I may not agree with what you guys say...

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

But I would actively defend your right to say it. In fact, I would use my resources to wage a full scale military campaign, or even engage in active guerilla warfare to overthrow any tyranny which impeded anyone's right to total freedom of expression.

Does this surprise you?

You on the other hand, (communsists and liberals) ... oh you would hack my head off in an instant.

See, that's the difference between our two systems. One fights for freedom, the other for equality regardless of the consequences.

Has it ever occured to you people that freedom is inclusive of the freedom to earn money at differing rates? Anything else is by any means a tyranny - a tyranny which would have this very forum shut down.

And yet we capitaists, in power, do not seek to use violent means against freedom of expression. The United States' Consititution defends the right to free speech.

You guys are very coy about ideas of free speech. One would assume that in an anarcho-communist society free speech would be acceptable. You secretly know however that the freedom to elucidate thoughts into words includes the freedom to voice the dissent necessary to shut down whatever political system you may perchance establish.

Anyway, the point is that I, as a capitalist, would come close to sacrificing my life to allow you the freedom to advocate dissent.

I do not beleive your political system involves a free speech clause. Am I right?

This is why you can never win - and why we capitlaists can never be defeated.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Assuming that most of this is merely bait I will answer your basic question :
I do not beleive your political system involves a free speech clause. Am I right? No you are not correct. There is no agency that could even conceivably exist under such a sytem that could limit speech.

If you a serious and indepth response please PM me.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Communism fully accepts free speech. Who gave you the idea that it didn't? Revolution isn't about censoring opposing viewpoints. It is taking back the profit that was stolen from the proletariat through wage slavery. The only reason a revolution will happen is because capitalists will strike first.

[Rollo]

Under communism or anarchy you can do whatever the hell you want.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 12:25 pm
... oh you would hack my head off in an instant.
True as this may well be, its unrelated to the concept of free speech.

[LoneRed]

whats the point of free speech on paper, when its not applicable in real life. Most proletarians dont have free speech, as in they dont have access to it, they are too busy providing for their families, and living day to day, and how are free speech zones, free speech as written in the constitution?

[Matty_UK]

We don't deny freedom of speech. We deny the capitalists the right to attempt to forcefully counter a revolution. Any political system defends itself against those who wish to destroy it and you make us out to be extreme if we advocate arresting or killing those who attempt to violently oppose revolution but if we were to occupy factories and run them collectively denying the bourgeois right to exploit us then you would be all for crushing us.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 12:38 pm
Assuming that most of this is merely bait I will answer your basic question :
I do not beleive your political system involves a free speech clause. Am I right? No you are not correct. There is no agency that could even conceivably exist under such a sytem that could limit speech.

If you a serious and indepth response please PM me.
Your bretheren have stated repeatedly that disruptive "trolls" in the commune will be "removed" quite a few times.

How will the commune discern between free speech and disruptive trolls?

[LuXe]

Thats the difference between you and Thisguyisatotaljerk.

[razboz]

Originally posted by patton+October 25, 2006 03:10 pm--> (patton @ October 25, 2006 03:10 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 02:12 pm

t[email protected] 25, 2006 12:25 pm
... oh you would hack my head off in an instant.
True as this may well be, its unrelated to the concept of free speech.
I am not even a commie and i am all for that. :D [/b]
Once again i am compelled to agree with patton and whitten.

I dont know why i continue posting in your threads, tiatj, but maybe im a masochist. Whatever.

Okay so you beleive in free speech right?. RAdically. so you beleive that a NAZI has a s much af a voice as you, correct? Well what if this NAZI organised a band of his freinds, through the means of free speech and decided to kill you witht he help of his freinds? Still supportive? DOnt answer that, because you'll just be pedantic as usual.

So perhaps you begin to see one of the dangers of radical free speech. More authoritarian ideologies take this into account and accept that some people may not accepted whichever ideology and to avoid social disturbance and potential deaths attempt ot limit this free speech.

Less authoritarian, libertarians (anarchists and some communists) beleive that we should allow everyone the right to free speech, regardless, because seeing as the world wiill be so birght new and beautifull no one will have anything to complain about. But at any rate your reasoning is based on a misconception: that communists, anarchists and other flavours of libertarians beleive free speech is superflous. Now youre getting us all mixed up with Stalinists, Juche fanatics and so on. Please read more tiatj. Youre idiotic threads show that you have no notions of any libertarian revolutionary ideology whatsoever.

And one last question: if you beleive in free speech and wish to fight for it, then why are you not right now in aforest somewhere shooting policemen and other governemtn officials in order to restore free speech through out the world? YOu know that virtually every Western country (which im sure oyu inhabit) has laws that limit free speech right? If i were to go out in the street in any of the EU, USA and canada and asay the holocaost never happened, that we shoudl kill the president, that Osssama Bin LAden rocks my socks and so on i can guarantee you i would end up in jail for the night if not more.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

How will the commune discern between free speech and disruptive trolls?

I would assume the difference would be that a troll partakes in an act of physical disruption.

[t_wolves_fan]

Okay so you beleive in free speech right?. RAdically. so you beleive that a NAZI has a s much af a voice as you, correct? Well what if this NAZI organised a band of his freinds, through the means of free speech and decided to kill you witht he help of his freinds? Still supportive? DOnt answer that, because you'll just be pedantic as usual.

So perhaps you begin to see one of the dangers of radical free speech. More authoritarian ideologies take this into account and accept that some people may not accepted whichever ideology and to avoid social disturbance and potential deaths attempt ot limit this free speech.

Considering you're apparently intelligent enough to turn on a computer and type, you'd think that you'd understand the difference between speech and murder.


Less authoritarian, libertarians (anarchists and some communists) beleive that we should allow everyone the right to free speech, regardless, because seeing as the world wiill be so birght new and beautifull no one will have anything to complain about.

Oooh...can I get on-demand ranch dressing and bbq sauce hoses, manned by leprechauns in Candy Land?


And one last question: if you beleive in free speech and wish to fight for it, then why are you not right now in aforest somewhere shooting policemen and other governemtn officials in order to restore free speech through out the world? YOu know that virtually every Western country (which im sure oyu inhabit) has laws that limit free speech right? If i were to go out in the street in any of the EU, USA and canada and asay the holocaost never happened, that we shoudl kill the president, that Osssama Bin LAden rocks my socks and so on i can guarantee you i would end up in jail for the night if not more.

You sure seem to easily confuse "speech" and "killing".

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 05:51 pm

And one last question: if you beleive in free speech and wish to fight for it, then why are you not right now in aforest somewhere shooting policemen and other governemtn officials in order to restore free speech through out the world? YOu know that virtually every Western country (which im sure oyu inhabit) has laws that limit free speech right? If i were to go out in the street in any of the EU, USA and canada and asay the holocaost never happened, that we shoudl kill the president, that Osssama Bin LAden rocks my socks and so on i can guarantee you i would end up in jail for the night if not more.

You sure seem to easily confuse "speech" and "killing".
No, its talking about killing.

[cb9's_unity]

ok the difference between communists/anarchists and capitalists. Capitalists put things like free speech down on paper knowing that in reality not many people can succesfull use that right. any restrictions to liberty(which i am actually almost completly against) are written for the benefit of the people.

Communism tells the truth for the betterment of people.
Capitalists lie for themselves

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 12:25 pm
But I would actively defend your right to say it. In fact, I would use my resources to wage a full scale military campaign, or even engage in active guerilla warfare to overthrow any tyranny which impeded anyone's right to total freedom of expression.

well get crackin then, free speech is restricted everywhere in the world, go fight for free speech!

[Guerrilla22]

You can start in such great uS allies as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 07:29 pm
No, its talking about killing.
I see.

I've never heard of anyone get locked up for saying the holocaust never happened. As far as threatening anyone in particular, there's good reason for that restriction. But I've never heard of any of you folks getting locked up for suggesting that the proles kill the rich (and I've been to plenty of your fun bong-drum-patchouli-oil-pot-let's-break-some-Mcdonald's-windows-and-really-show-mommy-and-daddy fests in our nation's capital), which isn't really a specific threat.

The biggest problem with the left when it comes to free speech (and the hard right for that matter) is that you seem to think that not only does free speech mean you deserve an audience (you don't), but that you also seem to think it means what you advocate should be enacted into law (it doesn't).

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 08:02 pm
You can start in such great uS allies as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.
Isn't really our responsibility to fight their political battles for them.

[razboz]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 25, 2006 08:52 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 25, 2006 08:52 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2006 07:29 pm
No, its talking about killing.
I see.

I've never heard of anyone get locked up for saying the holocaust never happened. As far as threatening anyone in particular, there's good reason for that restriction. But I've never heard of any of you folks getting locked up for suggesting that the proles kill the rich (and I've been to plenty of your fun bong-drum-patchouli-oil-pot-let's-break-some-Mcdonald's-windows-and-really-show-mommy-and-daddy fests in our nation's capital), which isn't really a specific threat.

The biggest problem with the left when it comes to free speech (and the hard right for that matter) is that you seem to think that not only does free speech mean you deserve an audience (you don't), but that you also seem to think it means what you advocate should be enacted into law (it doesn't).[/b]
ARGH!

Okay you live in the US probably and you probably have not heard this (reinforcing my imression that most US citizens are nto very well educated or informed) but here are a couple of words that make up one name. The name of the most infamous historian of our time:

David Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving)

Who is now serving time in Austria for denying the holcaost ever happend

Not that i expected you to know that.



QUOTE (Guerrilla22 @ October 25, 2006 08:02 pm)
You can start in such great uS allies as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.

Isn't really our responsibility to fight their political battles for them.

Yes well then you can start fighting your own. In the USA, today, it is illegal for people to demand for the assasination of the president. It is effectively illegal for people to advocate terrorism. It is effectively illegal for people to support terrorists. All fo the above cathegories fall under these new "Patriot" acts and so on. Good bye free speech.

And there is no need for you to get personal t_wolves_fan, you know that you are being a biggot. so stop. Accept that free speech is all fine and dandy but it cannot take precedence over human life: you say it yourself. Yet you then say that free speech is more important than anything else. Not coherent.



The biggest problem with the left when it comes to free speech (and the hard right for that matter) is that you seem to think that not only does free speech mean you deserve an audience (you don't), but that you also seem to think it means what you advocate should be enacted into law (it doesn't).

Assumption based on no evidence. We do not beleive we deserve an audience. the audience comes if it wants to, may the best orator and the best arguments win. Why makes you think you deserve an audience? What makes you so morally supreior that people should listen to you (and by you i mean you and capitlaism as a whole.)

And patton as soon as totaljerk fixes a price ill send you along the money.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 07:38 am
There is no agency that could even conceivably exist under such a sytem that could limit speech.
how about some guy or group of guys terrorizing you for expressing views contradictory to theirs?

[razboz]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+October 25, 2006 09:37 pm--> (colonelguppy @ October 25, 2006 09:37 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2006 07:38 am
There is no agency that could even conceivably exist under such a sytem that could limit speech.
how about some guy or group of guys terrorizing you for expressing views contradictory to theirs? [/b]
Sounds about right. That could happen. That can always happen. Indeed it does happen. SOemtime some control is necessary to allow any freedom. An easy solution to this would eb to limit people from limiting free speech. Anyone who say, explicitly threatens anyones freedom of speech gats banne dfrom existing around the said person. Done.

[razboz]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+October 25, 2006 09:37 pm--> (colonelguppy @ October 25, 2006 09:37 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2006 07:38 am
There is no agency that could even conceivably exist under such a sytem that could limit speech.
how about some guy or group of guys terrorizing you for expressing views contradictory to theirs? [/b]
Sounds about right. That could happen. That can always happen. Indeed it does happen. SOemtime some control is necessary to allow any freedom. An easy solution to this would eb to limit people from limiting free speech. Anyone who say, explicitly threatens anyones freedom of speech gats banne dfrom existing around the said person. Done.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 08:52 pm


I've never heard of anyone get locked up for saying the holocaust never happened.
If you don't want to be considered another 'thisguyisatotaljerk" at least do a little research before hand.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Raj Radical+October 25, 2006 11:02 pm--> (Raj Radical @ October 25, 2006 11:02 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2006 08:52 pm


I've never heard of anyone get locked up for saying the holocaust never happened.
If you don't want to be considered another 'thisguyisatotaljerk" at least do a little research before hand. [/b]
Since you seem to know that it's happened how about you provide some evidence.

[razboz]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 26, 2006 01:44 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 26, 2006 01:44 pm)
Originally posted by Raj [email protected] 25, 2006 11:02 pm

[email protected] 25, 2006 08:52 pm


I've never heard of anyone get locked up for saying the holocaust never happened.
If you don't want to be considered another 'thisguyisatotaljerk" at least do a little research before hand.
Since you seem to know that it's happened how about you provide some evidence. [/b]
you know if theres one thing i hate more than you, its thisguyisatotaljerk. And if theres onething i hat more than him its you not reading my bloody posts. Proced to the previous page. And read my post.

[t_wolves_fan]

Who is now serving time in Austria for denying the holcaost ever happend[/i]

Not that i expected you to know that.[/b]

Actually he's in prison for violating his ban from the country, but I see your point. Fair enough criticism of Australia's ruling, I don't agree with it.


Yes well then you can start fighting your own. In the USA, today, it is illegal for people to demand for the assasination of the president.[/b]

As it should be.


It is effectively illegal for people to advocate terrorism. It is effectively illegal for people to support terrorists. All fo the above cathegories fall under these new "Patriot" acts and so on. Good bye free speech.

As they should be, because they incite violence.


And there is no need for you to get personal t_wolves_fan, you know that you are being a biggot. so stop. Accept that free speech is all fine and dandy but it cannot take precedence over human life: you say it yourself. Yet you then say that free speech is more important than anything else. Not coherent.

Uh....you seem to have misunderstood or I didn't explain something clearly. Free speech should not take precidence over human life, within reason. It's kind of like porn, hard to define but you know it when you see it.



Assumption based on no evidence. We do not beleive we deserve an audience. the audience comes if it wants to, may the best orator and the best arguments win.

Perhaps you do not, but plenty here do. Look at the threads on representation, nothing but whining and *****ing because someone's beliefs are not represented in government.


Why makes you think you deserve an audience? What makes you so morally supreior that people should listen to you (and by you i mean you and capitlaism as a whole.)

I don't deserve an audience. I'm not morally superior to most people. I don't think people practice capitalism because I agree with it, I think they practice capitalism because it's better than the alternatives.

[razboz]

As it should be.



As they should be, because they incite violence.

Okay, but who determines that this is as it should be? Those people who have a vested interest in it, that is the president. If he is a representitive of the people, just a man occupiing apost, doe sit matter wether he lives or dies? Protection of this sort limits freedom, without providing enough reason, because this restriction of our freedoms can be used against us...

But that's a moot point.

Now i have to ask you another question: would you still support th e ban on encouraging violence if the president or your entire governemnet has somewhow been infiltrated by megalomaniac madmen intent on world domination for their corporate masters?

WHere can free speech start and end? But more importantyly, who should decide? Should we have unlimited free speech with the risks that entails? Or should we have limited free speech, with the risks that entails? But perhaps that is misfrased. If we have unlimited free speech we put power in hte hands of the people, all of them, wether they acan deal with it or not. If we have limited free speech we put the power in the hands of those who decide.

[t_wolves_fan]

Okay, but who determines that this is as it should be? Those people who have a vested interest in it, that is the president. If he is a representitive of the people, just a man occupiing apost, doe sit matter wether he lives or dies? Protection of this sort limits freedom, without providing enough reason, because this restriction of our freedoms can be used against us...

But that's a moot point.

At some point, shouldn't common sense come into play? Look at what you're advocating otherwise: that it should be legal to threaten the President.

I skip your silly hypothetical because it's obviously a loaded question.


WHere can free speech start and end? But more importantyly, who should decide? Should we have unlimited free speech with the risks that entails? Or should we have limited free speech, with the risks that entails? But perhaps that is misfrased. If we have unlimited free speech we put power in hte hands of the people, all of them, wether they acan deal with it or not. If we have limited free speech we put the power in the hands of those who decide.

In the United States the people decide via the political process.

You do not put the power in the hands of the people with unlimited free speech, you invite chaos. A powerful group of people can begin to libel individuals without libel laws. Anyone can walk into a crowded building and incite a stampede by telling fire without restriction. Eventually when members of commune A decide to burn down commune B's power plant or glorious people's apartment complex because they were incited by speakers who thought commune B wasn't revolutionary enough, you're going to have limits anyway.

Your problem seems to be that you think in Candyland everyone will agree so there'll be no problems with any speech.

[razboz]

At some point, shouldn't common sense come into play? Look at what you're advocating otherwise: that it should be legal to threaten the President.

Yes it should, and the Founding Fathers of the USA understood this more than anybody, because they had seized this prerogative and opposed the King of England. This why the First and Fifthe Amendements exist: to allow people to fight a corrupt or power hungry unrepresentative government.


You do not put the power in the hands of the people with unlimited free speech, you invite chaos. A powerful group of people can begin to libel individuals without libel laws. Anyone can walk into a crowded building and incite a stampede by telling fire without restriction. Eventually when members of commune A decide to burn down commune B's power plant or glorious people's apartment complex because they were incited by speakers who thought commune B wasn't revolutionary enough, you're going to have limits anyway.

I understand the point your making and i agree with it. However your not looking at the other option which amounts eventually to the same thing: if you give a small group of people the exclusive right to decide who can say what you invite an equivalent chaos. You see if the government decides what you can and cant say, then they might telly ou to attack country A or destroy power plant B because their not free enough or whatever. See politicians, whatever they say, are still essentially people, and in a commune the same poeople who will incite violence will end up in cgovernment in a country like the US: i.e those who have a modicum of charisma, political svviness and general cunning. At least if everyone gets free speech we can all decide about our detinies. But ill admit that the line is very close between giving everyone free speech and giving no one free speech, in terms of results that is. Eventually our free speech is ironically curtailed by too much free speech.

After that it depends on what form of goernbment you have: if you have one which encourages individual liberties(Anarchism, Communism), then free speech should be free. If you have one which encourages national or groupwide liberties (USA, USSR), at the cost of individual liberties, then free speech is a liability to that government.

[t_wolves_fan]

Yes it should, and the Founding Fathers of the USA understood this more than anybody, because they had seized this prerogative and opposed the King of England. This why the First and Fifthe Amendements exist: to allow people to fight a corrupt or power hungry unrepresentative government.

I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers would be upset with our restriction on such threats today, and do not remember hearing any of them advocate the death of King George.


I understand the point your making and i agree with it. However your not looking at the other option which amounts eventually to the same thing: if you give a small group of people the exclusive right to decide who can say what you invite an equivalent chaos.

The United States has not granted a small group of people the exclusive right to decide who can say what.


See politicians, whatever they say, are still essentially people, and in a commune the same poeople who will incite violence will end up in cgovernment in a country like the US: i.e those who have a modicum of charisma, political svviness and general cunning. At least if everyone gets free speech we can all decide about our detinies.

Then there's no difference between Candy Land and the United States, as every American has freedom of speech to discuss the war, and our military is voluntary.


But ill admit that the line is very close between giving everyone free speech and giving no one free speech, in terms of results that is. Eventually our free speech is ironically curtailed by too much free speech.

That seems to be the case.


After that it depends on what form of goernbment you have: if you have one which encourages individual liberties(Anarchism, Communism), then free speech should be free. If you have one which encourages national or groupwide liberties (USA, USSR), at the cost of individual liberties, then free speech is a liability to that government.

Based on statements of other communists here, the idea that individual rights are favored over group/societal interests in communism is preposterous.

[razboz]

I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers would be upset with our restriction on such threats today, and do not remember hearing any of them advocate the death of King George.

As for the first part, its impossible to prove, though i beleive you are wrong. As for the second i doubnt youd remeber anything unless you were very old. As in very, very old.



The United States has not granted a small group of people the exclusive right to decide who can say what.

Yep, sure has. Anyone in the States can be labelled a "terrorist" or an enemy combatant for no apparent reason and hauled off to camp X-Ray for a holiday in the Cuban sun. A small group of people choose wether or not to do this. Any civilised country would have a vote, but in the US the president can just decide to do it. ANd whos going to make the difference between smone who is saying that the presiodent suks and somone who is saying we should kill the bastard.


Then there's no difference between Candy Land and the United States, as every American has freedom of speech to discuss the war, and our military is voluntary.

Firstly i resent you calling it Candy Land. Your world isnt as perfect as you like to put it either mister. Secondly Im not sure about the whole, everyone can discuss anything they want thing. You are referring to one specific event. In the past though, opponents of the Party-Line have often found themselves in prison or dead., especially during more major wars (WWI, and II). Welcome to the realy world mister Capitalist. Your system is not beyond flaws or mad men.


That seems to be the case.

I concurr.


Based on statements of other communists here, the idea that individual rights are favored over group/societal interests in communism is preposterous.

Ah no. i think you are tackling the bull by the arse here. YOu see in Libertarian Leftism (to cover everyone) group freedom is imortant i agree. But individual fredom is accepted as being the fundament for individual equality and through that communal freedom and communal equality. One is not favoured over the other. One leads to and from the other.

[razboz]

I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers would be upset with our restriction on such threats today, and do not remember hearing any of them advocate the death of King George.

As for the first part, its impossible to prove, though i beleive you are wrong. As for the second i doubnt youd remeber anything unless you were very old. As in very, very old.



The United States has not granted a small group of people the exclusive right to decide who can say what.

Yep, sure has. Anyone in the States can be labelled a "terrorist" or an enemy combatant for no apparent reason and hauled off to camp X-Ray for a holiday in the Cuban sun. A small group of people choose wether or not to do this. Any civilised country would have a vote, but in the US the president can just decide to do it. ANd whos going to make the difference between smone who is saying that the presiodent suks and somone who is saying we should kill the bastard.


Then there's no difference between Candy Land and the United States, as every American has freedom of speech to discuss the war, and our military is voluntary.

Firstly i resent you calling it Candy Land. Your world isnt as perfect as you like to put it either mister. Secondly Im not sure about the whole, everyone can discuss anything they want thing. You are referring to one specific event. In the past though, opponents of the Party-Line have often found themselves in prison or dead., especially during more major wars (WWI, and II). Welcome to the realy world mister Capitalist. Your system is not beyond flaws or mad men.


That seems to be the case.

I concurr.


Based on statements of other communists here, the idea that individual rights are favored over group/societal interests in communism is preposterous.

Ah no. i think you are tackling the bull by the arse here. YOu see in Libertarian Leftism (to cover everyone) group freedom is imortant i agree. But individual fredom is accepted as being the fundament for individual equality and through that communal freedom and communal equality. One is not favoured over the other. One leads to and from the other.

[t_wolves_fan]

As for the first part, its impossible to prove, though i beleive you are wrong. As for the second i doubnt youd remeber anything unless you were very old. As in very, very old.

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Oh I'm sure there were drunken rants along the lines of "death to King George!" from time to time, but in the speeches and letters of the Fathers I don't recall seeing any specific threats.


Yep, sure has.

Nope, sure hasn't.


Anyone in the States can be labelled a "terrorist" or an enemy combatant for no apparent reason and hauled off to camp X-Ray for a holiday in the Cuban sun. A small group of people choose wether or not to do this. Any civilised country would have a vote, but in the US the president can just decide to do it.

We did have a vote. Our elected representatives voted on this law, and we reelected them and the President afterward.


ANd whos going to make the difference between smone who is saying that the presiodent suks and somone who is saying we should kill the bastard.

Professional law enforcement makes a judgement call using common sense. They're not going to arrest protesters on the street saying the President sucks; I've seen people say that right in front of the White House in front of uniformed Secret Service and I hate to break this to you, they were not dragged away in handcuffs.

In Candy Land, are you going to have a popular vote on every search warrant?


Firstly i resent you calling it Candy Land.

I'm sorry but I really don't care. Until a communist comes up with a system that has some kind of basic resemblance to reality, I shall refer to it as such.


Your world isnt as perfect as you like to put it either mister.

No, it definitely is not; but it doesn't claim to be.


Secondly Im not sure about the whole, everyone can discuss anything they want thing. You are referring to one specific event.

I'm referring to years of living in Washington, a half dozen ANSWER loon rallies and almost daily walks past the White House on my lunch break.


In the past though, opponents of the Party-Line have often found themselves in prison or dead., especially during more major wars (WWI, and II). Welcome to the realy world mister Capitalist. Your system is not beyond flaws or mad men.

Never said it is. What happened as a result of the things we've done wrong? We apologized to and paid the descendents of the Japanese we interred. Senator McCarthy was discredited, booted out of office and died a lonely drunk.

Where are the mass arrests?

English seems to not be your primary language (and I feel sorry for you if it is), so where are you from?


Ah no. i think you are tackling the bull by the arse here. YOu see in Libertarian Leftism (to cover everyone) group freedom is imortant i agree. But individual fredom is accepted as being the fundament for individual equality and through that communal freedom and communal equality. One is not favoured over the other. One leads to and from the other.

And that's why I call it Candyland: it rests on this belief that once everyone is the same everyone will magically agree and all reach the same conclusions about everything.

The question is really how much fairy dust (in the form of purges) it'll take.

[razboz]

Fuck, my post disapeared. :(

[t_wolves_fan]

Yeah fair enough, but you folks dont have anything provided for voting wether or not a citizen of a sovereign country should be interned in a camp, with no human rights, or not.

Sure we do: it's called the telephone. Trust me if Americans cared enough or agreed with you we could get the Patriot Act overturned and Camp X-Ray closed down in a month.


Yes i know you dont do that now. But in the event of war or a major crisis involving all of US society who is going to make the difference in between a Bush hater and an America or Freedom hater?

Don't know. The last two wars during which there was major protests in the streets I've seen no evidence of mass arrests or systematic censorship of the opposition.


Already the distinction is getting blurred in the eyes of rebublicans today and has gotten blurred in the past.

And Republicans are well on their way to losing the House and perhaps the Senate.


No, but in Candy Landy we would have a vote if a citizen from another country or our own citizens wer going to lose their human rights or not...

When it comes to individual citizens, do you plan to share classified information tha could compromise key intelligence sources so that the voters are informed?

And when it comes to national decisions, we've already made them in 2002 and 2004. We may now change course a bit in 2006. The system works.


Also we would know whats going on in our country, concerneing the government. In my country, that is the one i live now, we already have a bit ofa Candy Land. Thanks to our extremist approach to democracy, where evrything (i mean it) is put to popular vote we can actually chose that kind of thing without waiting for the next mandate.

Then what do you care about the internal policies of the United States?


Ill happily admit i have no clue what you are talking about, but im very sorry about your luch breaks. I know how anoying it is losing your lunch break. Your precious lunch break.

:lol:

No dude, I mean for 2+ years I worked across the street from the White House. On nice days I'd spend my lunch break in the park on the north side. I'd see almost every day some protesters with signs saying "Bush = terrorist" or the like and believe me, they were not dragged away in handcuffs. In fact the secret service didn't even spend much attention on them.


But still, all of these rallies and marches did not happen during any of the major crises of the 20th century that the USA has faced. Im sure its mostly Democrat Clowns or liberals that think their doing something.

Didn't happen in WWII but happened after that and during every war since. Isn't that progress to you?


No seriously, any rotten politicain appoligises for fucking up. Any one with a minimum of decency avoids interning its own citizens or shooting them, and tries to also avoid interning foreign citizens for no apperent reason.

I agree but how do you plan to prevent the mob from voting its immediate passions in Candy Land? Or will everyone simply be as enlightened and understanding as you are?


Any System that allows that stuff to happen not once, but over, and over, over again cannot be trusted with the government of a whole country, let alone the owrld.

It's not the system ace, it's the actors.


but in the fervour of fighting the rabid hordes of Capitalism (you) ill admit my typing got a bit... out of hand.

Really? You get that worked up over this?


I am from Switzerland.

I hear it's nice. Never been.


Theres a contradiction there: if everyone is the same then everyone agrees, and this has to be true. But this is a conclusion you jumped to yourself. I never said everyone would agree. Indeed it would a be a pretty lame system is that were the case. Its just that no one would need to mlimit the freedoms of anyone else, because everyone would eb educateed enough so as to understand most things can be settled in the Village Commitee or whatever. And this is not a dream, or a Utopia. Educated people speak. Uneducated people or zealots use violence, of any kind.

Frankly all you've done is thrown in a couple of caveats, 1. that "Everyone" will be educated as if that's possible or it will matter, and that 2. "everyone will basically agree if not completely agree", as if that's possible.

George W. Bush is educated. He has an undergraduate degree from Yale and a Master's from Harvard. I'm educated, I also have a Master's degree. Why is it that if education solves everything, I don't even agree that your system is practical?

Or would this be the kind of "education" that people get in Room 101?


I appreciate the metaphore. Further, i dont think itll take any purges, because once the system is opperational and organised properly, who could possibly want the destruction of a system where there are no wars, no poverta and freedom, apart from dangerous lunatics and sociopaths? Seriously? Would you honestly be against such a system, should it work?

Nobody would be against such a system. The problem is, it won't work.

I attached a lawnmower engine to my bicycle so I can fly to the moon. Why are you against my bicycle?

[razboz]

Sure we do: it's called the telephone. Trust me if Americans cared enough or agreed with you we could get the Patriot Act overturned and Camp X-Ray closed down in a month.

Yes, thats a fair assumption. But the thing is that its bit of a circular argument: if the people dont know exactly whats going, they cant form an exact opinion. If they have the likes of that man on Fox (you know the one from "Fair and Balanced") blabbering on at them how can they make any opinon of thir own?


Don't know. The last two wars during which there was major protests in the streets I've seen no evidence of mass arrests or systematic censorship of the opposition.

I imagine you are talking about Afghanistan and Iraq? Because those were not very "important" wars in that they only really affected certain strata of society. In the really important ones like Veitnam, there were killings and mass arrests and censorship.


And Republicans are well on their way to losing the House and perhaps the Senate.

If you say so, but what are the Democrats going to do? End the war in Iraq? I really doubt it. And even if they do, how long until the Republicans coem back and start a new one? Thats one of the problem of only having two parties and an apporximitely equally spread support base.


When it comes to individual citizens, do you plan to share classified information tha could compromise key intelligence sources so that the voters are informed?

I see your point. I agree a certain level of secrecy is necessary in some cases. but hte voters do have a right to know, no? Where do you draw the line,a nd how do you avoid abuses? If the police or security forces were to be decentralised and organised into a lose agglomeration of local police forces then each police forsce would be accountable to its community, rather than a state authority making everything more democratic.


And when it comes to national decisions, we've already made them in 2002 and 2004. We may now change course a bit in 2006. The system works.

But it doesent, because there are no fundamental differences between the various breeds of Republicats. But this depends on your political inclination and unless you were suddenly to become a libertarian (leftist or other) i doubt you would agree with me.




Then what do you care about the internal policies of the United States?


Because were i live we mantin an effective system of anti-nuclear bunkers. Would you liek to know why? Well ill telly ou anyway: because the USA has the largest Nuclear weapons arsenal on the planet, and the Swiss dont trust the Americans with this responsability, because of your internal policies. A country as powerfull as the USA deserves the full attention of everyone, because tot them we are all just cannon meat.


Didn't happen in WWII but happened after that and during every war since. Isn't that progress to you?


In a way it is, but in many others it isnt. For one, during Vietnam everyone there was some pretty harsh retribution against demonstarators. During all the other American wars afte that there was very little publicity, and during Desert Storm no one really new what was going on because only "Official" reporters were allowed near the warzone, making any independant reproting impossible. DUring Operation Iraqi Freedom the reporting can hardly be described as fair and balanced.



I agree but how do you plan to prevent the mob from voting its immediate passions in Candy Land? Or will everyone simply be as enlightened and understanding as you are?

ANd pray, what makes the Candylandian mob voting its decision and more stupid than the Freedomlands mob's elected representative? Look if it workds in Switzerland then why can it not work elsewhere? For 300 years the Swiss people have operated this system and would you like to know the result? Wars=None. Literacy and Numeracy=100% or close enough. Poverty=Negligable. Freedom=about as much as you can get while still being Capitalist and regressive. So there :P


It's not the system ace, it's the actors.

Yeah but the actors are a part of the system and cannot be disosiated from it.


Really? You get that worked up over this?

Where i come from we call my remark irony (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=irony).



I hear it's nice. Never been.

Just answering your question mate.

Its boring.


Frankly all you've done is thrown in a couple of caveats, 1. that "Everyone" will be educated as if that's possible or it will matter, and that 2. "everyone will basically agree if not completely agree", as if that's possible.

George W. Bush is educated. He has an undergraduate degree from Yale and a Master's from Harvard. I'm educated, I also have a Master's degree. Why is it that if education solves everything, I don't even agree that your system is practical?

Or would this be the kind of "education" that people get in Room 101?


Good points right there. But im not talking about the same kind of eduaucation as you are. And no, not room 101. What im talking about is the education that tells you to think for yourself and tells you not to listen to what people tell you but to find out for yourself. If everyone did more independant thinking we wouldnt get religious zealots, or political ones, or Nazis, or Hipsters. Oh and as to your education, i think that the information i have that makes me beleive "my" system (whcih isnt mine BTW) will work is that i have faith, yes faith, in the human race. I beleive that Humans can do it, but that they havent been able to up to now because it requires a certain number of steps before we can get to my system. But i have no empirical observable evidence that my system works or ever has. But you dont have any evidence it hasnt, in exactly the same way.


I attached a lawnmower engine to my bicycle so I can fly to the moon. Why are you against my bicycle?

Hey im not stopping you from trying. if you succede ill say "I was worng, you can do that" If you dont ill think of ways of making a better engine and a better bycycle rather than try to make you beleive getting to the moon is impossible (which it isnt). You just need the right tools.

[t_wolves_fan]

I'm going to edit this for brevity because it's getting awfully long!


Yes, thats a fair assumption. But the thing is that its bit of a circular argument: if the people dont know exactly whats going, they cant form an exact opinion. If they have the likes of that man on Fox (you know the one from "Fair and Balanced") blabbering on at them how can they make any opinon of thir own?

Well what do we do about that? Have a centralized news service? How do we trust that?

People know the basics here in the United States, despite your assumption that we don't, we simply disagree with you.



When it comes to individual citizens, do you plan to share classified information tha could compromise key intelligence sources so that the voters are informed?

I see your point. I agree a certain level of secrecy is necessary in some cases. but hte voters do have a right to know, no? Where do you draw the line,a nd how do you avoid abuses?

This is why we have the court system and the media. Despite your assumptions that our "corporate" media is a lapdog for the administration, the media makes these cases known. It's up to us, the American public through our political process to decide if they're abuses, if they're unfair. So far we haven't really decided that these cases warrant the worry that you have. That's our choice, you can disagree with it all you want but stop pretending we've made it because we're not as intelligent and informed as you are.


If the police or security forces were to be decentralised and organised into a lose agglomeration of local police forces then each police forsce would be accountable to its community, rather than a state authority making everything more democratic.

Well, for one thing we have that to a degree here because we have local and state police.

But what you are advocating is trouble. How does a local police force in Seattle know that a terror cell from Miami is coming its way? Do you really believe the police in Seattle have the time or resources to talk to every other police force in the Country? Not every country or society is as small and homogenous as yours, you understand. We need national authorities to keep track of threats that cross local, state, regional and national borders.

And what happens if a local commune force says someone will not be jailed because he's not a threat to them or they agree with his politics, after he's committed an act of terror against the neighboring commune? This is why you need national laws.


But it doesent, because there are no fundamental differences between the various breeds of Republicats. But this depends on your political inclination and unless you were suddenly to become a libertarian (leftist or other) i doubt you would agree with me.

This is simply your opinion and it's not very accurate.


Because were i live we mantin an effective system of anti-nuclear bunkers. Would you liek to know why? Well ill telly ou anyway: because the USA has the largest Nuclear weapons arsenal on the planet, and the Swiss dont trust the Americans with this responsability, because of your internal policies. A country as powerfull as the USA deserves the full attention of everyone, because tot them we are all just cannon meat.

I had a bartender in Madrid voice these same complaints. While I can see your point of view as an American they're quite comical.

Do you worry as much about Iran seeking nuclear weapons, or do you support them because they oppose us?


Desert Storm no one really new what was going on because only "Official" reporters were allowed near the warzone, making any independant reproting impossible. DUring Operation Iraqi Freedom the reporting can hardly be described as fair and balanced.

And now in this war we have independent journalists all over Iraq. You do understand that just about nothing covered on the news in the United States paints a positive picture of our war in Iraq right now, don't you?



ANd pray, what makes the Candylandian mob voting its decision and more stupid than the Freedomlands mob's elected representative?

We have an upper body (the Senate) that routinely strikes down passion-laden short-sighted policies and a Court system that can invalidate them.


Look if it workds in Switzerland then why can it not work elsewhere? For 300 years the Swiss people have operated this system and would you like to know the result? Wars=None. Literacy and Numeracy=100% or close enough. Poverty=Negligable. Freedom=about as much as you can get while still being Capitalist and regressive. So there :P

It'd be great if everyone were like the Swiss. It'd also be great if nobody ever committed a crime or nobody ever cheated on their spouse or nobody were ever greedy.

Since not everyone is going to be like the Swiss, what should we do? Do you think the 3rd Reich would have been happy to let you remain neutral and sovereign within its borders forever? Do you think that had the Soviet Union not been deterred from conquering western Europe that it would have left you alone? How much are you willing to bet on it?


Good points right there. But im not talking about the same kind of eduaucation as you are. And no, not room 101. What im talking about is the education that tells you to think for yourself and tells you not to listen to what people tell you but to find out for yourself. If everyone did more independant thinking we wouldnt get religious zealots, or political ones, or Nazis, or Hipsters.

Please explain how you plan to objectively come up with such an education system that is acceptable to everyone worldwide. Please don't say consensus or I'll come up with an even more derogatory term for Candyland.


Oh and as to your education, i think that the information i have that makes me beleive "my" system (whcih isnt mine BTW) will work is that i have faith, yes faith, in the human race. I beleive that Humans can do it, but that they havent been able to up to now because it requires a certain number of steps before we can get to my system.

Faith in the face of evidence is ideology.

Despite all the war, the greed, the conflict, the irrationality, the subjectivity, and the abject stupidity, you believe that the people of the earth will one day join hands, sing koom-bah-yah and have a great mind meld after which they essentially agree on everything.

Frankly that's kind of like assuming that even though he's provided no evidence of his existence save the tales of primitive people, God will one day come in all his glory to judge the living and the dead.



Hey im not stopping you from trying. if you succede ill say "I was worng, you can do that" If you dont ill think of ways of making a better engine and a better bycycle rather than try to make you beleive getting to the moon is impossible (which it isnt). You just need the right tools.

The problem is every attempt at creating your system has led to a few million deaths via gunshots or starvation.

[razboz]

I'm afraid i cant answer to all your points because time is catching up with me (it does that).


Well what do we do about that? Have a centralized news service? How do we trust that?

People know the basics here in the United States, despite your assumption that we don't, we simply disagree with you.

Yeah, you problay all know the basics and have access to whole lot of informaton throught the internet. But ive met enough people (thats a lot, by the way) to know that often we do not accept te information if i goes against our point of view. they will go to any length to avoid seeing the truth. ive seen it happen with Capitlaists, Americans, Communists, White supremists, and any other breed of political dog you care to name. What i would suggest is to have a decentralised network of newsreporters: this way the individual bias inherent in everyone of them would eventually be canceled out.


This is why we have the court system and the media. Despite your assumptions that our "corporate" media is a lapdog for the administration, the media makes these cases known. It's up to us, the American public through our political process to decide if they're abuses, if they're unfair. So far we haven't really decided that these cases warrant the worry that you have. That's our choice, you can disagree with it all you want but stop pretending we've made it because we're not as intelligent and informed as you are.

Yeah but you yourself said that the wind was turninng agains tthe Republicans, this it would make sense that the media would to turn on them as well, no?

And i agree its your choice entirely. However i cannot possibly agree that it was made with the same knowledge and intelligence as my opinion, because it isnt my opinion: see what im getting at? But thats irrelevant.


Well, for one thing we have that to a degree here because we have local and state police.

But what you are advocating is trouble. How does a local police force in Seattle know that a terror cell from Miami is coming its way? Do you really believe the police in Seattle have the time or resources to talk to every other police force in the Country? Not every country or society is as small and homogenous as yours, you understand. We need national authorities to keep track of threats that cross local, state, regional and national borders.

Yes i agree that the size of most countries makes the system i suggested impossible to work. Why then, not make the size of the country smaller? What is impeding this? Once the revolution (or whatever) occurs and everyone is ready for Candylandisation why not break down the size ofthe national unit to something ore managable on a local level?

Oh and you just called Switzerland homgeneous. It has no less than four national languages about twice the number of cultures and has one of he highest foreigner per capita rates of Europe. Homogenous? No. Its just that the system works well and everyone has had time to get use to it.


And what happens if a local commune force says someone will not be jailed because he's not a threat to them or they agree with his politics, after he's committed an act of terror against the neighboring commune? This is why you need national laws.


You can deal wiht this issue in exactly the same as yu deal with international criminals, by creating an international court that covers everyone, regardless of country.


Do you worry as much about Iran seeking nuclear weapons, or do you support them because they oppose us?

Yes, i wrry a lot. because i know what happens to anyone who annoys the USA: they get anihilated. Ive seen it in Kabul, ive seen it in Baghdad, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Hanoi, Dresden... Once the Nuclear machinery gets going i dont think the Americans can stop it, for all their media coverage, their phone calls and their elections. Automated systems will whirrr and click in the confines of the desert or Alaska or the sea and the President will "take the measures necessary in sucha situation to defend Democracy and Freedom". Despite the end of the Soviet Union the Nuclear threat has not disapeared. So long as nuclear weapons exist, and there exist men who beleive there are reasons to use them, we will all be at risk.



And now in this war we have independent journalists all over Iraq. You do understand that just about nothing covered on the news in the United States paints a positive picture of our war in Iraq right now, don't you?

Yes i know. But Iraq is over. Nothing "dynamic" will happen there, no great offensives, no glorious victories because the enemy cannot be destroyed like you usually woul. iraq has ceased to become a Vote-Cow and is not necessary. The governemnt have better fish to fry wiht white phosphorus: North korea, Iran, France...


It'd be great if everyone were like the Swiss. It'd also be great if nobody ever committed a crime or nobody ever cheated on their spouse or nobody were ever greedy.

Since not everyone is going to be like the Swiss, what should we do? Do you think the 3rd Reich would have been happy to let you remain neutral and sovereign within its borders forever? Do you think that had the Soviet Union not been deterred from conquering western Europe that it would have left you alone? How much are you willing to bet on it?

Why not? Why should not everyone be like the swiss? the swiss are also petty, puerile, intestine, greedy (very). They are after all human. but thanks to the apporopriate system they managed to overacome this fact and acheive something quite exceptional. And im sure you know that historical speculation is irrelevant. Though i beleive that the Nazis rather enjoyed having a conveniet place to deal with all the american companies that helped them out (IBM im lookaing at you right now) and handy Swiss bank accounts... But Nazi germany would never have occured in a system like the swiss one.

Im going to to have to ommit some of your points but i promise ill come back to them tomorrow.


The problem is every attempt at creating your system has led to a few million deaths via gunshots or starvation.

However i have time enough to finish wiht this: I am not a Leninist or an authoritarian of any kind. (look a t my sig FFS) My system does not involve any dictatorship or leadership. Power is the problem, so power must be eliminated. Elimination of power eliminates peoples ability to kill millions of people. And as to collectivisation it was stupid, stupid stupid.

[Fawkes]

This is to T Wolves Fan: are you aware that France is currently making a law which would make it illegal to deny the Holocaust? France is in the process, but they aren't alone, many other E.U. countries have laws against Holocaust denial.

[razboz]

Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 28, 2006 06:18 pm
This is to T Wolves Fan: are you aware that France is currently making a law which would make it illegal to deny the Holocaust? France is in the process, but they aren't alone, many other E.U. countries have laws against Holocaust denial.
Thats true FFA...A. they also passed a law making it illeal to deny that the armenian genocide occurred.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 28, 2006 06:18 pm
This is to T Wolves Fan: are you aware that France is currently making a law which would make it illegal to deny the Holocaust? France is in the process, but they aren't alone, many other E.U. countries have laws against Holocaust denial.
France is also far more socialist than us. Such a law would never pass here.

Laws like this are the result of socialism which tries not to "offend" anyone. I should sell busses in Paris, they need quite a few new ones these days.

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 12:25 pm
But I would actively defend your right to say it. In fact, I would use my resources to wage a full scale military campaign, or even engage in active guerilla warfare to overthrow any tyranny which impeded anyone's right to total freedom of expression.

Does this surprise you?
Yes it surprises me. :rolleyes: It surprised me that a bourgeois would repeat a common bourgeois cliche, seems like they know little else. Can you possibly me more of a "mainstream" streotype? Do you listen to Britney Spears too and watch American Idol while waving the American flag and eating a Big Mac??

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 25, 2006 08:53 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 25, 2006 08:53 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2006 08:02 pm
You can start in such great uS allies as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.
Isn't really our responsibility to fight their political battles for them. [/b]
Then why does the US military protect these countries from their own citizens?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+October 30, 2006 04:28 pm--> (Guerrilla22 @ October 30, 2006 04:28 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 08:53 pm

[email protected] 25, 2006 08:02 pm
You can start in such great uS allies as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.
Isn't really our responsibility to fight their political battles for them.
Then why does the US military protect these countries from their own citizens? [/b]
Very good question, I wish I knew the answer.

[razboz]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 30, 2006 03:46 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 30, 2006 03:46 pm)
Freedom for [email protected] 28, 2006 06:18 pm
This is to T Wolves Fan: are you aware that France is currently making a law which would make it illegal to deny the Holocaust? France is in the process, but they aren't alone, many other E.U. countries have laws against Holocaust denial.
France is also far more socialist than us. Such a law would never pass here.

Laws like this are the result of socialism which tries not to "offend" anyone. I should sell busses in Paris, they need quite a few new ones these days. [/b]
The law concerning the armenaian genocide would make the Turkish government illegal in France. Not offending enyone? Au contraire, mon ami. The french have offended a great many people outside and inside France. And what do you say of Sarkozy, perhaps the most important politician in power right now, saying that the youth of the Banlieue are all "delinquents" (lose translation) that sould be "cleaned up with a Kärcher (a kind of high powered cleaning equipment for hard surfaces)". Not offending anyone? think again big boy.

And your quip at the situation in Paris right now is irrelevant.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 06:33 pm
And what do you say of Sarkozy, perhaps the most important politician in power right now, saying that the youth of the Banlieue are all "delinquents" (lose translation) that sould be "cleaned up with a Kärcher (a kind of high powered cleaning equipment for hard surfaces)".
Sounds like he's telling the truth to me.

[razboz]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 30, 2006 06:37 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 30, 2006 06:37 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2006 06:33 pm
And what do you say of Sarkozy, perhaps the most important politician in power right now, saying that the youth of the Banlieue are all "delinquents" (lose translation) that sould be "cleaned up with a Kärcher (a kind of high powered cleaning equipment for hard surfaces)".
Sounds like he's telling the truth to me. [/b]
Tht's irrelevant. You are worng about the French.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 07:31 pm
I think he is confusing socialism with being politically correct.
They go hand in hand.

[theraven]

for the record david irving was on Drugde, as well as the NYT i ebelive. I knew abou tit when ti happened

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 10:59 pm
The U.S. goverment is one of the least socailist governments on the planet and political correctness exists here.`
Yet it's the socialists pushing political correctness; people are more willing to accept not purposefully offending people than we are their silly economic arguments.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by patton+October 31, 2006 10:42 pm--> (patton @ October 31, 2006 10:42 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 06:09 pm

[email protected] 30, 2006 10:59 pm
The U.S. goverment is one of the least socailist governments on the planet and political correctness exists here.`
Yet it's the socialists pushing political correctness; people are more willing to accept not purposefully offending people than we are their silly economic arguments.
I dont agree with that at all. [/b]
That doesn't matter much, really.

[razboz]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 01, 2006 08:24 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 01, 2006 08:24 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 10:42 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 06:09 pm

[email protected] 30, 2006 10:59 pm
The U.S. goverment is one of the least socailist governments on the planet and political correctness exists here.`
Yet it's the socialists pushing political correctness; people are more willing to accept not purposefully offending people than we are their silly economic arguments.
I dont agree with that at all.
That doesn't matter much, really. [/b]
Yes it does. It matters because you are worng, and patton is right. In terms of political orientation economics is more important than political stance on coorectness.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 31, 2006 06:09 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 31, 2006 06:09 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2006 10:59 pm
The U.S. goverment is one of the least socailist governments on the planet and political correctness exists here.`
Yet it's the socialists pushing political correctness; people are more willing to accept not purposefully offending people than we are their silly economic arguments. [/b]
That&#39;s clearly bollocks and you know it. For a start political correctness cannot be linked in any way with political correctness, at keast by any sane people. Secondly most socialists are incredibly un-PC, it&#39;s just they also happen to not spout stupid fucking bigotry to prove it <_<

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 11:20 am
For a start political correctness cannot be linked in any way with political correctness,
That&#39;s a new one.

:lol:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 02, 2006 02:47 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 02, 2006 02:47 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2006 11:20 am
For a start political correctness cannot be linked in any way with political correctness,
That&#39;s a new one.

:lol: [/b]
Well, tits. My fuck up - ah well, we aren&#39;t all infallable like you mr."intranets"

What I meant to say was "Political Correctness cannot be linked in any way to economics".

[razboz]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 02, 2006 02:47 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 02, 2006 02:47 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2006 11:20 am
For a start political correctness cannot be linked in any way with political correctness,
That&#39;s a new one.

:lol: [/b]
Funny, you have to resort to picking on these minute details when outwitted. How quaint.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 05:53 pm
t_wolves_fan Where exactly are you getting this information of a socailist agenda behind politcal correctness Rush Limbaugh?
I don&#39;t listen to morons like that, I&#39;m simply reporting on what I&#39;ve observed after a few years of working in public policy.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 09:03 pm
Well thats good that guy is fucking moron.
Because he is an ideologue, and ideologues are by definition morons.