And there, in a nutshell, is his entire argument.
Actually, you may well be correct on the points in that last big post. And what in the world is wrong with that? In fact, if that stuff is all true, it would make the US the greatest and most powerful nation on the planet, one that is capable of conquering the world. I don't think they are quite that good at the moment, but it is possible if everything you are saying is completely correct.
Besides, if you are naive enough to think that there can exist a true "democratic" government that can actually survive without lying to and cheating the populace it represents, I really don't know what to say.
(it only works for their practical well-being as it contributes to the whole, and the opinions are no exception) The whole idea of democracy is about who the best propagandist is, since he is the one who "convinces" people best. And I am not talking about it in merely a practical sense either; all "choice" boils down to being convinced by external forces, and propagandic media is just one of these. This is what democracy is all about, so get used to it.
I'm not asking for a debate club. All I was saying is if you have to revert to shouting/yelling/or what Anon did then it shows you can't back your opinion.
I've argued with him before; don't worry, he does that all the time too.
Actually, things like Rumsfeld trying to declare peace demonstrators "terrorists" are what bother me. He's a psychotic bastard of the sort who belongs in a cage.
This is actually not that far from the truth, but traitors is more like it for the vast majority of them. Close enough, at any rate.
Ghandi = Good
Now this bull cannot be allowed to stand. As a second-generation Indian immigrant, I have looked at the history there quite closely and have come to the conclusion that this is quite possibly the worst and stupidest man in recent history who ever lived, and certainly worse than Hitler. Hitler only killed his people, so the devastation caused to his nation lasted only that generation, but this guy spread dangerously stupid and popularly appealing ideas, ones that have not only brought down his nation but kept it down, since ideas live on beyond individuals. The guy who killed him deserved the title of the mahatma.
The US has overthrown dozens of democracies when we didn't like the results of free elections, and installed militant dictatorships. Until nearly the second half of this century, the idea of a "free" election would have best been regarded as an uproarious joke, as favoritism, fraud, and bribery were routine in elections. Even now, we are "encouraging" the leader of more than one European state to act against the express will of its populace, and are considering seriously a number of acts such as the one linked to in this thread of the sort Orwell could have written about.
This is what I admire most about them; they know the science of statecraft very well, second only to perhaps the UK. Also, the second half of the century has hardly changed a thing for "free elections," which have been more or less the same since the dawn of mankind.
Also, I found this rather funny:
'Cos otherwise I'm getting a C-4 vest and paying a visit to Washington.
I suppose this is your idea of standing up to oppressive authority. Now is it clear why they say that the opinions of the weak are irrelevant?
