cleared. I suppose that goes with the course of knowing people who happen to be Iraqi. I would have no idea if my phones are tapped or people collect my urine. All I know is that for certain types of crimes they are removing constitutional restraints, and those "types" are expanding. One type of wire tapping which was claimed would not be used against anyone but terrorists was immediately used against a strip club owner.
Also, my gf is in the porn biz and I have worked in it as well to some degree. Our freedom of speech is being eroded by this administration, particularly sexual speech. They have strengthened laws and used enforcement of such laws to harass adult businesses into closure. Mind you this is not just getting things labelled obscene. They have created byzantine and opaque recordkeeping requirements that are so draconian with regard to punishment for even accidental errors that people simply can't take a chance.
This model of regulatory harassment can be used against other forms of free speech.
And as for irony, Ashcroft and Bush had weakened antiterror capabilities of the FBI in order to gear up for a war against porn. They apparently believed it was a larger threat... or maybe that it would be easier to deal with. In any case they had moved resources from terrorism to porn and were set to announce their war against porn right about 9/11. Then those pesky terrorists spoiled it (temporarily) for them.
But don't worry, after shuffling resources back to terrorism for a brief time, they managed to move it back and while terrorists may be planning more attacks, starting last summer the FBI has gone into full swing raiding legal porn companies to make sure that every T is crossed and i is dotted on model release forms. Yeah, I can just feel the liberty and the safety.
After about 10 minutes they'd realize that we were just having a conversation and they would stop monitering it.
Why wouldn't terrorists use this knowledge to their advantage and say, talk in code or never use something that code be a hot word except when buried in long conversations?
In any case, I still don't see your point. I have a right to privacy. I don't care what people aren't doing while invading it. I don't care how infrequently they invade it. I don't care if they use special cues to begin the invasion of my privacy. They don't have that right. And people like me get pissed when they find out such invasions occur. That's pretty much all one needs to know.
The people who think they are being watched either are because they are into some bad stuff or they have delusions of granduer and think that they are really special and that the gov't really cares whether or not they masturbate.
Well I can't speak for everyone, but your rather Orwellian position cannot speak for everyone either. There is a concept of privacy. There is a concept of a right to it. When you have both then there is offence taken when someone invades it, no matter the reason they give.
You are trying to find some ulterior motive for why a person might want privacy, but it is rather a guilt by association argument. Do you have no desire for freedom, just plain old freedom?
I could flip that quote of your around to say that the only people who think they need to invade the privacy of others are into some bad stuff themselves (and so don't trust anyone) or have the delusion of grandeur that they can save the world using cheap shortcuts through people's rights.
The US or ANY nation does not begin to spy on its citizens without some sort of reason to do so. Its the same as the police have always done. They are going to start an investigation on someone without some sort of reason to be watching them in the first place.
Yes that's a very good description of how rights are eroded. They find some "reason" we need people to watch over us, and then think for us, and then micro manage our lives. That they do this, is not an argument that they should be doing it.
I thought the conservative concept was that smaller, less intrusive govt's were better?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 2:51 PM Silent H has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 150 (350318)
09-19-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
09-17-2006 6:08 PM


Re: A general reply
What makes you think that? Your natural faith in the eternal human goodness of the unwatched watchman? In fact, every time you have a system of visual surveliance, the guys watching the monitors spend far more time scoping out the babes than actually watching for suspicous activity or whatever.
So, you say that's an assertion of mine that I don't believe that gov't agents are watching us bathe but you believe that they are and that they are checking out babes while doing this? Okay, please explain to me how you have the inside scoop on this please explain by what method you are being watched.
I can, actually. The US government doesn't exist to protect itself; it exists to protect us. The US government, in fact, has absolutely no business taking any sort of steps to protect itself. The government should be vulnerable at all times. How else do we ensure its honesty?
The government IS protecting you, that's what that means. What then should they be doing differently? I have to asked because the CIA got flamed over 9/11 but then they get flamed for preventing other 9/11 style attacks. What should the US gov't be doing to satisfy Crashfrog?
That's nonsense. At that time, we responded to the terrorist threat in exactly the proper way - as a law enforcement problem - with exactly the proper results. Maybe you forgot that the first time the Towers were attacked, we actually caught and convicted the mastermind?
The CIA finally captured the mastermind of WTC 1 and then they fired a missle into an asprin factory. That was all that was ever done as far as a retaliatory strike. So, what has the US done prior to the 2nd Iraq war that constitutes provocation to be attacked in the first place? See, we tried to ignore terrorism and chalk it up as a couple pests in the middle east. Our policy was that we would do nothing about and hope it would just go away. That proved to be a big mistake.
What do you suggest that the US do now as far as its security and its foreign policy?

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2006 6:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 150 (350323)
09-19-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 12:12 PM


Re: A general reply
quote:
The problem is the US is always damned if they do, damned if they don't in the eyes of the world.
The problem is that the US has been the most powerful nation in the world since WWII and has been the only major world power for the last 15 years or so, and has used its power to further its own interests (and that of its allies) at the expense of the interests of the majority of the world's people. That it has been so consistent in this is not the fault of the people who continue to point out its abuse of power.
-
quote:
America, just like any other nation, has every concievable right to protect itself against any enemy, foreign or domestic.
Actually, it doesn't. Any response must take into account the likelihood that the alleged threat is a mistake as well as the level of danger the threat proposes. That is why I am not allowed to just go and blow up a house with everyone in it just because I think that one of the inhabitants might be planning on stomping through my garden. There things like due process to discover the actual facts and limitation of the remedy to the norms appropriate the alleged threat. It is a bit different on the international level between states, but the ideas are essentially the same.
-
quote:
The US or ANY nation does not begin to spy on its citizens without some sort of reason to do so.
Ha ha ha. That's true; the US, and other nations that spy on their citizens, do have a reason; citizens who are concerned enough about their rights in a democracy to act on them are a threat to those in power. The reason is to identify the trouble makers (like, for example, Martin Luther King, who was spied upon by the FBI, as well as other anti-racism groups, feminist groups, and the peace activists) so as to neutralize their activities when necessary. The activities of COINTELPRO should be a warning of what happens when the state decides who is going to be a threat to "security".

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 3:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 150 (350328)
09-19-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by kuresu
09-18-2006 12:59 AM


Re: A general reply
you mean to tell me that the USSR and China are communisitic? hah!
they stopped being communists (much less socialists) when they installed a dictator and followed facsist lines. By the time of Stalin, the USSR was communist in name only. The socialist state I'm familiar with, ie Sweden, is not known for any secret police. just Germany (under Nazi rule), the USSR, China, and Oceania.
Wow, your sense of history is abysmal. The Stasi, KGB, and Chinese Secret Police, etc have a very bad history of spying on its citizens. As far as China is concerned, yes, they are still very much Communists with the exception that they adopted a free trade market. My o'my and look at how their country is flourishing. Now, if only we could get them to drop the insane idealogies of communism altogether. As far as fascists are concerned the Nazi's were no better with their frantic spying, but this misses the point. The point is in the irony that those who oppose the Patriot Act, even though my inclination tells me they haven't even read it, are those of the socialist persuasion who have a terrible record of illicit spying.
oh, and leftist is anywhere from just left of moderate all the way to true communism. As in, I'm a leftist moderate, but I ain't no commie--I'm a capitalist.
No, when I say 'Left' I'm not speaking about moderates. I'm speaking about the protestors who incite violence at their rallies not abate it. I'm not speaking about 'hippy left,' I'm speaking about the militant hardline 'Che Guevarra Left' that is becoming so affluent in the American counter-culture.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by kuresu, posted 09-18-2006 12:59 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by kuresu, posted 09-19-2006 3:39 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 150 (350337)
09-19-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by subbie
09-19-2006 12:35 PM


Re: A general reply
The fact of the matter is that we don't know, and neither do you. The "Patriot Act" (my stomach turns at having to call it that) not only authorizes secret searches, it also prohibits anyone from telling the subject of the search, upon pain of prosecution.
Please show me which section you feel should be illegal.
However, the more important point is that, even if it never directly impacts me in the least, I still protest against the violation of the civil rights of others. It's not less wrong because it doesn't affect me. And the fact that you only care about whether your rights are violated is disgusting.
Explain how our civil rights are in jeapordy to begin with? Give me some specific greivances to address. What do you think is happening to you or to other people that is, in essence, criminal?
If you are at all interested in the truth, read this for a list of people who had a well-founded belief that they are or were subject to illegal searches under the "Patriot Act."
Your link is from the ACLU. That's all that needs to be said in order to discredit the veracity of said claims.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by subbie, posted 09-19-2006 12:35 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-19-2006 3:27 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 71 by subbie, posted 09-19-2006 3:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 106 by nator, posted 09-19-2006 10:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 150 (350348)
09-19-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Silent H
09-19-2006 1:03 PM


Re: A general reply
That was an incorrect response to the quote you put out. Granted I mentioned that civil liberties are eroded, I said the worst part was an increased centralization of power to the executive branch. You have been losing power whether you feel it or not.
If we acquiesce our rights at an insensibly fine rate then how would you know whether or not your liberites are being eroded to begin with? I would really like for someone to outline specific sections of the Patriot Act on what they feel is illegal or give me specific grievances on how some governmental entity violated their rights directly at the behest of the Patriot Act. That way we might be able to open up some actual dialogue instead of catering to phantom 'what-if scenarios.'
I would have no idea if my phones are tapped or people collect my urine. All I know is that for certain types of crimes they are removing constitutional restraints, and those "types" are expanding. One type of wire tapping which was claimed would not be used against anyone but terrorists was immediately used against a strip club owner.
Wire tapping has been around almost as long as phones have in the law enforcement community. This is not a new advent.
Also, my gf is in the porn biz and I have worked in it as well to some degree. Our freedom of speech is being eroded by this administration, particularly sexual speech.
Sexual speech is being eroded? What exactly consitutes, 'sexual speech.'
They have strengthened laws and used enforcement of such laws to harass adult businesses into closure. Mind you this is not just getting things labelled obscene. They have created byzantine and opaque recordkeeping requirements that are so draconian with regard to punishment for even accidental errors that people simply can't take a chance.
Holmes, the porn industry has a higher revenue than every professional US sport combined. If any porn company is 'forced' into closure its because they have engaged in illegal activity. Aside from which, without specifics, why am I supposed to gather from these allegations? Though not immune to scandal, do you think that the law enforcement community probably has a better record of staying legal or the porn industry?
And as for irony, Ashcroft and Bush had weakened antiterror capabilities of the FBI in order to gear up for a war against porn. They apparently believed it was a larger threat... or maybe that it would be easier to deal with. In any case they had moved resources from terrorism to porn and were set to announce their war against porn right about 9/11. Then those pesky terrorists spoiled it (temporarily) for them.
The war against porn? Is this a cladenstine war that not even the tabloids have picked up on?
Why wouldn't terrorists use this knowledge to their advantage and say, talk in code or never use something that code be a hot word except when buried in long conversations?
They probably do. They have learned to adapt.
In any case, I still don't see your point. I have a right to privacy. I don't care what people aren't doing while invading it. I don't care how infrequently they invade it. I don't care if they use special cues to begin the invasion of my privacy. They don't have that right. And people like me get pissed when they find out such invasions occur. That's pretty much all one needs to know.
What's an oxymoron? A purveyor of porn talking about rights to privacy. Again, how has your privacy being impeded?
Well I can't speak for everyone, but your rather Orwellian position cannot speak for everyone either. There is a concept of privacy. There is a concept of a right to it. When you have both then there is offence taken when someone invades it, no matter the reason they give.
I agree fully with a right to privacy. You and all the other detractors neglect to give a single instance of what exactly violates your privacy, nor have they offered solutions for how the gov't is supposed to protect them.... Just as I said: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
No hindsight, no foresight, no peripheral vision. They only see what's right in front of them.
You are trying to find some ulterior motive for why a person might want privacy, but it is rather a guilt by association argument. Do you have no desire for freedom, just plain old freedom?
No, privacy is great. I can sit in my house with total privacy can't I? Can't you? Yes, you can.
I could flip that quote of your around to say that the only people who think they need to invade the privacy of others are into some bad stuff themselves (and so don't trust anyone) or have the delusion of grandeur that they can save the world using cheap shortcuts through people's rights.
The people who purport this stuff are the people that think Area 51 houses alien corpses and the kind of people who think 9/11 was a total conspiracy. They find some sick enjoyment with masochism because they just aren't happy until they are suffering. I'm sure you know the type I speak of.
Yes that's a very good description of how rights are eroded. They find some "reason" we need people to watch over us, and then think for us, and then micro manage our lives. That they do this, is not an argument that they should be doing it.
Explain to me how we are being 'watched.' What's the mechanism? What's the reason they look at Holmes?
I thought the conservative concept was that smaller, less intrusive govt's were better?
Yes, I agree. But what we are addresing is people who believe that the government is watching them, yet, they can't prove it, they can't explain how, they explain by whom, and they can't explain why-- they just think the gov't is out to get them and nothing is going to undue that apparently.
I think these are people who want to feel important and pretend that the US gov't actually gives a flip about them.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Silent H, posted 09-19-2006 1:03 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 09-20-2006 4:26 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 150 (350353)
09-19-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Chiroptera
09-19-2006 1:43 PM


Re: A general reply
The problem is that the US has been the most powerful nation in the world since WWII and has been the only major world power for the last 15 years or so, and has used its power to further its own interests (and that of its allies) at the expense of the interests of the majority of the world's people. That it has been so consistent in this is not the fault of the people who continue to point out its abuse of power.
The US along with EVERY nation that has ever been on planet earth seeks to further its interests, however, give me instances where it has affected other people so profoundly that they are granted the unalienable right to murder innocent, unsuspecting people? It sounds almost as if you sympathize with expressed goal of Islamofascism.
Actually, it doesn't. Any response must take into account the likelihood that the alleged threat is a mistake as well as the level of danger the threat proposes. That is why I am not allowed to just go and blow up a house with everyone in it just because I think that one of the inhabitants might be planning on stomping through my garden. There things like due process to discover the actual facts and limitation of the remedy to the norms appropriate the alleged threat. It is a bit different on the international level between states, but the ideas are essentially the same.
Uh-huh, and how does this mean that the US doesn't have right to prosecute those enemies, both foreign and domestic? What does your statement have to do with your response to my quote?
Ha ha ha. That's true; the US, and other nations that spy on their citizens, do have a reason; citizens who are concerned enough about their rights in a democracy to act on them are a threat to those in power.
So, the US gov't, (who is entirely comprised of US citizens) seek to destroy other US citizens who realize their own freedoms? Is that argument? Some people mistake 'freedom' to mean an abolition of all rules as they unleash themselves in an unfettered form of squalid behavior. That is probably one of the more pervasive lies that have been perpetuated in recent years. Such distortions.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Chiroptera, posted 09-19-2006 1:43 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Jaderis, posted 09-19-2006 6:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 93 by Chiroptera, posted 09-19-2006 6:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 150 (350360)
09-19-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 2:14 PM


Re: A general reply
Your link is from the ACLU. That's all that needs to be said in order to discredit the veracity of said claims.
Without going into the wisdom of this statement, (or lack thereof,) it's worth pointing out that the link is not from the ACLU. It's from a factual account, by the US Government, of a case in which the ACLU was a plantiff.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : toned down the snark a bit
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 2:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 3:45 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 69 of 150 (350366)
09-19-2006 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 1:54 PM


Re: A general reply
what is communism? put simply, it is an economic system where all goods are distributed equally among the people. The other facet is that the people are the dictator, and own all the property. In other words, no individual property. Now then, wouldn't you say that treating the commie party better than your own people constitutes a violation of communism? If they were actually communist, there people would be better off. Instead, the powerful are just soaking up the resources for themselves. As I said, communist in name only.
I never contended that they did not spy on their own people. I challenged your assertion that it was truly communist nations that did this. Answer me this--why would a government that provides to all equally fear the people? why did, and do, these governments feel the need to spy on their own people in order to maintian their power? could it be that something is wrong, that the state is lying to the people? You know, like 1984?. I mentioned oceania for a reason--it is a socialist state in name only. why? You have an upper class. In animal farm, another critique of the failures of communism (this time of the russian revolution) is this statement: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Tell me, how is this communism? No state today is a true communistic nation. There has never been, in the modern world, a communist nation.
As to the last statement you make--make that clear from the beginning. It's similar to saying all christians piss me off, or all muslims are fanatics, or all gays are evil. Blanket statements hardly ever cut it. So when you say the left, that is, as I stated, anywhere from just left of moderate to true communism.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 1:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 3:57 PM kuresu has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 150 (350372)
09-19-2006 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dan Carroll
09-19-2006 3:27 PM


Re: A general reply
Without going into the wisdom of this statement, (or lack thereof,) it's worth pointing out that the link is not from the ACLU. It's from a factual account, by the US Government, of a case in which the ACLU was a plantiff.
The ACLU is regularly the plantiff's in many cases. They also protect pedophiles too. Do you applaude them for this?

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-19-2006 3:27 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-19-2006 3:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 73 by subbie, posted 09-19-2006 3:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 76 by Coragyps, posted 09-19-2006 3:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 79 by Jazzns, posted 09-19-2006 4:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 71 of 150 (350378)
09-19-2006 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 2:14 PM


Re: A general reply
Your link is from the ACLU. That's all that needs to be said in order to discredit the veracity of said claims.
The ACLU?
The ACLU?!?
Aside from the fact that all you have presented is an ad hominem reply, devoid of substance, you are simply factually wrong. The link is a United States District Court opinion.
Page not found | U.S District Court
Explain how our civil rights are in jeapordy [sic] to begin with? [sic] Give me some specific greivances [sic] to address. What do you think is happening to you or to other people that is, in essence, criminal?
For starters, the following opinions have held that one or more provisions of the "Patriot Act" are unconstitutional:
The previously linked USDC opinion.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/090905JCH.DoeOP.pdf
BTW, this is not to say necessarily that what is happening is "criminal," but unconstutional.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 2:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 4:35 PM subbie has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 150 (350380)
09-19-2006 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 3:45 PM


Re: A general reply
The ACLU is regularly the plantiff's in many cases. They also protect pedophiles too. Do you applaude them for this?
Depends on the case.
Why are you still dodging the information contained in the link, now that you know it's not from the ACLU?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 3:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by subbie, posted 09-19-2006 3:57 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 73 of 150 (350383)
09-19-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 3:45 PM


Re: A general reply
The ACLU is regularly the plantiff's in many cases. They also protect pedophiles too. Do you applaude them for this?
To the extent that the ACLU protects anyone's constitutional rights, I absolutely applaud them. The simple fact that you seem to be able to understand is that even people you don't like have rights under the Constitution. Even people who commit heinous acts have rights that need to be protected. And if the worst thing you can say about the ACLU is that they try to protect the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, you haven't said much.
The funny thing is, you probably consider yourself patriotic, but you couldn't care less about the most important document in the history of our country.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 3:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 4:15 PM subbie has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 150 (350385)
09-19-2006 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by kuresu
09-19-2006 3:39 PM


Re: A general reply
what is communism? put simply, it is an economic system where all goods are distributed equally among the people. The other facet is that the people are the dictator, and own all the property. In other words, no individual property.
Communism is a bit more than economic system. Its an idealogy, and one that, amdittedly, sounds very appealing and impartial. Obviously the concpet of Utopia has never come to fruition because mankind tends to sin.
Now then, wouldn't you say that treating the commie party better than your own people constitutes a violation of communism? If they were actually communist, there people would be better off. Instead, the powerful are just soaking up the resources for themselves. As I said, communist in name only.
I have no idea what you just said.
I never contended that they did not spy on their own people. I challenged your assertion that it was truly communist nations that did this. Answer me this--why would a government that provides to all equally fear the people? why did, and do, these governments feel the need to spy on their own people in order to maintian their power? could it be that something is wrong, that the state is lying to the people? You know, like 1984? I mentioned oceania for a reason--it is a socialist state in name only. why? You have an upper class. In animal farm, another critique of the failures of communism (this time of the russian revolution) is this statement: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Right. Communism doesn't work as evidenced by all of its demonstrable failures. But this misses the point. The point is in the irony that those who demonize the Patriot Act tend to be of a more liberal persuasion, seemingly blind to the fact that its been Communist (Leftist) nations who have commited the most heinous offenses against the civil liberties of people. You don't find that ironic?
Tell me, how is this communism? No state today is a true communistic nation. There has never been, in the modern world, a communist nation.
No nation COULD ever be truly communistic because that would require people to actually follow their own conscience, in which case, there would be no sin. If Communism could really be summarized by an economic policy no one would ever really have any problem with it. It doesn't work and its sets up dictatorships.
As to the last statement you make--make that clear from the beginning. It's similar to saying all christians piss me off, or all muslims are fanatics, or all gays are evil. Blanket statements hardly ever cut it. So when you say the left, that is, as I stated, anywhere from just left of moderate to true communism.
Well, when you say "The Government," I don't really expect you to mean every single person that works for the government. I think we have enough labels out there to distinguish whether or not Left doesn't mean Right. I don't think I have to say Moderate Left. If I'm not talking about you then let it roll off your back, eh?

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by kuresu, posted 09-19-2006 3:39 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by kuresu, posted 09-19-2006 6:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 75 of 150 (350386)
09-19-2006 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dan Carroll
09-19-2006 3:51 PM


Re: A general reply
Why are you still dodging the information contained in the link, now that you know it's not from the ACLU?
The answer to that is obvious. He has nothing of substance to say.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-19-2006 3:51 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024