Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on January 13, 2004, 10:04:43 pm
-
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL
I'm flabergasted (Mr.Duckman), flabergasted.
-
Well he doesn't read a newspaper either
-
Welcome to Ocea....I mean America
-
ugh, you know what you call a protest that isn't organised like that, a RIOT,
you... people... :mad:
if Bush so much as sneazes you scream oppresion and "1984"!
you realize that by the time dark lord Ashcroft brings about his truely evil powers nobody is going to listen to you becase of this bullcrap
this is how protests have been organised for DECADES
GOD DAMNIT
-
bob we agree to much. lets run for the presidency in 16 years when i turn 35
-
agreed,
together we shall bring forth a MIGHTY EMPIRE that shall cover the earth in a great and terable daraaaug... :nervous: aghhh...free health care... for all... and a balenced budget.... yeah, thats it.... budget
-
No. A riot is when a protest turns violent. None of these protest showed any signs of turning violent, and in fact the vast majority of protests are peaceful.
What the Secret Service did, if you would care to read the article, was to confine the protesters a half-mile away from the site of the rally, out of view of the media and where they could be easily ignored. This infringes on such principals as freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly. Whats the point of there even being an opposing side, if they are brushed under the carped, out of view?
If an opposing viewpoint wishes to be present, that is their right. You can't claim such nonsense as the protesters being a dangerous and unruly bunch, since these zones are set up prior to the actual rally, not after a violent event occurs. Pre-emption seems to be the word of the year.
Now please, if you would, explain to me how this doesn't infringe on freedom of speech rights? How is this not censorship?
-
ok, the way it works is before the protest, all sides get togeather and decide, were are the protestors going to demonstrate, were is the 'whatever it is that there protesting' going to take place, how can the demonstrators demonstrate while at the same time not chocke the city, or cause actual damage, or not actualy get around to doing something physical to the 'whatever', and if they still decide to try (ie if a riot breaks out) they can still be brought under controle.
the people were alowed to demonstrate, they wern't shot or run over with tanks, this isn't an infrengment, please tell me when something important actualy happens, (like someone getting arrested for telling there kid 'Bush is a dolt') and quit freaking out everytime something normal happens.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
ugh, you know what you call a protest that isn't organised like that, a RIOT,
you... people... :mad:
if Bush so much as sneazes you scream oppresion and "1984"!
you realize that by the time dark lord Ashcroft brings about his truely evil powers nobody is going to listen to you becase of this bullcrap
this is how protests have been organised for DECADES
GOD DAMNIT
Actually, Bob, in this you are wrong. Only a few presidents have isolated protestors the way the bush administration has. Notably, these have been, in recent years, the senior Bush administration, the Nixon administration and the Reagan administration. The Clinton administration did not isolate protestors out of the president's sight, nor did Kennedy or Carter. Hell, even Johnson, for all the horror of a president he was, didn't.
Now, as for the riot thing: I hardly call holding a sign with a slogan of dissent where the President of the United States can see it a riot. It doesn't even fit the definition of the word riot ("a public act of violence by an unruly mob", according to Google). Its free speech and is protected, or it used to be.
I'm all for keeping the dissenters seperate from the supporters. I'm completely against hiding the dissenters away where the President and his cronies--or the press--can't see them.
Originally posted by Bobboau
ok, the way it works is before the protest, all sides get togeather and decide, were are the protestors going to demonstrate, were is the 'whatever it is that there protesting' going to take place, how can the demonstrators demonstrate while at the same time not chocke the city, or cause actual damage, or not actualy get around to doing something physical to the 'whatever', and if they still decide to try (ie if a riot breaks out) they can still be brought under controle.
ACtually, if you RTFA, you'll see that this is NOT the way it works. The Secret Service tells the local police to arrange "free speech zones" and the dissenters are hidden.
the people were alowed to demonstrate, they wern't shot or run over with tanks, this isn't an infrengment, please tell me when something important actualy happens, (like someone getting arrested for telling there kid 'Bush is a dolt') and quit freaking out everytime something normal happens.
One can hardly call it a demonstration when the President can't see that the people are dissenting. Also if you'd like to be told when something happens, RTFA. People are hogtied and dragged away for dissenting ("they might wander out in front of the motorcade and get hurt", my ass). Some people HAVE BEEN arrested and put on trial for approaching "too close to the president" (that was in South Carolina). So yeah, here goes:
BOBBOAU: SOMETHING IMPORTANT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. NOW GO READ THE ****ING ARTICLE.
-
We should just nuke the planet. That way there will be no more problems at all.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
ok, the way it works is before the protest, all sides get togeather and decide, were are the protestors going to demonstrate, were is the 'whatever it is that there protesting' going to take place, how can the demonstrators demonstrate while at the same time not chocke the city, or cause actual damage, or not actualy get around to doing something physical to the 'whatever', and if they still decide to try (ie if a riot breaks out) they can still be brought under controle.
the people were alowed to demonstrate, they wern't shot or run over with tanks, this isn't an infrengment, please tell me when something important actualy happens, (like someone getting arrested for telling there kid 'Bush is a dolt') and quit freaking out everytime something normal happens.
But see, the protesters had no say in it. They were not consulted, and therefore this was not an agreement, it was forceful. You stay in the area or you get arrested. Now, if the designated area happens to be nowehere near any place of importance, well thats jus too bad for you.
I don't live in America. I don't think that American domestic policy will ever much affect my life. I could live the rest of my life and not give a damn what happens to the American people in their own country. And yet, I still find this to be important, to be not only an indication of the character of this regime, but also an important precident. One where dissent is silenced and laws are free to be ignored by the governement. And if you, you who lives in America, who I suspect cares deeply for America, can't really see the importance in this, who thinks this is simply another whine-a-thon, then I'm really ****ing saddened. Such apathy for the state of your nation. Dissent is one of the the most partiotic things you can do. The right the express contrary viewpoints, the right to question and hold responsible your government, and yes, the right to get outraged when such a gross breach of civil liberties occurs; thats what makes you a citizen and not simply a yes man.
-
You merkins ought to suppply your media teams with, like, vans or something. That way they could go film the protestors kept at the other end of the road. Doesn't really matter if Bush sees them or not. It matters if the voting, TV-watching public sees them. Well, in theory
-
If the media decides to make the effort. Which they won't. I suspect that even if the protestors were in full view, they would be if not ignored outright, then maximally marginalized. I have yet to see a dissenting voice on a major American news show. The major networks seem to be running over each other to see who can kiss the most ass. And the result of such an environment is that the "mainstream" voters are left with a totally one-sided viewpoint.
-
protests have been known to turn into riots, remember Seatle
ok do you realy think that Bush (who does know there there, as he was the one who ordered them there) is going to change his mind from seeing people with 'no blood for oil' and 'Bush is a nazi' signs.
I doubt it,
Bush is probly more worried about one of them throughing a bomb at him. wich is completely crazy and paranoied
and you guys must be getting a prety distorted veiw of American broadcasting as I see hords of decent here
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
You merkins ought to suppply your media teams with, like, vans or something. That way they could go film the protestors kept at the other end of the road. Doesn't really matter if Bush sees them or not. It matters if the voting, TV-watching public sees them. Well, in theory
1) What the **** are we supposed to do? I don't own any media corporations.. and I don't remember ever having authority over any...
2) Media Corporations are looking for ratings. Ratings get them money. More people are interested in seeing what the president has to say, whether they love or dispise him, then see a bunch of people talk about how much they don't like him. That'd be why medias wouldn't show as much coverage of anti-bush protestors.. unless they become noteworthy of course.
-
The Bush Administration is starting to piss me off. They need to stop violating The consitution, Also a communist nation is one step closer in the hands of the.... you guys' know what i'm going to say.
-
Well.. November this year should certainly be interesting one way or another.
-
I think you mean totalitarian or fashist, comuntism is a econimic system by wich the government owns and controles all (most/major) busnesses and services and everyone gets basicly the same payment, food, ect...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
totalitarian
That's what i was thinking of. i'm not voting for Bush this year!:ick
Maybe Dean...or Al Sharpton. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
protests have been known to turn into riots, remember Seatle
ok do you realy think that Bush (who does know there there, as he was the one who ordered them there) is going to change his mind from seeing people with 'no blood for oil' and 'Bush is a nazi' signs.
I doubt it,
Bush is probly more worried about one of them throughing a bomb at him. wich is completely crazy and paranoied
and you guys must be getting a prety distorted veiw of American broadcasting as I see hords of decent here
Yes, and boys have been known to grow up to kill people. Does that mean we should kill all the boys? Should be assume that all boys will grow up to be murderers? Sorry, but your arguement in completely illogical and has no basis in actual fact.
Bush did not order the protests to be moved, it was the Secret Service. Bush barely knows which country he's bombing, its all passed down to him by his advisors. I think that there is a very strong possiblity that Bush does not know that there is a protest taking place. And no, I do not think that Bush is likely to change his mind. However, I think that the same cannot be said for a certain amount of viewers who should be watching the proceedings with an accurate picture of the supporter/dissenter base. Its not the protester's goal to change Bush's mind. Its their job and their RIGHT to voice their opinions for anyone who will listen. Doesn't matter if they change a single person's mind, its their right to be there. And its the media's job to cover the situation fairly and subjectively.
Yes, I agree. It is completely crazy and paranoid. Thats like excepting to be trampled bya stampeding elephant while driving to work. Yes, it has happened, but its insane to expect it to happen and to take such drastic measures with no specific information available.
-
if you have a large bunch of angry people together, is it totaly illogical to take precautions incase they should turn violent?
and we are all well aware of the break down, currently Bush has about a 60% aprooval rateing, about 40% of the contry love him, 40% hate him and 2 about 20% are tapitly more in suport of him than not, mostly becase the opposition in this contry is just a bunch of phony looking spinless morons, (the same can be said about Bush's party too). there are only two polotitions I realy kinda like Leberman and McCane, and neither of them is perfict either (there both just a bit too right wing honestly, but it's only like two or three issues that I dissagree with on ether of them)
-
Ok, I don't usually complain about such things, cause I am myself a bad speller, but your spelling in the last few posts has been terrible. Erh, yeah...
__
Well, see, the people were not angry or rioting. I'm sure you've been lead to believe otherwise, but most protests are totally peaceful. No one throws molotovs or guns down cops or such. It is unreasonable to assume that a protest would turn violent if you have no information pointing to such an event. And since the zones are set up before hand, the Secret Service can't possibly know if a protest is going to be violent. And really even if it was violent, whats the probability of Bush being harmed, standing behind a wall of CIA and Secret Service goons?
Yes, you could in theory say that ANY protest has the POTENTIAL to turn violent, and therefore must not be allowed to take place, but that way lies totalitarianism. To assume such a case with no evidence is unreasonable, irresponsible and simply wrong.
So I'll ask you again, please tell me how this action is not a breach of freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly?
For the Democratic condidate, as I've said before, the only one who isn't a Republican-lite is Kucinich. However, I would settle (and it seems I'll have to) for Dean. Now, Nader would be even better, but like thats gonna happen....
-
ugh Kucinich is a douche. we kicked him out of ohio.
me = not voting
-
Maybe Dean...or Al Sharpton.
Okay, one is left of Streisand & Co. and the other is criminal. The only Demoncat that I have any respect for is Liberman.
I'm not saying I gonna vote for him, but you Dems out there better give a second look.
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
ugh Kucinich is a douche. we kicked him out of ohio.
me = not voting
You == Moron
Even if your vote doesn't count for **** when it comes to the presidency, it does matter for your congressmen. Since its your Congressmen that appoint the president, you bloody well better vote.
If there's one thing that pisses me off, its people who don't vote.
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
ugh Kucinich is a douche. we kicked him out of ohio.
me = not voting
Mik has a good point.
If you don't like him, you could at least vote against him....
-
Originally posted by Rictor
So I'll ask you again, please tell me how this action is not a breach of freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly?
becase they were freely speaking while assembled
and not being shot, or imprisoned
and while yes I know most protests are not riots, the situation is such that it is more likely to happen in the middle of a protest than on a sunny day in the park.
is it more likely that a riot will break out in the middle of a protest than in the middle of a city were no protest is being held?
and sorry about my spelling, I know I have horrable gramer ect, I always have and I stoped careing about it a few years ago.
-
Just remember, bob gets special treatment in the department of grammar enforcement. Just think of it as a combination of his l33tness plus the monumental irony of the difficulty of pronnouncing/spelling/experiancing his name.
-
This is as bad as the UK government hiding protesters from the Chinese leader a few years back. :wtf:
-
Up here we let protestors put cream pies into the face of our Prime Minister, and then we let the Prime Minister put a choke hold on the offending protestor. Level some petty charges, make a news clip and a joke or two, and everyone goes home happy. Take a lesson from the Canadians: if you want freedom of expression to work well, just don't be so bloody uptight about everything, eh?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
becase they were freely speaking while assembled
and not being shot, or imprisoned
and while yes I know most protests are not riots, the situation is such that it is more likely to happen in the middle of a protest than on a sunny day in the park.
is it more likely that a riot will break out in the middle of a protest than in the middle of a city were no protest is being held?
and sorry about my spelling, I know I have horrable gramer ect, I always have and I stoped careing about it a few years ago.
Yes, and it's more likely that democracy will break out in a country with free speech.
In all seriousness, there is a justification for maintaining a security cordon around hostile protestors. There is not one, however, for deliberately isolating them in an area for political reasons. It's not only anti-democratic, it's also an implicit restriction on free speech - you can only protest if no-one can see you.
We've had multiple protests in George square in Glasgow - against Israel, against the war, (many times, inclduing a fairly large parade to the Armadillo / SECC), Berti Vogts* and tuition fees - and not one of which has had an ounce of trouble.
Frankly, if a protest turns so easily into a riot, so can any large gathering of people - so you'd need to close down every large fair, tourist attraction, sports stadium, concert....etc.
You only example I remember you giving for such an event was - IIRC - Seattle. Which was an anti globalisation protest, where the riot was essentially pre-organized and started by anarchists - normally not the type to respect laws anyways.
-
Ouch... Try changing names and locations... You'll obtain Italy, with only one difference...
Our damned prime minister OWNS the media, so i let you imagine how free can be our speech...
The 21st century has a new form of censorship: Media Exclusion.
If you don't appear on media then you don't exist.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
If there's one thing that pisses me off, its people who don't vote.
Me = not voting either...
So... you get pissed off at people who practice their free will?! :wtf:
What a reason to blame somebody... Last time I checked, we are humans, and humans will do things that some may not agree with, but it's their choice. There doesn't necessarily have to be some logical reason behind the choice, one can simply make the choice and they shouldn't have to put up with anybody's harrassment to make them feel ridiculed. Of course, some will persist with the ridiculing, but do you see what I'm saying?
You shouldn't just go off and call somebody a moron for being human. :p
A moron can be a human, but a human is not necessarily a moron. Non-voters are not moronic, they are exercising free will.
-
Check cnn.com now for a picture of President Bush using his "force push" power to remove some troublesome protesters.
-
Bob is right on this one. In the US, a group cannot just organize a protest without permission. You first must submit your protest plan(where your gonna protest, etc.) to the local civil government. (Bear in mind, it is *required* that groups are allowed to protest.) If the civil government dosnt like the plan for reasons of safety, etc. the government can change the area where the group is allowed to protest. The group *will* protest though. This is the way the system works through the *entire* country, not just in D.C.
[you dont have to read this but it might help]
Fore example(:D); I live in Augusta, Georgia. The Masters golf tourny(THE biggest golf tourny on the planet) is held here anually. During that time, we get a good 30000 ppl that congregate around the golf course. This year there was a womens right organization that wanted to protest the tournament. They wanted to protest *right across* the front gate. the city would not let them protest where they wanted to because the traffic on Washington Road. Think what would happen to a planned 3000 protesting on the *sidewalk* next to one of the busiest highway in the city.
[/you dont have to read this but it might help]
If your mad at Bush pressuring the system(Phreak) to move a group of protestors, you should VOTE HIM THE **** OUT. Its the governemnts perogative on this issue; if you dont like what the government is doing, KICK THEM OUT. The government is well within its range of authority on this issue.
-
Originally posted by neo_hermes
That's what i was thinking of. i'm not voting for Bush this year!:ick
Maybe Dean...or Al Sharpton. :doubt:
Well IF I could vote... It wouldn't be for Bush, that's definite. And probably not Sharpton either, from what I've heard he's a real scumbag. An amusing scumbag, yes. A charismatic scumbag, yes. But still a scumbag.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You == Moron
Even if your vote doesn't count for **** when it comes to the presidency, it does matter for your congressmen. Since its your Congressmen that appoint the president, you bloody well better vote.
If there's one thing that pisses me off, its people who don't vote.
actually Kucinich isn't my congressman. That would be Steve LaTourette(R-OH). I think he got about 70% of the vote in 2002 so his job is pretty safe.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
2) Media Corporations are looking for ratings. Ratings get them money. More people are interested in seeing what the president has to say, whether they love or dispise him, then see a bunch of people talk about how much they don't like him. That'd be why medias wouldn't show as much coverage of anti-bush protestors.. unless they become noteworthy of course.
Then this thread is therefore intellectually bankrupt as everyone is getting what they want :)
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Up here we let protestors put cream pies into the face of our Prime Minister, and then we let the Prime Minister put a choke hold on the offending protestor. Level some petty charges, make a news clip and a joke or two, and everyone goes home happy. Take a lesson from the Canadians: if you want freedom of expression to work well, just don't be so bloody uptight about everything, eh?
Well we try. A fellow egged John Prescott, our deputy PM and transport minister. He got a punch in the mouth for his troubles :)
-
The government even put a stop to good old egg-throwing here, no, it's wrong, even if you are going to divide the yeahs and nays, you don't put one lot right in front of the podium and one lot 3/4 mile down the road. That is cowardice.... I believe the cracks are beginning to show.
-
Originally posted by Joey_21
So... you get pissed off at people who practice their free will?! :wtf:
What a reason to blame somebody... Last time I checked, we are humans, and humans will do things that some may not agree with, but it's their choice. There doesn't necessarily have to be some logical reason behind the choice, one can simply make the choice and they shouldn't have to put up with anybody's harrassment to make them feel ridiculed. Of course, some will persist with the ridiculing, but do you see what I'm saying?
You shouldn't just go off and call somebody a moron for being human. :p
A moron can be a human, but a human is not necessarily a moron. Non-voters are not moronic, they are exercising free will.
Yes, I do get people who exercise their free will to do stupid things. If you decide to walk out into traffic blindfolded, I'll call you a raging moron and get pissed off, even though it is manifestly your free will. You don't need a logical reason and you don't even have to like it. My free will allows me to exercise my inbuilt ability to call you a moron for doing somthing that is blatantly stupid.
Not voting, when you have the right to do so, is stupid. You have the franchise. People died to ensure that you have it and people die to ensure that you keep it. When you don't vote, you're rolling over and giving Carl Rove and John Ashcroft and George Bush permission to take away your rights. When people don't vote, you allow someone else to decide what is right for you. When you don't vote, you as much as say that your life and rights and freedoms aren't worth enough for you to make the effort to protect them. When you don't vote, you declare that your stake in your country and the world is worthless.
You have the right to not vote, but you have the duty and responsibility to vote. If you don't look out for your interests and the interests of your country (as you see them), no one will.
-
/me *****slaps bobboau for his first comment in this thread
-
/me agrees with Kazan this time...
-
Originally posted by mikhael
My free will allows me to exercise my inbuilt ability to call you a moron for doing somthing that is blatantly stupid.
Not voting, when you have the right to do so, is stupid.
:rolleyes:
And my free will grants me to do the same for the exact opposite reason. There is no validation behind either points of view. You cannot supply a valid reason for bashing people for not voting nor can I find a valid reason for bashing you for voting. It is simply a choice to accept or reject.
-
I don't think I've ever seen such a blatant disregard for the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
Don't you realize its your exact attitude that lets people like Bush get into power (or conversely, let Clinton get into power)? If you don't protect your rights, no one will.
If you can't see the "valid reasons" in that, you must live in a narrow little world where everything is kind and good and right and no one ever does evil and nothing ever goes wrong and everyone is selfless and charitable and kind.
-
You reap what you sew..........
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I don't think I've ever seen such a blatant disregard for the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
Don't you realize its your exact attitude that lets people like Bush get into power (or conversely, let Clinton get into power)? If you don't protect your rights, no one will.
If you can't see the "valid reasons" in that, you must live in a narrow little world where everything is kind and good and right and no one ever does evil and nothing ever goes wrong and everyone is selfless and charitable and kind.
The question is, how can you vote if you don't support ANY of the parties? Because it's not recorded as a protest vote, but as a vote of support.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
If you can't see the "valid reasons" in that, you must live in a narrow little world where everything is kind and good and right and no one ever does evil and nothing ever goes wrong and everyone is selfless and charitable and kind.
Or in a world where I am a student who is just too busy to pay attention, get involved, take up interest, or to just give a fark in general (even though some say I should). :rolleyes:
Originally posted by aldo_14
The question is, how can you vote if you don't support ANY of the parties? Because it's not recorded as a protest vote, but as a vote of support.
Nicely pointed out. Traditionally the Republican or Democratic parties dominate the elections and hardly ever do any other parties make a breakthrough.
-
Damn, you're forgetting one most important thing:
You don't only vote a person, you vote a political program!
You may not like who your politics, but if they follows a program that you can consider good then vote them!
Politics is not de facto ad personam, but is a complex network of people and ideas, which goes much deeper than your single candidate(s).
-
I suppose you could cast a vote for a nonsense person (we do have write ins here), but that's really a non-vote, Aldo.
Here we vote for candidates, not for parties (though generally that distinction can be pretty thoroughly blurred). I've got at least five candidates to pick from during the next congressional election for my state. We've got an independent (no party), a green, a republican or two, a democrat or two, and usually (though not always) a socialist. My votes usually get cast based on the record of the independents, greens and democrats, though I've voted for a republican or two in my day, because of his/her priorities.
Also, if you're not voting out of protest that's reasonably valid. That vote is better used picking the least of all possible evils though. Not voting isn't an effective protest because it doesn't remove support from anyone, it just refuses to grant support. By voting, you declare the person you voted for to be the least bad alternative, which is all you can really ask for in a democratic (of any stripe) system.
Finally, if your options are so bad that you cannot in good consience pick any of the alternatives, you take the next logical step in a democratic system. You run for office yourself.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I suppose you could cast a vote for a nonsense person (we do have write ins here), but that's really a non-vote, Aldo.
Here we vote for candidates, not for parties (though generally that distinction can be pretty thoroughly blurred). I've got at least five candidates to pick from during the next congressional election for my state. We've got an independent (no party), a green, a republican or two, a democrat or two, and usually (though not always) a socialist. My votes usually get cast based on the record of the independents, greens and democrats, though I've voted for a republican or two in my day, because of his/her priorities.
UK system, you vote for a candidate who can be independent or representing a party. The candidate with most votes wins the constituency (voting region). The more constituency a party holds, the more seats it holds in the House of commons. the party with the majority seats forms the Government.
Scotland is slightly different - there's also a proportional system where parties can also win seats on the basis of a second preference vote - i.e. the proportion of nation-wide votes rather than constituencies won. the only problem is that the winners of these seats have no ward (constituency) to represent...making their overall validty debatable (who are they speaking for?)
However, in general, the MP you vote for will toe the party line, rather than listen to the people. This is how Labour has so far pushed through several measures which the public does not want - because their majority MPs toe the party line.
So it basically becomes a party vote, and i presently don;t support a particular party. The SNP is probably closest, but even then i'm not certain enough to say that's my choice.
Originally posted by mikhael
Also, if you're not voting out of protest that's reasonably valid. That vote is better used picking the least of all possible evils though. Not voting isn't an effective protest because it doesn't remove support from anyone, it just refuses to grant support. By voting, you declare the person you voted for to be the least bad alternative, which is all you can really ask for in a democratic (of any stripe) system.
Finally, if your options are so bad that you cannot in good consience pick any of the alternatives, you take the next logical step in a democratic system. You run for office yourself. [/B]
that's a possiblity, but it is very rarely effective - as a single MP has little or no power in the grand scheme of things. Whilst a few have made it in the Scottish paliament (one for the OAPs alliance party, and one against the closure of Stobhill hospital - where my Dad was in the cardiac ward last year), there's been little impact worth mentioning.
The additional problem is that standing requires a payment of £500, which is forfeit if you get less than a certain number of votes.
As such, there is no real way of criticising the curent government - with effect - without explicitly supporting a party over here.
-
Although I don't have anything to say about the current american administration, nor should I, after seing that link, I felt obliged to say something about it.
People have the right to express themselves, and the most agressive party should be confined to a certain area... but it should not be taken entirely out of the event, but left near with the proper security arrangements...
Although I agree with the police rights to do what they did (although with a more peaceful aproch), their excuses pissed me off!! :mad:
I mean, just look at this for example.... :hopping:
20th paragraph:
"These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way."
If this was the case, shouldn't the people suporting bush be put into a free speech zone? cut the bolded words and see... :mad2:
And what this crap about "entering a restricted area around the president of the United States" being an offense? If the president would, I don't know... suddently step in your direction would be told to put your hands behind your back and walk away from him calmly while being aimed by a dozen of firearms from FBI and secret service agents? :rolleyes:
What I'm going to laugh at in the next few months is that the people in iraq will probably have more freedom of speech than the americans themselves... :D :eek2: :D
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Yes, and boys have been known to grow up to kill people. Does that mean we should kill all the boys? Should be assume that all boys will grow up to be murderers?
Strawman! Boys that grow up to kill people are in no way relevant.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Strawman! Boys that grow up to kill people are in no way relevant.
Neither is the fact that some protests turn violent. The vast majority do NOT turn violent, thus Bob's original point does not stand. Rictor did not introduce a strawman. He used argument by analogy (though, to be fair, it bordered on argumentum ad absurdum).
See, Aldo, here its possible for you to run as an independent and make a difference. When there's a balance between the two major parties, the independents end up with a huge amount of power, since they can throw the balance of the Congress in either direction. They're the people that keep the other parties honest.
-
Uh.... cause I'm bored, mainly.
From Bobby
becase they were freely speaking while assembled
and not being shot, or imprisoned
Actually they were imprisoned. Being held away from the president and all.
and while yes I know most protests are not riots, the situation is such that it is more likely to happen in the middle of a protest than on a sunny day in the park.
So by this definition protests in general should not be allowed because they could possibly lead to violence.
From Drew
If your mad at Bush pressuring the system(Phreak) to move a group of protestors, you should VOTE HIM THE **** OUT. Its the governemnts perogative on this issue; if you dont like what the government is doing, KICK THEM OUT. The government is well within its range of authority on this issue.
It's very difficult for people to get a full picture of things when protestors are pushed aside and hidden. Media attention is given to protestors near the president. If the news shows nothing but supporters for the president it skews the image slightly.
-
Actually, they were shot!! :eek:
See the 8th last paragraph:
One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring a number of people.
-
Oakland residents, peaceful?
-
Ask Raiders fans...... if any are left.
-
Nevermind. I dont know why I participate in threads like these, or even this Forum for that matter. I am tired of contending with a bunch of ****ing assholes who twist peoples words and actions out of proportion.
You all can goto hell. I'm done with this forum and all its anti-American ideas.
Bye to all the people who have helped me over the years, the rest can do what I said above.
And no, Im not worried about getting banned, I couldnt care less. If that happens I wont be tempted to come anymore.
damn that felt good
-
I realise I may just be being overly idealistic here, but it has always been my belief that any supposedly democratic leader, a peoples leader, should only ever ask of the people what he himself is willing to endure.
And considering he sent a few hundred thousand US citizens off to die in the Iraqi desert, I think the ****ing least he could trouble himself to do would be to listen to the pleas of the people upon whom his power both resides and relies.
-
Originally posted by JBX-Phoenix
They were not imprisioned. No one was keeping them from going home.
Not being allowed to go home isn't the definition of imprisoned. It's confinment. And lo and behold, forcing people to protest on a baseball field only is indeed confinment.
Listen, the government is completely within their rights to move possible hazards to the President away.
If the "possible hazard" is someone voicing their opinion with a sign, well then we have problems. I think people are taking the "imminent threat" matra a little too far. Political dissent is not a threat, well except to the people in power who are afraid of losing it.
Some of us Americans can get rather crazy when talking about politics. With recent terrorism threats, and especially since 9-11, I am not surprised that the government is a little paranoid.
So people who assemble and protest should be treated like terrorists?
"When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."
Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."
Apparently protesting the government makes you a terrorist. Oh no, Bush might have to read a sign! And maybe the news will show people yelling at him, not for him!
I, for one, am 110% with Bush and I get pissed off when people do as they are doing here, but I recognize that it is within their right.
You're pissed off when people prostest something they don't like? Like how dare they?
-
There is actually a rather serious problem with the Electorate College system used by the United States of America. If you actually look at the percentage of popular votes vs. the percentage of Electoral College votes, the margin is far closer for the popular vote. This also effectively destroys any chance for a third party to gain control of the White House without the demise of one of the existing parties.
Here's two examples of my point, the 1996 and 2000 elections, with the numbers obtained from the Federal Elections Commission's website:
I. 1996
A. Clinton
1. Electoral Vote percentage: 70.45%
2. Popular Vote percentage: 49.24%
B. Dole
1. Electoral Vote percentage: 29.45%
2. Popular Vote percentage: 40.71%
II. 2000
A. Gore
1. Electoral Vote percentage: 49.53%
2. Popular Vote percentage: 48.38%
B. Bush
1. Electoral Vote percentage: 50.47%
2. Popular Vote percentage: 47.87%
As shown by these numbers, the Electoral College truly does not represent the population of the country. And I'm sorry about the small sample pool, but the FEC only had two presidential elections on their site.
-
Anything less 'people oriented' than proportional representation is just plain ****ing stupid.
-
The electoral college system is a combination of proportional and non proportional. Each vote in the electoral college is cast by a congressmen (plus a few others like PuertoRico which has no congressmen but does get two votes, I think). Congress is both proportional and non-proportional. The Senate is made up of 2 senators from each state (giving states equal representation), while the House of Representatives has one representative for each X citizens (giving the people equal representation). Because the Electoral College is made up of both of these, you get really funky numbers.
Mind you, the person who casts the electoral vote for a given state or district could ignore the overall numbers and vote any way he pleased. Its been done in the past. Its just become de-riguer that the popular vote for a state dictates where ALL electoral votes for that state and its people go.
-
Originally posted by JBX-Phoenix
You all can goto hell. I'm done with this forum and all its anti-American ideas.
If criticism of the American government, an exercise of democratic rights and freedoms, is anti-American, then obviously the America you speak of is a dictatorship.
Anyway, as for the comments on the electoral college destroying the chance of other parties gaining power there are a lot of voting laws in individual states (such as declaring what party you are a member of to receive their ballot, and then having to file a party change to the state if you want a different one) that hinder the ability for the US to have multiple parties that can be more honest and direct in their objectives as opposed to two behemoth parties who attempt to please the masses.
-
Originally posted by JBX-Phoenix
Nevermind. I dont know why I participate in threads like these, or even this Forum for that matter. I am tired of contending with a bunch of ****ing assholes who twist peoples words and actions out of proportion.
You all can goto hell. I'm done with this forum and all its anti-American ideas.
Bye to all the people who have helped me over the years, the rest can do what I said above.
And no, Im not worried about getting banned, I couldnt care less. If that happens I wont be tempted to come anymore.
damn that felt good
Look dude, criticism with logic and fact to back it up is not wrong. Why is it anti-Americanism every time someone makes what they percieve to be a legitimate complaint, but the US can spit all over the rest of the world and its not considered anti-French or anti-Iranian or anti-Korean or whatever. You see what I mean? Why don't you just refute the arguements if you feel they are incorrect?
I think that if you were to make a list of the top what you would call anti-Americans (people critical of certain governement policies) on this forum, then I would rank pretty high up there. And I can tell you honestly that I've got nothing more against the American people than I've got against any other people. However the governement is a different story, and I think that its not only acceptable but actually helpful to be critical of the government. Your government, my government, any government. If not critical, than at the very least skeptical. Thats what makes you a citizen instead of a sheep (yes, I've said this same thing before). So long as you've got an actual point, and are not just pissed in their general direction. And I try never to rant on unless I've got a specifc and factual beef.
Peace out.
-
I really, deeply, truly hope that I'm near the top of JBX-Phoenix's "anti-american" list. :D
-
JBX - STFU this is the absolutely LEAST hostile forum i've ever been on - i keep expecting the others to be halfway as mature as this community and i'm always disappointed.
if people have a problem with what you're saying it's probably because you A) offend them B) are full of it
-
I almost wish we had a parliamentary system as opposed to our current system. Of course, that system also has it's own problems....
-
[color=cc9900]Get me enough resin and glass weave, and a huge floor space nearby the sea. Then I'll make a floating fibreglass city for HLP denizens. It's the only way arguments like this will ever end, since *****ing would then actually have an effect on the situation instead of just being mired somewhere deep within the internet.[/color]
-
Originally posted by JBX-Phoenix
Nevermind. I dont know why I participate in threads like these, or even this Forum for that matter. I am tired of contending with a bunch of ****ing assholes who twist peoples words and actions out of proportion.
You all can goto hell. I'm done with this forum and all its anti-American ideas.
Bye to all the people who have helped me over the years, the rest can do what I said above.
And no, Im not worried about getting banned, I couldnt care less. If that happens I wont be tempted to come anymore.
damn that felt good
If you aren't willing to accept other peoples opinions and beliefs, you shouldn't be online - period. Take a deep breath, and consider that this form of free speech is the very basis of democracy. Regardless of whether you agree with or not, it is needed, it is vital, and it's what stops countries turning into dictatorships
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900]Get me enough resin and glass weave, and a huge floor space nearby the sea. Then I'll make a floating fibreglass city for HLP denizens. It's the only way arguments like this will ever end, since *****ing would then actually have an effect on the situation instead of just being mired somewhere deep within the internet.[/color]
But why should it end? I was under the impression that politcal and social debate, regardless of whether or not it produces a tangible result, can only be beneficial to those discussing it and to their communities and ultimately, the world. You disagree?
-
[color=cc9900]I'd certainly challenge your "can only be beneficial". We've already had two members (by my count) walk off in a huff about "Anti-Americanism".[/color]
-
Well, reading through this thread, I've actually heard nothing really bad said about the American people, in fact, what I have seen is people complaining about the American peoples freedom being taken away. Since America was founded on the right to Freedom I consider taking peoples rights away to be far more 'Anti American' than any posts in here.
-
Well, am I (or anyone else for that matter) to blame if people overreact and decide to walk away. Their choice really. In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't turn into a flamewar or anything, just a fairly civilized debate. If people are offended when really there is nothing to be offended about, thats their thing and only they are accountable for their actions. I meant beneficial in a sense that it generally improves society based on the free expression of ideas. The Internet can, and often is, like one huge, open philosophy/sociology/politics class. And I see no problem with that. 3000 years ago, people were doing the same thing, only they didn't have the technology to facilitate such widespread communication. All the "anti-Americanism" so far has been very specific and factual. If people can't handle any critism whatsoever of their beloved nation, or if they choose not to dispute the ideas put forward, thats not my problem.
Ok, that was really OT, so I'll just end this conversation right here. Getting back on topic now....
edit: Flipside, check your post. I think you're getting the wrong meaning across. But if you meant what I assume you meant, then I comepletly agree.
-
[color=cc9900]I admit, one of my motives behind disliking discussions such as this is that it prevents me from the total eradication of American politics from my thought processes (I gave up on trying to understand it a while ago, and there's plenty enough to complain about in my own little country). Every time, it's "what have they done now?".
My other reason for disliking discussions like this is that the discussion is so similar and predictable every time something happens or is pointed out. Haven't we heard enough yet to happily establish that American politics just don't work?[/color]
-
I've been reading these threads for my morning entertainment for the last two months; these days there is at least one every week around here. When you get idiot statements coming from both sides in an argument, the best thing is to sit back and watch the fireworks. :D
There was some comment earlier about this being one of the best places on the internet to talk about this stuff. This is perfectly true, but considering the standards of the internet, that's not saying much. :p :D
-
Post edited, thanks Rictor, having an 'I cnat teyp' day :(
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900] Haven't we heard enough yet to happily establish that American politics just don't work?[/color]
Ah, but American politics DO work. Our nation is still here and hasn't balkanized (though, admittedly it almost did, once). That's a pretty good track record. Heck, we only had to rewrite our basic assumptions as a nation once (and if you're american and don't know what I'm talking about, you need to go back to history class).
-
They do work, I just wish we had more parties that actually had a chance to do something. And no one point out the fact that the Socialist party has one person in the House of Representatives as evidence that the third parties do have a chance to do something.
-
Not having nuked yourselves into a oblivion isn't exactly something that should be considered an accomplishment, Mik.
Also:
Heck, we only had to rewrite our basic assumptions as a nation once (and if you're american and don't know what I'm talking about, you need to go back to history class).
I'm English, so maybe you could spell it out for me.
Would you be refering to slavery? Or racism in general? Or maybe it was letting every nutter who wanted one have a gun? Or not letting women vote? Or maybe staying out of WW2 till your own asses were on the line?
As far as supposedly 'good' countries go, America has a pretty ****ty track-record.
-
Well, I hate to say it, but we aren't much better in that respect. Still at least we don't get a strop on if people say so ;)
Hell, I'd probably agree with more than half of it these days.
-
The thing with countries like Britain and Spain is that, yes we've got a history full of 'atrocities' and 'barbarism' but it was the countries of old working through all that **** that meant we don't have to go through it now.
Britain saw that conquering other countries was more trouble than it was worth and it was better to just back off, let them do their own stuff and start makin' nice with them once they were ready.
And that's where America goes fundamentally wrong.
They never had to go through all the thousands of years of butchering people and religious drivel. So that somehow automagically gives them the morale high-ground. And they lack perspective.
Britain knows that a few hundred years ago it was exactly like Iraq and Iran and Korean. Tyrants lording it up over the populous, doing as they pleased. And Britain knows that eventually they'll work through it. People will tire of oppression, changes will be made and eventually everyone will be happy.
Not America.
America seeks to impose change now. They don't want to keep the barbarians from the gate till they get bored and leave, they wanna pelt them with stones and call them names while they just keep on bangin'.
And as even the most fundamentally retarded of people knows: You kill a man to silence his beliefs and all you do is make a martyr.
-
at least were doing a better job than the british did :)
and lets not have any more davebs, lets not leave our pro American (read; sane ;)) forumites to fend for them selves in an ever left leaning comunity
-
A lot of this is motivated by the Corporate sectors thirst for Oil, I would not be surprised if there are those in the American Government (and other governments) who know exactly the long term outcomes of their actions, as well as a lot of intelligent, but alas powerless people who are unable to prevent it.
Now, I am not forwarding this as a conspiracy theory, merely as a test of your trust in the most powerful man in the world.....
If it turned out that, when a week after Spirit lands, George Bush wants to go to Mars, and is mysteriously immobile for a while, it turned out that Mars WAS once vegetated and now had massive Oilfields?
Like I said, not a conspiracy theory, I don't believe this to be actually true, just a test of what your first thought is.
Edit : I mean Spirit is immobile, not George Bush, not that anyone would tell.
ph34r the 2am poster ;)
-
Wait wait, when did George Bush land on Mars?
-
About 45 minutes after China nuked his ass.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Would you be refering to slavery? Or racism in general? Or maybe it was letting every nutter who wanted one have a gun? Or not letting women vote? Or maybe staying out of WW2 till your own asses were on the line?
As far as supposedly 'good' countries go, America has a pretty ****ty track-record.
Wow. That's pretty groovy, An0n. Especially since many, if not most, of the grossest world-wide cockups in the western world in the last 500yrs can be laid at the feet of the Brits. Of course, given the whole 'the sun never sets on the British Empire' mentality led to you guys having one of the widest ranging colonial systems on earth. Of course you ended up screwing up the middle east, southwest asia, parts of south america and your own favorite bastard child, the USA.
What I was referring to was the fact that the current US system was not our first. We had the Articles of Confederation before we had the Constitution. Under the Articles, we had a completely different governement (nearly no federal government to speak of) and mostly a bunch of squalling states.
BTW, I find it funny that you're complaining about WW2, when your own government did nearly nothing to avert it, failing to enforce the sanctions you demanded after WW1. WW2 was your problem until the Japanese bombed us, have no doubt. I also find it entertaining you talk about the US and slavery, without acknowledging anyone elses involvement--like oh, the British, the Spanish and Portuguese, the Dutch, and all the rest of your happy little imperial european powers--in either the slavery, or the slave trade that continued after you lot abandoned it back home.
Don't give me the self righteous bull**** about the US, an0n. You evidently have forgotten your own history, and don't know ours.
Originally posted by Bobboau
at least were doing a better job than the british did :)
and lets not have any more davebs, lets not leave our pro American (read; sane ;)) forumites to fend for them selves in an ever left leaning comunity
Bob, pro-american and left-leaning are not mutually exclusive, thanks.
-
true, but it does have a tendency to go that way, there arn't too many right wing anti-American groupes
-
Oh, I don't know. Fox News is about as right wing as it gets, Bob, and they're pretty anti-american. They against the freedom of speech, for example (well, unless you're a republican).
-
can someone just explain to me, is the word 'america' here used as a sort of ideal by which people can rationalise their actions? i mean, people are saying 'pro-american' and 'anti-american' in much the same tones as one might say 'pro-communist' or 'anti-christian' and those refer to (i know im generalising here) ideologies.
so can we define 'american' as an ideology? (i wouldn't presume to say what it might be an ideology of.)
-
It IS an ideology, Icespeed. Its just that we don't agree on what that ideology is. Personally, I take the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the land, as the core of what is 'american'. Even that, however is up for debate, as its sometimes difficult to pin down what the Constitution means. The second amendment is a very good example of that.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Wow. That's pretty groovy, An0n. Especially since many, if not most, of the grossest world-wide cockups in the western world in the last 500yrs can be laid at the feet of the Brits. Of course, given the whole 'the sun never sets on the British Empire' mentality led to you guys having one of the widest ranging colonial systems on earth. Of course you ended up screwing up the middle east, southwest asia, parts of south america and your own favorite bastard child, the USA.
What I was referring to was the fact that the current US system was not our first. We had the Articles of Confederation before we had the Constitution. Under the Articles, we had a completely different governement (nearly no federal government to speak of) and mostly a bunch of squalling states.
BTW, I find it funny that you're complaining about WW2, when your own government did nearly nothing to avert it, failing to enforce the sanctions you demanded after WW1. WW2 was your problem until the Japanese bombed us, have no doubt. I also find it entertaining you talk about the US and slavery, without acknowledging anyone elses involvement--like oh, the British, the Spanish and Portuguese, the Dutch, and all the rest of your happy little imperial european powers--in either the slavery, or the slave trade that continued after you lot abandoned it back home.
Don't give me the self righteous bull**** about the US, an0n. You evidently have forgotten your own history, and don't know ours.
I think an0ns' point was that the US nation doesn't have the history to recognise the mistakes of old....whereas the likes of the 'old powers' at least have that history to try and learn from.
On the subject of WW2, don't think that the US wasn't involved in WW2 before the Japanese picked a fight. German u-boats were attacking Us arms convoys in the Atlantic, and Hitler, IIRC, sent a letter to Mexico offering financial & military support if they invaded Texas (as he saw US entry into the war as inevitable).
Although if you're suggesting that the US would have been willing to see the eventual genocide of the Jewish, then non-Aryan popuation in Europe and would not have intervened.........
-
Definate advantages to living in a communist state. You'd all be too busy building tanks and rockets to ***** about politics on a webforum for gaming. :p
-
like oh, the British, the Spanish and Portuguese, the Dutch, and all the rest of your happy little imperial european powers
:D Portugal is an european power!!! :ha: I never heard anyone saying this since... er... the 16th century... :sigh: :doubt: :(
ok, fun is over lets review the rest of your post...
WW2 was an indirect result of something happening in 1929 (in the U.S.) if I recall, it was called the "Great Depression" so Britain and France, the main forces behind the control made on Germany by the armistice were seriously affected as well as most of europe. I don't believe this to be the americans fault, but it was the economists fault!
When Hitler started attacking countries left and right, all they could do was watch because their military power wasn't even comparable to that of the 3rd Reich.
Only when they invaded Poland, which had a treaty with Britain (not sure about france) did they declare war... but even then, they waited a few days (3 if I recall).
The japs as you call them WERE in fact a threat to the U.S. as well as the war in europe... who do you think they were going to attack next when their targets in the pacific and in europe disappeared? But by then, they would be prepared... have no doubt.
Speaking of slavery is like trying to decide what came first, the chicken or it's egg? Because not only the europeans and the U.S. had it but also every god damned country in the world!! It's not just a stain on the history sheet of a country... it's a stain on humanity!!
Different times, different minds... no way you can relate past with present... it's like seing who's best, Bach or Mozart?
Shrike... who says communism is bad? :D You're right... :lol:
P.S.
What do americans learn in history classes?
Because of their short history (+\- 200 years), I have always wondered about this... :confused:
-
I think that mik has a point. The British Empire was at its peak both larger and crueler than the US is today. However, I can completely agree with the other part, saying how Europe has learned from their experiences. They've had almost 2000 years of nearly constant war. Through this, they've learned (not completely, but certainly much more than America) the terrible cost of war. Every country in Europe has had a war on their territory, had their people die and starve and run from bombs. Most of them have had in many times. So they know the chaos that they're inflicting upon a coutry when they bomb it, or when they invade or when they implement trade sanctions. America has never had a large and bloody war (yes, the war of independece but that was over 200 years ago) on its soil. The case could be made for the Civil War, but it was just that, a civil war. It wasn't one nation invading another, so I don't think the point really got across.
Thats not to say that Britain orthe rest of Europe are some sort of angels, to be admired for their humanity. For one thing, all their "antiwar" sentiments are worth exactly ****, since not 4 years ago they were the ones who were wholeheartedly dropping bombs. People tend to forget that. And another thing, its not like the British Empire saw themselves for what they were, threw themselves upon the ground and swore to repair the damage. They were forced out of existence by rebellion in the colonies as well as by the feasability of maintaining an Empire.
May the US empire never become what the British was 100 years ago. I don't think I'de like to live in that world.
__
And no Shrike, thats not one of the advantages. Read Huxley's Brave New World.
-
Besides Shrike, they've got TV now. It does the same thing. Instead of worrying how many children your tax dollars killed today, you can just watch The Bachelor or The OC or whatever **** happens to be on that day. And then you get immersed in their reality instead of your own, and suddenly everything is all right.
As I've said before, I believe that in the near future, there will be entire wars that go completely unnoticed because the final episode of Survivor was one. The politicians have figured out a way to keep the masses docile, and its called TeeVee. No one knows who the president of Iran is, but everyone knows every little detail about Jennifer Lopez and Ben Afflek's marriage woes. Its ****ing shameful.
-
The question for this thread for the day: What is the status of the US today? Ascending empire or declining empire?
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
The question for this thread for the day: What is the status of the US today? Ascending empire or declining empire?
Ascending power, in risk of drastic future decline.
i.e. the Us is undoubtedly the most powerful and influential country in the world. However, depending on the actions over the next decade or so, it could easily become a pariah state.... not just over the 'War on terror' and Bushes 'strike first' policy, but also over what sort of measures the Us takes to actually improve the world - i.e. reducing third world debt (as it wants to do for Iraq, a country with vast oil reserves), steps away from agressive protectionsim in trade (like the steel tarriffs), more co-operation and willingness to use the UN, anti-pollution measures, etc.
The US is probably the country with the greatest potential to change the worse. Whether it's for better or worse is the question....
As an aside, I don't think the UK is doing enough either... this country is going down the ****ter rapidly, in terms of transport, economy, education, politics, the environment and pretty much everything.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
For one thing, all their "antiwar" sentiments are worth exactly ****, since not 4 years ago they were the ones who were wholeheartedly dropping bombs.
If you're refering to bombing the **** out of Kosovo, I think destroying a few buildings to stop the genocide of an entire race of people is about as good a justification for war as you can get.
And on the subject of WW2, Britain tried and tried and tried to prevent a war with Germany because, when all is said and done, the lives of a few thousand Jews being lost every day is nothing compared to potentially reliving WW1 and losing 18 million people and turning France into one huge, smoking crater again.
So Britain left it and left it and pleaded with Hitler and told him not to **** around. And he did it anyway.
And where was America when he started genociding people? No-****ing-where to be seen.
They only even started talking about screwing Hitler when the U-boats kept harassing American convoys in the Atlantic.
Then they waited till they were directly attacked before they started fighting.
Britain knew they couldn't stand up to the resurrected German army. They knew there was talk of a ton of countries joining the Germans. They knew that Hitler's troops were trained intensely. They knew that the Germans possessed some of the most advanced technology to date. They knew there was a very real possibility of losing. And still they just said "**** it. This is wrong" and started the war anyway.
That's a hell of alot different from America getting kicked in the balls and overwhelming the Axis with their massive industrial and economic capacity.
WW2 was an indirect result of something happening in 1929 (in the U.S.) if I recall, it was called the "Great Depression" so Britain and France, the main forces behind the control made on Germany by the armistice were seriously affected as well as most of europe. I don't believe this to be the americans fault, but it was the economists fault!
No.
The Treaty of Versailles took everything Germany had, so they had to lend a ****-load of cash from America to pay France reparitions so that they wouldn't invade the Rhineland and take all the coal (one of the few valuables that Germany had left). After a while and with some very clever politicizing Germany was getting back on its feet and was on its way to becoming a respectable state again.
When the stock-market crashed, America called in all its loans and pulled the rug out from under Germany. Germany was suddenly bankrupt and this opened the door for Hitler to come in *****ing about how the Jews had caused it all. How the Jews, who owned most of the banks and **** in America that screwed Germany, had most definitely screwed Germany.
-
Originally posted by an0n
If you're refering to bombing the **** out of Kosovo, I think destroying a few buildings to stop the genocide of an entire race of people is about as good a justification for war as you can get.
And on the subject of WW2, Britain tried and tried and tried to prevent a war with Germany because, when all is said and done, the lives of a few thousand Jews being lost every day is nothing compared to potentially reliving WW1 and losing 18 million people and turning France into one huge, smoking crater again.
So Britain left it and left it and pleaded with Hitler and told him not to **** around. And he did it anyway.
And where was America when he started genociding people? No-****ing-where to be seen.
They only even started talking about screwing Hitler when the U-boats kept harassing American convoys in the Atlantic.
Then they waited till they were directly attacked before they started fighting.
Britain knew they couldn't stand up to the resurrected German army. They knew there was talk of a ton of countries joining the Germans. They knew that Hitler's troops were trained intensely. They knew that the Germans possessed some of the most advanced technology to date. They knew there was a very real possibility of losing. And still they just said "**** it. This is wrong" and started the war anyway.
That's a hell of alot different from America getting kicked in the balls and overwhelming the Axis with their massive industrial and economic capacity.
No.
The Treaty of Versailles took everything Germany had, so they had to lend a ****-load of cash from America to pay France reparitions so that they wouldn't invade the Rhineland and take all the coal (one of the few valuables that Germany had left). After a while and with some very clever politicizing Germany was getting back on its feet and was on its way to becoming a respectable state again.
When the stock-market crashed, America called in all its loans and pulled the rug out from under Germany. Germany was suddenly bankrupt and this opened the door for Hitler to come in *****ing about how the Jews had caused it all. How the Jews, who owned most of the banks and **** in America that screwed Germany, had most definitely screwed Germany.
Um...this actually got a few inaccuraccies.
Firstly, I don't think Britain or indeed any of the allies knew about the concentration camps till far later in the war. The first actual mass killings took place in November 1938, during the Kristallnacht (Crystal nighte / night of broken Glass), and the organized killing about a year-ish later (the physically / mentally disabled were klilled first, on the outbreak of war). Had this been going on beforehand, I have no doubt international opinion would be much firmer when it came to appeasement.
Also, the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles was down to the French wish to completely remove Germany as a future threat. The US actually wanted a faily lenient treaty, as did the UK (albeit ot a lesser degree, namely the removal of the German naval threat) because of the need for a stable Germany to maintain European peace.
IIRC, in the 1920s Germany was suffering from hyperinflation, and totally reliant on foreign aid - it was by no means recovering, and was still, I believe, crippled by paying reparations to France for war damage. Secondly, it's worth poniting out that the Nazi's were never elected- IIRC they got about 25% of the vote, but were part of a coalition government, with Hitler appointed chancellor. The reason for the coalition was because of the growing streght of the Communists (the 2nd party).
Finally, the declarataion of war on Germany was not a moral point... it was a treatied obligation which could not be broken (unlike, for example, the German annexation of parts of Czechoslovakia).
-
Nazis had 43% of the vote by 1932. Up ~10% or so from 1931. If Hitler had waited to seize power, the Nazis would have definately got a majority vote (if the rate held).
-
Fortunately for the rest of the world, strangely enough, Hitler was a stark staring Meglomaniac. Had someone more savvy been in charge, the War may very well have gone differently for Britain.
One thing I must admit I wonder about is all this 'evidence' found in Iraq, the supposed Nuclear Research Lab, details of cash payments to a British MP, details of how to build Nuclear devices etc.... Once these started being proved as complete cheese, they myseriously vanished without a word, I wonder where they went?
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
Nazis had 43% of the vote by 1932. Up ~10% or so from 1931. If Hitler had waited to seize power, the Nazis would have definately got a majority vote (if the rate held).
EDIT
In the May 5 elections of 1932, Hindenburg defeated Hitler 53% to 37% for the presidency, but there was no majority in the Reichstag for any party; in the July31 elections the Nazis won 230 seats with 37% of the vote and became the largest German party, but dropped to 33% in the Nov. 6 elections; Dec. 1, Kurt von Schleicher replaced Franz von Papen as Chancellor but instability increased.
Hitler made Chancellor Jan. 30, 1933, with the help of von Papen, and sought revision of Versailles system by immediately beginning a rearmament program with the support of industrialists such as Alfred Hugenberg and Gustav Krupp (who by April agreed to remove Jewish workers from his factories), and a public works program announced at the Feb. 11 International Automobile and Motor-Cycle Exhibition in Berlin, to build autobahns with 600,000 workers and make a Volksauto for less than 1000 marks.
In the March 5, 1933 elections, the National Socialist German Workers' Party won 43.9% and 288 of 647 seats in the Reichstag. The Malicious Practices Act of March 21, 1933, began the mass arrests of communists and socialists, the Dauchau concentration camp was set up March 22 in a former powder milk plant, the Enabling Act March 23 made Hitler dictator and eliminated other parties such as the pro-Catholic Zentrum, radical books were burned May 10.
On Sept. 27, 1933, the Nazis blamed communists for the Reichstag fire.
(http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/Prelude03.html)
-
All I was saying about the Treaty was that it stripped Germany of everything.
As for the concentration camps, it doesn't exactly take a genius to go from "Hitler wrote a book about killing Jews" and "Hitler is invading a largely Jewish country" to "Hitler's going to kill the Jews".
And Germany was recovering. Thanks to some politician whose name I cannot remember and the Dawes Plan, Germany was given a ****load of money (around 1924) and was on it's way to becoming not-a-****hole. Then the Great Depression killed it (1929).
Also, through a series of political killings, the burning of the Reichstag and some rapid-fire re-electing Hitler did get elected but the Nazi's never had a majority. If the other two governmental factions (whose ideologies and names escape me) had banded together they could've out-voted the Nazi's and ousted them fairly easily. But they instead chose to bicker and ***** at each other while Hitler 'canoodled' himself a greater percentage.
PS: At least use the goddamn SIZE tag.
-
Originally posted by an0n
All I was saying about the Treaty was that it stripped Germany of everything.
As for the concentration camps, it doesn't exactly take a genius to go from "Hitler wrote a book about killing Jews" and "Hitler is invading a largely Jewish country" to "Hitler's going to kill the Jews".
And Germany was recovering. Thanks to some politician whose name I cannot remember and the Dawes Plan, Germany was given a ****load of money (around 1924) and was on it's way to becoming not-a-****hole. Then the Great Depression killed it (1929).
Also, through a series of political killings, the burning of the Reichstag and some rapid-fire re-electing Hitler did get elected but the Nazi's never had a majority. If the other two governmental factions (whose ideologies and names escape me) had banded together they could've out-voted the Nazi's and ousted them fairly easily. But they instead chose to bicker and ***** at each other while Hitler 'canoodled' himself a greater percentage.
PS: At least use the goddamn SIZE tag.
You were blaming the US for the effects of the Treaty, which was inaccurate, as it was more the fault of the French (don't want to get a French bashing match started, but it is true).
Also, the countries Hitler invaded were ones with a large population of Germans (up until Poland) - Austria, the Ruhrland and the north(?) of Czechoslovakia. It is also highly unlikely that it would have been expected that Hitler would create concentation camps.... offhand, I can't really think of a comparable precedent in history before that.
i haven;t been able to find a good site on the Dawe Plan, but IIRC it made Germany reliant on foreign investment - not the property of an economically strong country. Whether or not that would facilitate recovery is something i'll leave to economists to debate...my impresison is that the Germany was extremely fragile, as seen by the influence of the Great Depression.
The 2 other largest factions were the Democratic party (can't remeber name, but the 'normal' one)....and the Communists.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WW2 was an indirect result of something happening in 1929 (in the U.S.) if I recall, it was called the "Great Depression" so Britain and France, the main forces behind the control made on Germany by the armistice were seriously affected as well as most of europe. I don't believe this to be the americans fault, but it was the economists fault!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
The Treaty of Versailles took everything Germany had, so they had to lend a ****-load of cash from America to pay France reparitions so that they wouldn't invade the Rhineland and take all the coal (one of the few valuables that Germany had left). After a while and with some very clever politicizing Germany was getting back on its feet and was on its way to becoming a respectable state again.
When the stock-market crashed, America called in all its loans and pulled the rug out from under Germany. Germany was suddenly bankrupt and this opened the door for Hitler to come in *****ing about how the Jews had caused it all. How the Jews, who owned most of the banks and **** in America that screwed Germany, had most definitely screwed Germany.
How shall I start this... hm...
I wonder what happened in 1929, and what that event started... :mad2: (I should have wrote "starting" instead of "happening" on my previous post which is quoted here)
Yep... that's what I figured... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It is also highly unlikely that it would have been expected that Hitler would create concentation camps.... offhand, I can't really think of a comparable precedent in history before that.
Um, actually Kitchner stuffed the Boers in concentration camps way back in the day. The more I learn about our history the less I like it :)
-
You cannot attribute WW2 to the Great Depression, nor to any other singular event.
If anything it was mostly down to Germany being crapped on by the Treaty Of Versailles. They got their asses kicked, their king ran off to Amsterdam, their economy was gone, their workers were all dead, their resources had been wasted on war, destroyed or taken by the invaders and then after all that: They had to suffer the indignity of their long-time enemy, France, lording it up and dictating policy to them.
So as soon as they were able, they went and restarted WW1.
-
Like all wars, World War 2 had many contributing causes - re-emergin German nationalism owing to the aftereffects of world war 2, the conflict of fascist / communist ideology, the effects of WW1 reducing the will of allied countries to fight, Hitlers 'aggressive' economic policies that had to be financed through invasion, etc. and that's without considering Japan, Russia, Italy, the effects of the collapse of teh LofN, the Spanish civil war, etc.
-
WW2 was down to one vague factor: Germany got dicked on after WW1.
They were pissed and looking for a fight. Hitler offered it to them and they jumped at the chance for some cold, cold revenge.
-
When did this become a history class?
-
Understanding history is vital to understanding the present. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, and all that.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Besides Shrike, they've got TV now. It does the same thing. Instead of worrying how many children your tax dollars killed today, you can just watch The Bachelor or The OC or whatever **** happens to be on that day. And then you get immersed in their reality instead of your own, and suddenly everything is all right.
As I've said before, I believe that in the near future, there will be entire wars that go completely unnoticed because the final episode of Survivor was one. The politicians have figured out a way to keep the masses docile, and its called TeeVee. No one knows who the president of Iran is, but everyone knows every little detail about Jennifer Lopez and Ben Afflek's marriage woes. Its ****ing shameful.
My tax dollars hasn't killed children in a while to my knowledge..... Guess I'm lucky that I'm not American. Of course we've got our own issues but we don't have the US's power so they're nowhere near as visible.
-
Originally posted by an0n
WW2 was down to one vague factor: Germany got dicked on after WW1.
They were pissed and looking for a fight. Hitler offered it to them and they jumped at the chance for some cold, cold revenge.
You're forgetting Germany wasn't the only country in the Axis....what led Italy & Japan, for example, into war? Why did Russia sign a non-aggression pact with Germany, allowing them to-initially-avoid a 2 fronted war? What prevent Britain and / or France from either stamping down on the German remilitarisation, or suspending reparations? Why did Hitler come to power?
etc, etc.
Yes, the Teaty of Versailles was a primary factor - problably the main one. But there are other factors that you can't just ignore, which is the point i'm making.
-
Hmm... I personally believe that no war is ever cause by one issue alone, but I do agree that the treaty was the major cause. Germany did get their ass kicked in WW1, they got their whole navy dismantled, and they were globally humiliated. The people wanted revenge, and Hitler offered it to them...
but thankfully, when you play with the devil, you'll always get ****ed in the end. :D
-
Originally posted by an0n
If you're refering to bombing the **** out of Kosovo, I think destroying a few buildings to stop the genocide of an entire race of people is about as good a justification for war as you can get.
Oh for ****s sake. I would have thought that someone as jaded as yourself would be a bit more resilient to the effects of near propaganda. Silly me.
Mistake 1:
Those "few buildings" you refer to are are actually thousands of civilians. I don't know the precise figure, no one does, but around 1500 Serb civilians died as a result of the bombing, and many Albanians too. The targets hit by NATO bombs include:
-TV Stations
-Marketplaces
-Hospitals
-Refugee convoys (Albanian ones at that. Yes, those Albanians. The ones who you were "protecting")
-Schools
-Private residences
-Churches
-The Chinese Embassy. (I had a good laugh about that one)
Mistake 2
One has only to speak the word genocide, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. No one bothers to check if there actually IS a genocide going on. I'll save you the trouble, there wasn't. The "genocide of an entire race" is bull****. Pure, 24k bull****. The conflict in Kosovo was between KLA (Kosovo Libertation Army) terrorists (and yes, they have been classified as such by the US prior to the war) and Serb police forces. The KLA wanted independece for Kosovo, Serbia didn't agree. As long as you (Britain) deny the very same thing to Ireland, your hipocracy is apparent. During the fighting, both sides "strongly persuaded" opposing residents to leave the area. So, Serb refugees fled north, and Albanian refugees fled south. I can't remember the exact figures, but there was more Serb refugees than Albanian ones. The media multiplied the actual number of refugees by something like ten fold. And everyone bought into it, completely ignoring the fact that a)The figures were made up and b)There was as many if not more Serb refugees than Albanian ones.
As for the "mass graves" found, well they too were a fabrication. First of all, the figures are not in the thousands but rather in the hundreds. Hundreds does not constitute genocide, especially when those burried were soldiers, not civilians. Oh and, by the way, there were Serbs buried there too, counted by the media as Albanians. So now you don't have thousands of civilians, you've got hundreds of soldiers, some of whom were Serbs. Convenient things, lies.
Ommisions 1
You know tht evil bastard, bin Laden? Public enemy #1. Yeah him. Well, guess who was the US best buddy during the Kosovo war? Hey, who 'da thunk it. Not only has it been proven that the KLA had (and still has) connections to Islamic terrorist groups, but its quite possible that bin Laden was sent to Kosovo to rally the troops. Damn those facts, very inconvenient aren't they.
Ommision 2
Since NATIO invaded and set up Kosovo as a protectorate, all the things that the media said was going on in Kosovo in 1999 are actually happening today. Only now, its the other way around. The KLA do as they will, and the international "peacekeepers" are unwilling to stop them. What does this include? The mass expulsion on non-Albanian peoples from Kosovo. Not just Serbs, anyone who isn't Albanian. The constant terrorist attacks ( defined as attacks on civilains) against the few remaining Serbs in the area. Worth mentioning also is that Kosovo before the war was the main route for heroin from Asia bound for Europe. Thats how the KLA financed their operations. And you know whats changed. Nutin'.
__
Wow, a several hundred word response to a two sentence statement. And you know the thing that gets to me? You (and probably no one else) will read it. Thats the price of going counter to a frequently discredited yet widely believed lie.
-
I went through it
-
(1) Kosovo ethnic cleansing was precipitated by the US led bombing, it did not occur before hand.
(2) KFOR troops stood by and did nothing while Serbs either fled or were evacuated by KLA forces "reclaiming" Kosovo.
(3) Ireland is different - by the late 20th century it was more about gangsters and power plays than ideology.
-
As far as I can recall, most Northern Irelanders actually want to be part of Britain and the whole situation over there is so ****ed up that I don't ever really think it'll ever go away.
-
4 : The IRA was financed to a massive degree in it's campaign of terror against British civilians by unknowing American business men who believed they were funding a 'peaceful' protest against the situation.
-
5: We kicked their ****in' asses.
-
And stole all their potatoes. Or something
-
Originally posted by vyper
(1) Kosovo ethnic cleansing was precipitated by the US led bombing, it did not occur before hand.
(2) KFOR troops stood by and did nothing while Serbs either fled or were evacuated by KLA forces "reclaiming" Kosovo.
(3) Ireland is different - by the late 20th century it was more about gangsters and power plays than ideology.
1) Ethnic cleansing of whom? By whom? Please be clear when you make a statement such as this. The basic jist of it is, before the bombing both sides were forcing out opposing civilians, however after the war only the KLA continued, and still continue doing it. Thats because if a Serb so much as raises his voice in Kosovo now, the KFOR "peacekeepers" yell bloody murder. However, the same does not apply for the KLA who conduct terrorist operations in full view of and with the full knowledge of KFOR.
2) That statement makes no sense. How were the Serbs evacuated by the KLA? The Serb police forces withdrew from Kosovo because that was what they were supposed to do. That was what the war was all about. It was one of the conditions for ending the bombing.
3) Yes, the North Ireland conflict has tons of history behind it, but I'm willing to bet that Kosovo has more. The conflict between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo has been going on in some form or another for several hundred years. It goes all the way back to the days of the Ottoman occupation.
And again, as much as the IRA is financed by gansters and foreign "businessmen" I'm willing to wager that the KLA is more so. Kosovo has for some time been a huge staging area for all sorts of criminal operations. Mostly, this has been heroin, going through Kosovo on its way to Europe. You wonder how all that Asian heroin and opium gets to Europe? Kosovo. This is where the money for all the bombs and guns and such for the KLA comes from.
As well, the US financed the KLA to fight the Serbs, much like it did with bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians. One day they're best buddies, the next he's the most wanted man alive. And no one is actually going to fess up, to be held accountable for supporting terrorist organizations.
Because, terrorists are OK, as long as they're our terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
1) Ethnic cleansing of whom? By whom? Please be clear when you make a statement such as this.
I believe you're aware of the inditements over the masssacre of Kosovan women and children by the Serb army in Kosovo, however you seem to cling to the belief that Milosevic wouldn't allow that sort of thing, regardless of the mass graves.
-
This is why I've not bothered responding to his post.
I can tollerate misled beliefs. I can tollerate people who simply disagree. But his level of stupidity is beyond compare, so I've just given up.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Because, terrorists are OK, as long as they're our terrorists.
You mean "Freedom Fighters".
-
Just nuke the whole area and you'll solve the conflicts...
Here in Italy we easily see the effects of the whole thing...
It's just a matter of counting how many people will land in Italy with the next boat...
-
They're 'freedom fighters' when we support them, 'terrorists' when we don't and 'guerillas' if we can't decide.
-
And 'rebels' if we're secretly selling them weapons.