Random Political Thoughts

[Unquenchable Angst]

It struck me on second reading that "Bush has much, much to answer for, for what he did to this country", begs for the response, "What you mean 'this country', kemo sabe?".

crime against the world(or people) runs in the Bush family, Daddy George was CIA in 1963, George Sr.'s dad Prescott was in favor of Hitler and helped finance some of Germany's rearmament in the 30's,Vandiver Bush was one of the original Majestic 12.Most here don't seem to countenance much with conspiracy theories but I have a difficult time  not seeing credence with those involving the Bush family. whomever ran against them are no better. Till people realize that there are no 2 party system among the power elite. It is the club.

[Yorkshire pud]

We can start by abolishing and repealing the enabling legislation for the ridiculously inept and unnecessary Department of Homeland Security, and restore the longstanding Customs and Immigration and Naturalization agencies to their natural roles. The sale alone of the massive stores of DHS's emergency purchases of eleventy-zillion rounds of just-got-to-have-it-now ammunition would probably fund both for a year without dipping into any of the gargantuan DHS budget.

We wouldn't be an iota less secure, and air travel could return to at least tolerable from the near-death experience it is now. If nothing else this would strip completely uncredentialed and unqualified aircrews from having the unprecedented extrajudicial power, akin to that of martial law, to violate with impunity citizens' due process and habeas corpus rights for mere fits of pique or as a way to "educate" those passengers deemed to be insufficiently deferential to the at-present godlike power of the stews.

When is a good time to share a beer? You and I both on this. It isn't just aircrews; it's the check in and security staff who treat passengers (AKA  THEY PAY THEIR SALARIES!) as if they've just been wiped off the floor and smell unpleasant.

[West of the Rockies]

I'm sure it's got to be pretty crappy work being a jack-booted enforcer.  I suspect it's difficult to see the humanity in the constant mass of people who are themselves probably a bit grumpy and impatient.  I suspect there's about as much job satisfaction as there would be for a metermaid (meterperson?) or tollboth attendant or the highway worker holding the "Stop" sign.

What would it take for us to go back to the way it used to be?  Is it even possible or is HSA here to stay, and to wish otherwise is akin to wishing we'd all go back to rabbit-ears TV?

[Sardondi]

When is a good time to share a beer? You and I both on this. It isn't just aircrews; it's the check in and security staff who treat passengers (AKA  THEY PAY THEIR SALARIES!) as if they've just been wiped off the floor and smell unpleasant.

I detest the officious twats who seem to people DHS. They must select for that personality trait. "Help wanted: DHS airport security. Must have poor self-image, resentful attitude and be willing to grossly abuse authority."

As for the aircrews, they've turned into little Nazis with almost literal power of life and death. The post-9/11 security changes can be boiled down to one phrase: The Revenge Of The Stews. All they need to do to ensure a passenger is thrown into the Black Hole of Wichita Falls is to persuade their flight captain that the passenger has Gotten On Their Last Nerve, and voila!, the FBI will meet them with manacles and leg chains at the gate, no questions asked. I'm not kidding. What sane person would even calmly dispute with a flight attendant if some problem arose. Almost everyone would just take being run over to avoid having the flight instantaneously diverted and themselves locked up. An injustice might get straightened out later, and there could be a job action or lawsuit against the attendant who abused his or her authority, but there is no question that an attendant of bad will could make an innocent passenger's life a nightmare for several days. In America only cops and prosecutors have had that much authority, and there are significant testing and training before they are employed (and election in the case of DAs), and legal and administrative controls and checks on their authority. Not so the new Maximum Leaders of the Sky, who rule by whim alone.

I'm ready for that beer.

[Eddie Coyle]

I'm sure it's got to be pretty crappy work being a jack-booted enforcer.

It's jarring to think about how many people enjoy it. The Repo Man mentality, modern day Pinkertons. There's a lot of really miserable fuckers out there who love to hassle people and are drawn into authoritarian jobs.

           From personal experience...most mid/upper management at the USPS were of this ilk,the Postal Pattons. And the correlation between that style of management and disgruntled workers "going postal" is obvious.

[PB the Deplorable]

Ah there we go, it is a Muslim group again.


I think no one is getting hurt? You are putting words in my mouth, you even managed to not read the first half of the sentence " It is not a crime to agree or disagree with anyone regarding anything eitheras long as no one is getting hurt."


Don't ever take what I am saying out of context again. Look at what you just did, you just highlighted half a sentence and ignored the first. I don't have to elaborate on my point, it is right there. I don't care what you say or how you say it, as long as you don't ever pick and choose what I say out of context. You do that again, and I am not debating with you anymore...

I didn't take anything out of context.  The entire line was there.  Anyone interested could easily read the whole thing.  So I highlighted just the part about no one getting hurt, big deal.  Fucking whiner.  I notice you didn't answer the question about what did you even mean by that.

If you think that sympathizing, or empathinzing with a bunch of wackos doesn't hurt anyone, that's nuts.  I can see why you chose to go on the offensive rather than answer the question. 

When the Palestinians manage to kill a bunch of people, they hand out candy to kids and have a party in the middle of the street.  When the Twin Towers fell, the initial film footage from nearly all the Arab capitals showed people getting out of their vehicles and celebrating.  I can give plenty more examples, but you get the idea.  You think this is just innocent fun?  That no one is influenced by it to commit further acts?  That it hurts no one?

Feel free to issue more threats.  I've not taken you ar anyone else out of context, and I'm going to keep doing whatever the hell I feel like. 

... You are right I could see how it being a muslim group is not a real headscratcher to some. I can look at it in certain ways. You must be referring to the fact that in the West's history of imperial diplomacy we have left countries that are Muslim with weaker governments. To say a first world, good ole Christian country doesn't have people who are capable of doing very bad things is BS. We just have systems, laws, resources in place that let us know who is doing what, why, where, how, and when anything happens. A lot of countries in the world don't have these kind of resources at their disposal and those same countries have a hard time with these "Muslim" groups who do not represent the majority in anyway. They represent power, they represent the ignorant, and they represent the disillusioned.


Or maybe I misinterpreted what you said, I apologize for doing so, I did list what you said in full. Why do you think it is not a headscratcher?




You are racist IF (note: not calling you a name, pointing out a condition you may or may not meet) you think certain groups or cultures are more apt at doing something. I can kind of see what you are saying. KIND OF, but you are simplifying it in a way I can only find as racist.  You are looking through black and white eyes. Look at it like this "Poor countries without stable governments are more prone to have a very strong minority of militant groups who hide under the thin veil of religion."  Hey now we are talking. The conditions people were born into and cannot help are where these terrorist groups are more prone to find a foothold. Ok I can see that. Why has Turkey failed to produce many terrorists? They are a Muslim democracy with a strong government. Maybe it is related?


You used the words "Certain groups and cultures" I can almost believe you but you'd have to prove to me you mean that and not mean "arab looking". Those are my words not yours, but you must admit, there is a dangerous amount of people who link "arab looking" with terrorism. And to anyone who does fit my criteria (my words) I challenge them to prove somehow that terrorist groups represent more than 1-5% of the population in any region.

What 'race' is Islam?  How is criticism of Islam 'racism'? 

Islam has black followers in sub-Saharan Africa, white ones in places like Bosnia, Chechnia, other places in the Caucasus, Moslems are prominent in certain parts of Central Asia, South Asia, South-East Asia.   And in all these places these people can't seem to get along with their neighbors and bombs seem to go off frequently.  Tell me how any of that is in any way 'racial'?

The thinkers of the Left have been very successful tying anything they don't like as somehow 'Racist'.  Then their tools run around smearing everyone without bothering to think much.  So thanks for that.

It's interesting that the Left has no problem smearing Christians and Catholics - other faiths that also have representatives from all races, they have no problem hating Jews, although given recent history they try to hide that a little better.  But that's all ok I guess.  Just don't anybody say anything about their allies, the Muslims.

The Left is currently friendly with the Muslims because they both have a common enemy - the rest of us.  Never mind that if the Muslims were to ever have a worldwide Califate, they would probably kill the Leftists first.  If the Left were to ever achieve their goal of a one world government with them at the top, they would immediately toss the Muslims into the same category as the Christians and Jews, and kill as many of them as the could.

When some Leftist is trying to name-call the Christians, many times they accuse them of being 'like the Muslims'.  Pretty interesting that friends of the Muslims would do that, isn't it?  It's not 'racism' then.  It's like when the Left really wants to get nasty and attack others one of the first things out of their mouths is often to accue the victim of being 'gay'.  Again very strange.  Almost as if the Left is really about dividing us.


Back to the Muslims.  You imply they do this stuff because they are poor and have bad governments.  But what about the ones born and raised in the West?  What about the ones from wealthy families like Obama and some of the other Saudis?  What about the poor with bad governments in the rest of Asia, Africa, Latin Anerica?  They aren't doing this.  What about the beheadings, the way women are treated, the way they react to cartoons and anything they decide they don't like, the stonings, the amputations for minor offenses?  No one else is doing any of this.

The fact is there is something very rotten at the center of Islam.  You can deny that, call people names, threaten, try to explain it away, but it's still there.  For all to see.


And yeah 'certain groups and cultures'.  Cultures are different from each other in important ways or there wouldn't be different cultures.  I'm not going to explain this further, if you can't understand it, a few sentences from me aren't going to help. 

Certain cultures are 'better' than others.  Self governing people have a better 'culture' than a bunch of head hunters.  Our suburban culture is 'better' than what goes on in the inner city - that's why migration between the suberbs and the inner city is one way.  People can argue about what is 'better' between various cultures and sub-cultures, many may be equivilent, but generally speaking a free, open, low crime society with opportunity for all 'is better' than one that doesn't have those traits.

So yeah.  If a bomb goes off somewhere, it's probably a good idea to profile people leaving the scene for people that look like most of the other people that have set off bombs in the past 10-20 years.  If you don't get that, too damn bad.

[Juan]

Seems that the bombers are Chechens. Not toothless white rednecks. 

[Eddie Coyle]

Seems that the bombers are Chechens. Not toothless white rednecks.

Orthodox Christians? ...many hope.

[RedMichael]

I didn't take anything out of context.  The entire line was there.  Anyone interested could easily read the whole thing.  So I highlighted just the part about no one getting hurt, big deal.  Fucking whiner.  I notice you didn't answer the question about what did you even mean by that.

If you think that sympathizing, or empathinzing with a bunch of wackos doesn't hurt anyone, that's nuts.  I can see why you chose to go on the offensive rather than answer the question. 

When the Palestinians manage to kill a bunch of people, they hand out candy to kids and have a party in the middle of the street.  When the Twin Towers fell, the initial film footage from nearly all the Arab capitals showed people getting out of their vehicles and celebrating.  I can give plenty more examples, but you get the idea.  You think this is just innocent fun?  That no one is influenced by it to commit further acts?  That it hurts no one?

Feel free to issue more threats.  I've not taken you ar anyone else out of context, and I'm going to keep doing whatever the hell I feel like. 


 

What 'race' is Islam?  How is criticism of Islam 'racism'? 

Islam has black followers in sub-Saharan Africa, white ones in places like Bosnia, Chechnia, other places in the Caucasus, Moslems are prominent in certain parts of Central Asia, South Asia, South-East Asia.   And in all these places these people can't seem to get along with their neighbors and bombs seem to go off frequently.  Tell me how any of that is in any way 'racial'?

The thinkers of the Left have been very successful tying anything they don't like as somehow 'Racist'.  Then their tools run around smearing everyone without bothering to think much.  So thanks for that.

It's interesting that the Left has no problem smearing Christians and Catholics - other faiths that also have representatives from all races, they have no problem hating Jews, although given recent history they try to hide that a little better.  But that's all ok I guess.  Just don't anybody say anything about their allies, the Muslims.

The Left is currently friendly with the Muslims because they both have a common enemy - the rest of us.  Never mind that if the Muslims were to ever have a worldwide Califate, they would probably kill the Leftists first.  If the Left were to ever achieve their goal of a one world government with them at the top, they would immediately toss the Muslims into the same category as the Christians and Jews, and kill as many of them as the could.

When some Leftist is trying to name-call the Christians, many times they accuse them of being 'like the Muslims'.  Pretty interesting that friends of the Muslims would do that, isn't it?  It's not 'racism' then.  It's like when the Left really wants to get nasty and attack others one of the first things out of their mouths is often to accue the victim of being 'gay'.  Again very strange.  Almost as if the Left is really about dividing us.


Back to the Muslims.  You imply they do this stuff because they are poor and have bad governments.  But what about the ones born and raised in the West?  What about the ones from wealthy families like Obama and some of the other Saudis?  What about the poor with bad governments in the rest of Asia, Africa, Latin Anerica?  They aren't doing this.  What about the beheadings, the way women are treated, the way they react to cartoons and anything they decide they don't like, the stonings, the amputations for minor offenses?  No one else is doing any of this.

The fact is there is something very rotten at the center of Islam.  You can deny that, call people names, threaten, try to explain it away, but it's still there.  For all to see.


And yeah 'certain groups and cultures'.  Cultures are different from each other in important ways or there wouldn't be different cultures.  I'm not going to explain this further, if you can't understand it, a few sentences from me aren't going to help. 

Certain cultures are 'better' than others.  Self governing people have a better 'culture' than a bunch of head hunters.  Our suburban culture is 'better' than what goes on in the inner city - that's why migration between the suberbs and the inner city is one way.  People can argue about what is 'better' between various cultures and sub-cultures, many may be equivilent, but generally speaking a free, open, low crime society with opportunity for all 'is better' than one that doesn't have those traits.

So yeah.  If a bomb goes off somewhere, it's probably a good idea to profile people leaving the scene for people that look like most of the other people that have set off bombs in the past 10-20 years.  If you don't get that, too damn bad.

I am a fucking whiner? You're the one that is getting all huffy because I won't let your old ignorant ass have your way.  It is NOT a crime to agree or disagree with anything. Some of it is in bad taste, like most of what comes out of your pathetic good ole boy mouth, but it shouldn't be a crime. It isn't a crime that you pathetically cling onto these world view points even though you know as each day goes by, more and more people who don't have their head lodged up their ass, look at you as the problem and not the solution. You took my quote out of context you old, pathetic, fool. I know you will say what you like and so will I. But maybe you can do me a favor and go let off some steam watching some Matlock before trying to spew more incoherent garbage out of your mouth.


Then you spiral into a senile diatribe about leftists accusing others of being gay, leftists trying to seperate us, etc etc. Which has nothing to do with what I am saying. Maybe you over exerted yourself. It seems like it. I would have to huff some gas to figure out what the fuck you were trying to say other than the "Leftists" are out there to tear this country apart. Which is the funniest thing I have read in awhile, considering you just attacked and labeled a group as a leftist, after getting pissy because someone won't let you get away with generalizing a billion people.


I am impressed with how you define a Muslim, I really wasn't expecting a lucid thought from you. It took me awhile to recover from my shock. Although I give you credit for probably mistakenly acknowledging this difference, you did. But this started, in part, because you thought you can profile groups and generalize. Well how the fuck do you profile such a diverse group, like you stated, without being blatantly racist? Please try not to cop out with a "If ya kint understand what I mean, then fuuuuck youuu!" or the like. Because I want to know if you understand what you mean (for added motivation, i will lose five dollars if you do!)


"Blah blah blah, what about dem baaad few apples from da West!?!?one?" Are you fucking serious? What about the bad few apples from the West? You tell me? Did your granpappy tell you "one bad apple ruins da bunch!" and you took it to heart? Like the terrorists from "ovah yondah!" they represent the minority. These crazy fucks pick and choose from whatever religious texts fill their warped view points. Its like the extreme right and Leviticus.


There is something wrong with all religion, not just Islam. Islam just lost the resources/territory game throughout time and countries "like da good ole US of A" did their part to make sure they stayed that way. How the fuck did you ignore all of the Wests interference with these countries through the decades? They have a helluva lot less going for them because of us and the USSR trying to play king of the mountain. Maybe the ends justified the means but we can't be ignorant of the fact that we are reaping just a little of what we sown.




There is no excuse for how they treat women. The extreme cases are again, extreme. But yes, they do treat their women like shit in comparison to the West. But again, this started with "it should be ok to profile Muslims". Which you already stated are from various cultures and ethnic backgrounds, different skin tones, etc. So I would just like to this opportunity to ask again, how would you profile for Muslims?


Certain groups and cultures are a product of their environment. If there were a lot of resources, trade routes, good land to farm, etc there tends to be...MORE CULTURE, more civilization, more self government. It was that way back in ancient history. We have come a long way but isn't it that way now? If you can't understand this, your view is fucked and I hope you make a mistake and realize this for a second someday. I don't feel sorry for them because they don't enjoy the same luxuries as me, but I am not going to condemn them because it led to extreme view points being able to permeate more than in a developed area. If people are unhappy, they are more likely to do extreme things, wouldn't you agree? Would it be more reasonable to try to figure out what the REAL people are angry about? Because right now, they are just hearing what extremist terrorist groups are telling them. It makes the extreme right tea party FAD kind of laughable when you think about their anger compared to some of these places they hate.


And finally, it is a good idea to profile people leaving a scene to see if they look like other people that detonate bombs. That would be REALLY difficult, there have been LOTS of white guys that have detonated bombs on US soil and I saw a lot of White people in that crowd. Maybe you mean, Muslim, i mean someone who practices Islam, no not "arab lookin" people because you just said they are a diverse people...anyways. There have been a lot more white people in America detonating bombs than whatever your definition of Muslim may be. Ya know, a lot of these white bomber were right wing extremists...should we profile ....wait no, that would be fucking stupid. They were an extreme minority and no one would ever claim them. Haha you tricky guy you, you tried to get me to profile extreme neocons didn't you!? Anyways, yhe Muslims have a loooong way to go to catch up. So in that sense, profiling white people at the Boston marathon would take forever. Although we do have the resources to profile EVERYONE regardless of color/creed.

Anyways, some jackasses forgot that the Whites still own the domestic terrorism/bombing crown on US soil and accidentally "profiled" this young man. Now his life is a fucking hell, literally, not figuratively like being your son.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/teen-boston-marathon-bomber/story?id=18990057#.UXFC87XvsW4

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in your incoherent rant you acknowledge Muslims as "Islam has black followers in sub-Saharan Africa, white ones in places like Bosnia, Chechnia, other places in the Caucasus, Moslems are prominent in certain parts of Central Asia, South Asia, South-East Asia. " which states you can't really profile a religion since the followers all...well look different? But you forget that later on again saying we SHOULD profile those who look like people who blow stuff up. But we both know Whites still hold the title of blowing stuff up on American soil which wouldn't be productive in the Boston Marathon. We both know the US has the resources to investigate everyone on film at this event and branch out from there in an incredibly fast time and they don't profile.


You even managed to attack "leftists" whatever the fuck that is. Something about these leftists and gays and trying to break apart our country. Which would have nothing to do with what we were talking about. So, even though you will do what you want, I will say for the sake of posture "Quit fucking moving the topic/goalposts you halfwit". Stay on topic. Maybe that was the topic and you were just horrid at making a point. I won't give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Sardondi]

                       



So let me alter the topic somewhat. With a portion of a major metropolitan area virtually locked down because of at least one, perhaps more, extremely violent mass murderers on the loose and possibly still in the area and on foot, I wonder how many homeowners there wish they had a firearm in the house.

[RedMichael]

I was looking for that pic and couldn't find it! Also, my good man, you just took a shitstorm debate topic and threw gasoline on it.


For the sake of discussion, if I knew it was just one person who was as armed as I was, maybe. I don't want to be shooting at a guy who has explosives or might have peers around that do. It would be hard to gauge how I would react in that situation.

[Sleepwalker]

Are you sure? The US presidential elections (and the candidate selections before) get quite a lot of coverage by our news teams over here. They have for years. Of course because your system is different to ours, they take time to explain how it works (I think most are still non the wiser, or actually give a damn, if the complaints that are lodged with the BBC about the degree of coverage is anything to go by). Anyway, I recollect from years ago some guy Dukakas? (sp) was in the mix;  and our news was playing the quite nasty ads used, denigrating the opposition used by all sides.. and they played a selection of Rep/Dem ads that was being shown on your TV channels: the line from memory was something like "Mike, admit it, you're liberal"..The reporter then had to explain that in the US, liberal is often used as an insult, and even more surprisingly, taken as an insult. There then followed a discussion in the studio about the candidates etc.. I'm guessing that Dukakas was a democrat?

I think a good portion of Americans have the same reaction to our elections as our friends in the U.K.  The Democratic and Republican Parties are not the moderate parties they once were.  The Democrats have moved to the left and the Republicans to the right, leaving a good number of Americans yearning for a more moderate party somewhere in the the middle. 

Our politicians, right and left, are bought and paid for.  They are all owned by special interests and corporations.  I would like to see members of Congress required to wear Nascar-style uniforms with the names of their corporate sponsors on them so we know who owns them.  As for the elections, I believe the ballots for all elections, local, state and federal, should have a "none of the above" option.  Perhaps it would give some of our elected officials a modicum of humility if they knew they came in second to "none of the above."

[PB the Deplorable]

I am a fucking whiner?...

I'm glad you enjoy and respond to my posts.  Reading those responses though, you're probably more of an easily led twit than a whiner.  And a really angry one.

... Well how the fuck do you profile such a diverse group, like you stated, without being blatantly racist? Please try not to cop out with a "If ya kint understand what I mean, then fuuuuck youuu!" or the like. Because I want to know if you understand what you mean (for added motivation, i will lose five dollars if you do!) ...


... So I would just like to this opportunity to ask again, how would you profile for Muslims?

You've gone from suggesting no one should be profiled to asking how it should be done.  Believe it or not, there's some personal growth there.  You must have been caught way offguard when yet again the perps turned out to be Muslim?

... the "Leftists" are out there to tear this country apart. Which is the funniest thing I have read in awhile...

Are you suggesting they aren't?

[RedMichael]

I don't have to suggest they aren't tearing this country apart you intellectual lightweight. What makes you think they are? You brought it up, the burden's on you champ.


I do not think profiling should be done. I am challenging you to explain how it should be done. I can't fit my head far enough up my ass to see the world like you do so bear with me.


Well that about wraps up this debate. Like the doc said when you were born "What a waste of my time."

[Juan]

I'll give in.  I had previously referred to leftists, but I've been chided for that and told that these people are not leftists.  I'll stop calling them that.  I'll call them what they really are - fascists.

[RedMichael]

I don't even know what a leftist is. It is the liberal equivalent of a neocon?


If that is what it is I don't know if fascist is the right term. Per dictionary.com


a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

Edit: But for the record, I haven't gotten any hints that anyone is a fascist or promotes fascism on this board.

[Sleepwalker]

I'll give in.  I had previously referred to leftists, but I've been chided for that and told that these people are not leftists.  I'll stop calling them that.  I'll call them what they really are - fascists.

I believe someone on the extreme left would be a communist while someone to the extreme right would be a fascist.  Whatever they're called, the end result is the same.  Any country taken over by the far left or the far right is a dictatorship.  The USSR was Communist (extreme left) while Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy were Fascist (far right, even though the Nazis called themselves "National Socialists.")

Many years ago (more than I care to admit) a wise man told me that, rather than view the political spectrum as a straight line, it's better to view it as a circle.  If you go far enough to the right or far enough to the left, you end up in the same place - a dictatorship.

The Democrats have drifted to the left of where they were under JFK and the Republicans have drifted to the right of where they were under Eisenhower.  I doubt either could be nominated for President by his respective party today. 

[Sardondi]

Re the leftist/fascist thing, of course leftists can be fascists. Mussolini, Stalin and Mao were wonderful ones. A great argument can be made, and has, (Godwin alert) that Hitler was both.

I was looking for that pic and couldn't find it! Also, my good man, you just took a shitstorm debate topic and threw gasoline on it...

I aim to please.

...For the sake of discussion, if I knew it was just one person who was as armed as I was, maybe. I don't want to be shooting at a guy who has explosives or might have peers around that do....

Well, I suggest most persons, who aren't simply frozen in reptile-brain if-I-don't-move-maybe-it-will-all-go-away fecklessness, which can certainly happen - especially if they're just regular, untrained folks like the vast majority of us are - when presented with a murderer in or attempting to enter their house will react instinctively, and bring the most massive power readily at hand to quickly and conclusively end that threat and do everything in his or her power keep the family safe, even vicariously.*

Besides, suicide vests are what God made faces to shoot at. Intellectualizing an immediate, deadly threat is not recommended for those wish to continue their particular genetic code.


* This is most often the answer to those situations in which police are thought by civilians to have used "overkill" to stop an armed assailant. You know, when the family in understandable rage and grief screams, "Why did they have to shoot him 17 times?!?!". And the cop who did the shooting, who responded to the threat as a human who thinks (gender choice alert) he's about to leave a wife widowed and children fatherless, says, "Because that's all the bullets I had." Our inborn response, born of instinct for survival, is to bring everything we have. And trust there is no suicide vest with a deadman switch, because that just is not the time to begin a decision tree.

[Pragmier]

Re the leftist/fascist thing, of course leftists can be fascists. Mussolini, Stalin and Mao were wonderful ones. A great argument can be made, and has, (Godwin alert) that Hitler was both.

I'm confused - are you saying Stalin and Mao were fascist?


IMHO, over the years the terms left and right have stopped meaning what they originally did, or their definition expanded so much (often by the opposition) that they've become pointless in accurately describing a philosophy.

[Juan]

I don't even know what a leftist is.

See

[Sardondi]

I'm confused - are you saying Stalin and Mao were fascist?...

Yep. Let the games begin.

...IMHO, over the years the terms left and right have stopped meaning what they originally did, or their definition expanded so much (often by the opposition) that they've become pointless in accurately describing a philosophy.

I agree. Indeed, many conservatives are calling themselves "classic liberals" in the sense the term was used from the 18th- to the early 20th-century.

[Pragmier]

Yep. Let the games begin.

Ok, but I do feel the onus is on you buddy as your position is the less traditional one. But anyways...



Yes they were socialist, and yes they were totalitarian. But there were sufficient dissimilarities too. While I agree that as far as communists go, the elevated cult status of Mao and Stalin is a component of fascism, I don't consider that enough to put them in that category. Their regimes still fail to reach the level of rabid nationalism with emphasis on racial identity exhibited by the classics i.e. Hitler's Germany and to a lesser degree Mussolini's Italy. Communist Russia (prior to WW2) and China (post WW2) did not exhibit the hunger for military expansionism of our goose-stepping villains. Also, given as these regimes actually co-existed, I note their stated self identification. They themselves told the world we are bitter enemies. Communism is an economic idea first, which (thus far) results in a totalitarian political system; fascism begins as a totalitarian system and often, but not neccessarily, results in state ownership of production. Now if you want to make the case Stalin and Mao were NOT communists but instead fascists, that's possible, but I don't see how they were both.


PS I agree with Yorkie real communism hasn't be accomplished. It is probably unattainable.

[Sleepwalker]

PS I agree with Yorkie real communism hasn't be accomplished, and in fact is probably unattainable.

I believe the closest pure economic communism has come to existing is in communes where people live together, work together and share their possessions and the benefits of their labor.  Most of them haven't lasted very long.  I'm going out on a limb here but it could be argued that Old Order Amish practice a form of economic communism.  They do not believe in luxuries of any kind.  When one of the community members needs to be hospitalized, the community  pays the medical and hospital bills.  It could also be argued that nuns and monks living a monastic life are practicing a form of economic communism. 

I do not believe a real or pure communist state has ever existed.  China, the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, East Germany and the rest have all been totalitarian regimes where people who spoke out were imprisoned or executed. A group of key communist party members lived in luxury.  They were called the nomenclatura in the USSR.  The regular people did all the work and lived like peasants.  The nomenclatura had luxurious dachas and drove BMWs and Mercedes.

[FightTheFuture]

Yep. Let the games begin.
I agree. Indeed, many conservatives are calling themselves "classic liberals" in the sense the term was used from the 18th- to the early 20th-century.

Under Stalin, the State possessed all property and distributed it accordingly to the masses - pure socialism.


Fascism, as I`ve heard it described, is socialism with a capitalist veneer.  While they are definitely similar, and it`s tempting to lump socialism and fascism together, I find clearly definable differences.


With regard to your second point, I don`t know many Conservatives that are referring to themselves as "Classic Liberals" or more accurately, "Neoliberals", but I do see a trend in the Conservative movement to  re-label themselves as Libertarians, or Libertarian-Conservatives.


Just my observation.

[Frys Girl]

I voted that I'm opposed to all background checks because honestly, I feel that no matter what, crazy, sick, twisted people will kill and harm. These "checks" only serve to inconvenience law abiding people. However, I can see how saying this makes me a target. Whatever.

[eddie dean]

I voted that I'm opposed to all background checks because honestly, I feel that no matter what, crazy, sick, twisted people will kill and harm. These "checks" only serve to inconvenience law abiding people. However, I can see how saying this makes me a target. Whatever.

I am a gun owner. Every gun I have purchased required a background check, as mandated by the state I live in. The background check is a 2 page form that takes all of 10 minutes to fill out,  and another 30 minute wait,  while they verifiy my information. I walked out with my purchase in less than an hour. IMO if I have to wait for less than an hour in order to help prevent most, or even 1,  felon or mentally ill person from buying a firearm, then I'm okay with that "inconvenience".
I'm not saying that felons can not obtain them by other means (gun shows, private sales or theft) and usually do, if they so desire. But to label it an inconvenience and thus not worth it, is short sighted. 

[Frys Girl]

I am a gun owner. Every gun I have purchased required a background check, as mandated by the state I live in. The background check is a 2 page form that takes all of 10 minutes to fill out,  and another 30 minute wait,  while they verifiy my information. I walked out with my purchase in less than an hour. IMO if I have to wait for less than an hour in order to help prevent most, or even 1,  felon or mentally ill person from buying a firearm, then I'm okay with that "inconvenience".
I'm not saying that felons can not obtain them by other means (gun shows, private sales or theft) and usually do, if they so desire. But to label it an inconvenience and thus not worth it, is short sighted.

I understand what you're saying, but I didn't mean that it is a major inconvenience, nor do I think that inconvenience should stop background checks. I just think it is a poor way of stopping these crimes.
Sick individuals need to be stopped by other means. I think the "system" has better methods, but I just don't think the background checks get to the heart of the problem.

[Pragmier]

I voted that I'm opposed to all background checks because honestly, I feel that no matter what, crazy, sick, twisted people will kill and harm. These "checks" only serve to inconvenience law abiding people. However, I can see how saying this makes me a target. Whatever.

Thanks for participating, you're not a target. I was honestly surprised at the lopsidedness of responses here. CG results pretty much mimic those of major polling firms across demographics. And yet the Senate couldn't get 60% on something that 80-90% of Americans say they want. Special interest groups are a bitch huh? Today "their side" won, tomorrow it will my mine, or yours. The spectacle continues and we hope for the best.


To your point though, I don't own a firearm, but ED's response is not unlike what many of my gun owning friends tell me. I think the fear of many goes beyond what the actual bill proposed (I posted the link somewhere around here if you care to read it).

I'm not saying that felons can not obtain them by other means (gun shows, private sales or theft) and usually do, if they so desire.

Well that was the point of the legislation - to limit those "other means". I'm all for inconveniencing felons.

[PB the Deplorable]

... the Senate couldn't get 60% on something that 80-90% of Americans say they want. Special interest groups are a bitch huh? Today "their side" won, tomorrow it will my mine, or yours. The spectacle continues and we hope for the best.


To your point though, I don't own a firearm, but ED's response is not unlike what many of my gun owning friends tell me. I think the fear of many goes beyond what the actual bill proposed (I posted the link somewhere around here if you care to read it). ..

Yes, that's exactly it.  We've been lied to so many times by these people, that people just pain don't trust them.  Any of them.  There is a knee jerk response of assuming there is more to the legislation than is being reported, a history of either passing legislation incrementally - each time using either a highky emotional incident or sneaking provisions into the bill at the last minute, of rushing bills through before anyone can read and comment on them, of slipping in objectionable provisions during the Senate/House resolution after members are already committed to voting for it, of inserting wording that after passage the governing agency willfully misinterprets to  add their own regulations onto what is actually in the bill.   

On a sensitive subject like this, even 1 provision someone doesn't like is enough to draw a 'no' vote.   What they need to do is pass smaller bills individually that focus just on specific aspects - background checks only, 'assault weapons' ban only, size of clips only, gun registration only, and so on.  Then give people time to read through them and comment (as both Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama have both promised in the past, then not kept their words), and not have them running hundreds or thousands of pages.

Another reason is:  plenty of Senators are up for re-election next year and Obama has officially entered Lame Duck status.

[eddie dean]

I understand what you're saying, but I didn't mean that it is a major inconvenience, nor do I think that inconvenience should stop background checks. I just think it is a poor way of stopping these crimes.
Sick individuals need to be stopped by other means. I think the "system" has better methods, but I just don't think the background checks get to the heart of the problem.

I understand your point now FG.  passing 1 law that requires background checks will not stop all criminals from killing. It's more of a  systemic issue that is much more difficult, if not impossible, to legislate and completely stop with 1 law. I misunderstood the context of your " inconvenience" comment, and thought you were being sarcastic.
No harm, no foul!
It's a difficult subject that people are passionate about because the gun culture is part of our history as a country. 1 group says we're going too far, and another, not far enough. whatever the outcome, people are still going to be victims of violence. Sadly it's human nature.