Politics 2017 part 4

[Ben No.3]

See, even if I told you I had, it would be useless ^^

 

And always such ad-hominem. Can't we just all agree that that is an useless form of argument?

Edited March 3, 2017 by Ben No.3

[BruceVC]

 

 

Did US citizens freedom not already suffer enough from this fight against "Islam"? Did you really learn nothing from your fight against "communism"?

Well the West won the ideological war against Communism and it will obviously win the war against Islamic extremism....what lesson should we learn?

Essentially, what it means for freedom and freedom of speech. The Cold War took away everyone's opinion who was himself a communist or just somewhat around that spectrum in the name of security and te American way. Black List and all, does that ring a bell?

Now, it takes on different forms with Islam, namely the constant surveillance. But in essence, it is the exact same thing all over again.

 

Another thing is that the ideologies in question become senselessly defied in pure black and white patterns. Very few in the Cold War bothered to read Marx, Engels or even Lenin. Very few today bother to read the Quran (even though it would do good-one of the last few Textes even specifically tells Muslims that they have their religion, others have their own religion, and everyone should just get along). This of course does not only result in the waging of a war against the abstract concept of a certain ideology, but it also creates so much unnecessary fear, justifying the measures I've previously mentioned in the first place.

 

I know the high level views of Marx and guys like Lenin and I haven't read even a single page of the Quran but I doubt reading these works would change my view that I am fundamentally opposed to both Communism and Islamic Extremism.....

 

I know you not suggesting I should read them but what would the benefit be?

[HoonDing]

Marx was a good man; I saved his ass in Asscreed Syndicate.

[Zoraptor]

 

Is anyone really surprised that Pence uses AOL? Hardly seems equivalent in any way to Hillary's situation.

Well could argue it is, external server is as bad as your own. Is a fun situation for types like Pence harping on about integrity or justice or whatever moralizing hill they want to shoot from.

 

 

Eh, don't think you really can. It's comparing the governor of a fairly unimportant state- with appropriate apologies to any Indiana natives- with the country's Secretary of State when it comes to things like email security expectations. In terms of civilian positions SoS is top 3? in terms of the security that is required and it's a massive deal if their correspondence is being read by 3rd parties, I'd doubt Governor Pence would come close to cracking the top 100 (and likely not even the top 1000) on the importance level. There's also the other Hillary baggage, like archiving avoidance and it being potentially outright illegal for her to have the server. Pence seems to have been nothing other than typical Internet Grandad dumb, it's pretty easy to argue that Hillary was considerably worse than merely dumb, as well as being in a more important job.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

Did US citizens freedom not already suffer enough from this fight against "Islam"? Did you really learn nothing from your fight against "communism"?

Well the West won the ideological war against Communism and it will obviously win the war against Islamic extremism....what lesson should we learn?

Essentially, what it means for freedom and freedom of speech. The Cold War took away everyone's opinion who was himself a communist or just somewhat around that spectrum in the name of security and te American way. Black List and all, does that ring a bell?

Now, it takes on different forms with Islam, namely the constant surveillance. But in essence, it is the exact same thing all over again.

 

Another thing is that the ideologies in question become senselessly defied in pure black and white patterns. Very few in the Cold War bothered to read Marx, Engels or even Lenin. Very few today bother to read the Quran (even though it would do good-one of the last few Textes even specifically tells Muslims that they have their religion, others have their own religion, and everyone should just get along). This of course does not only result in the waging of a war against the abstract concept of a certain ideology, but it also creates so much unnecessary fear, justifying the measures I've previously mentioned in the first place.

I know the high level views of Marx and guys like Lenin and I haven't read even a single page of the Quran but I doubt reading these works would change my view that I am fundamentally opposed to both Communism and Islamic Extremism.....

 

I know you not suggesting I should read them but what would the benefit be?

Well let's differentiate... you don't need to agree with Lenin in order to agree with Marx, and you don't need to fully agree with Marx to see that he has a point (in some cases.... admittedly, other cases are just moronic). But let's not go there, that's not the point.

 

So I recommend you read the Quran, just because it is simply well written. It contains, even when translated, quite beautiful poetry. And some none of us speak Arabic, to my knowledge, it appears we are missing out on some true art.

And of course, itll be a huge cultural benefit.

 

But anyway, you can't really oppose the extreme version of an ideology (be it Marxism-Leninism or Islamic Extremism) if you don't understand the ideology it is based on (Socialism or Islam). If you try to do that, then you are not opposing something, you are just being ignorant.

 

And then of course, ignorance leads to unreasonable fear, a dogmatic world view and unnecessary, unhelpful and useless prejudice. There are communists/socialists and Muslims out there who genuinely want to make the world a better place. And they are even the vast majority of said groups. Of course there are extremists, but this is true for any ideology.

 

But if you just oppose their entire ideology, without fully understanding it, how will you ever tell the difference between an extremist and someone who simply has a different point of view?

So I will stress this again: you need to read the Quran.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Chilloutman]

'unreasonable fear'

 

HAH, Good one

[Ben No.3]

'unreasonable fear'

 

HAH, Good one

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!

[Chilloutman]

 

'unreasonable fear'

 

HAH, Good one

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!

 

 

Democracy?

 

And what extremists are you talking about? 30+ millions of people dead in gulags were product of few extremists?

[Malcador]

 

 

Is anyone really surprised that Pence uses AOL? Hardly seems equivalent in any way to Hillary's situation.

Well could argue it is, external server is as bad as your own. Is a fun situation for types like Pence harping on about integrity or justice or whatever moralizing hill they want to shoot from.

Eh, don't think you really can. It's comparing the governor of a fairly unimportant state- with appropriate apologies to any Indiana natives- with the country's Secretary of State when it comes to things like email security expectations. In terms of civilian positions SoS is top 3? in terms of the security that is required and it's a massive deal if their correspondence is being read by 3rd parties, I'd doubt Governor Pence would come close to cracking the top 100 (and likely not even the top 1000) on the importance level. There's also the other Hillary baggage, like archiving avoidance and it being potentially outright illegal for her to have the server. Pence seems to have been nothing other than typical Internet Grandad dumb, it's pretty easy to argue that Hillary was considerably worse than merely dumb, as well as being in a more important job.

But same idea, as I said it is a fun thing to jab him with not necessarily something worth more. Forgot it isn't illegal. Kind of makes Indiana a bit slow for it not to be, maybe they'll fix that Edited March 3, 2017 by Malcador

[Ben No.3]

 

 

'unreasonable fear'

 

HAH, Good one

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!

Democracy?

Democracy? Oh please... democracy is one of the most radical ideologies ever to exist. Ask the American independence fighters. The French revolutionaries. More recently, ask those involved in the Arab spring.

 

Regarding gulags, dictatorship is a league of its own. Like extremism, dictatorship can occur with any ideology. Maybe aside from democracy, anarchy, etc. but even that can at least pave the way for dictatorship. And of course, the dictatorship will always pretend to fulfill their "ideologies" demands. But everyone who is able and willing to think will often see that they are lying.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

'unreasonable fear'

 

HAH, Good one

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!

Democracy?

Democracy? Oh please... democracy is one of the most radical ideologies ever to exist. Ask the American independence fighters. The French revolutionaries. More recently, ask those involved in the Arab spring.

 

 

name one democratic extremist

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

'unreasonable fear'

 

HAH, Good one

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!

Democracy?

Democracy? Oh please... democracy is one of the most radical ideologies ever to exist. Ask the American independence fighters. The French revolutionaries. More recently, ask those involved in the Arab spring.

name one democratic extremist

Robespierre

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

See, even if I told you I had, it would be useless ^^

Well yeah because it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to drag Marx into every discussion, at least bother to read more than a wikipedia article.

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

 

At the very least read that so you can stop claiming Germany's social democracy is what Marx actually wanted.

[Malcador]

 

 

 

 

'unreasonable fear'

 

HAH, Good one

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!

Democracy?

Democracy? Oh please... democracy is one of the most radical ideologies ever to exist. Ask the American independence fighters. The French revolutionaries. More recently, ask those involved in the Arab spring.

name one democratic extremist

Well democracy has produced US foreign policy. Sort of

[Ben No.3]

 

See, even if I told you I had, it would be useless ^^

Well yeah because it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to drag Marx into every discussion, at least bother to read more than a wikipedia article.

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

 

At the very least read that so you can stop claiming Germany's social democracy is what Marx actually wanted.

See, you simply misunderstood me. I was not saying that 18th Century communist Marx would have supported our social democracy. I was saying that if Marx was born today, he probably would be satisfied enough to be a social democrat (rather than a communist). This is simply because a social market system is very different from Victorian capitalism.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

 

'unreasonable fear'

 

HAH, Good one

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!

Democracy?

Democracy? Oh please... democracy is one of the most radical ideologies ever to exist. Ask the American independence fighters. The French revolutionaries. More recently, ask those involved in the Arab spring.

name one democratic extremist

Well democracy has produced US foreign policy. Sort of

I think Robespierre is the better example... you can call US foreign policy undemocratic, but Robespierre is essentially Democracy's Lenin.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

See, even if I told you I had, it would be useless ^^

Well yeah because it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to drag Marx into every discussion, at least bother to read more than a wikipedia article.

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

 

At the very least read that so you can stop claiming Germany's social democracy is what Marx actually wanted.

See, you simply misunderstood me. I was not saying that 18th Century communist Marx would have supported our social democracy. I was saying that if Marx was born today, he probably would be satisfied enough to be a social democrat (rather than a communist). This is simply because a social market system is very different from Victorian capitalism.

it's similar to saying Adam Smith would probably today be a social democrat as well (which I agree with) rather than a liberal (in the European sense)... it's an argument about their intentions behind their theories, not the theories themselves.

 

A biographical discussion, not theory based.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Ben No.3

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Did US citizens freedom not already suffer enough from this fight against "Islam"? Did you really learn nothing from your fight against "communism"?

Well the West won the ideological war against Communism and it will obviously win the war against Islamic extremism....what lesson should we learn?

Essentially, what it means for freedom and freedom of speech. The Cold War took away everyone's opinion who was himself a communist or just somewhat around that spectrum in the name of security and te American way. Black List and all, does that ring a bell?

Now, it takes on different forms with Islam, namely the constant surveillance. But in essence, it is the exact same thing all over again.

 

Another thing is that the ideologies in question become senselessly defied in pure black and white patterns. Very few in the Cold War bothered to read Marx, Engels or even Lenin. Very few today bother to read the Quran (even though it would do good-one of the last few Textes even specifically tells Muslims that they have their religion, others have their own religion, and everyone should just get along). This of course does not only result in the waging of a war against the abstract concept of a certain ideology, but it also creates so much unnecessary fear, justifying the measures I've previously mentioned in the first place.

I know the high level views of Marx and guys like Lenin and I haven't read even a single page of the Quran but I doubt reading these works would change my view that I am fundamentally opposed to both Communism and Islamic Extremism.....

 

I know you not suggesting I should read them but what would the benefit be?

Well let's differentiate... you don't need to agree with Lenin in order to agree with Marx, and you don't need to fully agree with Marx to see that he has a point (in some cases.... admittedly, other cases are just moronic). But let's not go there, that's not the point.

 

So I recommend you read the Quran, just because it is simply well written. It contains, even when translated, quite beautiful poetry. And some none of us speak Arabic, to my knowledge, it appears we are missing out on some true art.

And of course, itll be a huge cultural benefit.

 

But anyway, you can't really oppose the extreme version of an ideology (be it Marxism-Leninism or Islamic Extremism) if you don't understand the ideology it is based on (Socialism or Islam). If you try to do that, then you are not opposing something, you are just being ignorant.

 

And then of course, ignorance leads to unreasonable fear, a dogmatic world view and unnecessary, unhelpful and useless prejudice. There are communists/socialists and Muslims out there who genuinely want to make the world a better place. And they are even the vast majority of said groups. Of course there are extremists, but this is true for any ideology.

 

But if you just oppose their entire ideology, without fully understanding it, how will you ever tell the difference between an extremist and someone who simply has a different point of view?

So I will stress this again: you need to read the Quran.

 

Bennie, Bennie, Bennie....this post is inconsistent and illogical, normally I would assume the person was trolling but I'll continue to believe you mean what you say. I just have to be honest its odd

 

I don't need to know or understand Marx or Lenin because there isn't a country that exists nowadays  that has followed there views and is sustainable. This is not personal, I just like to live in the world of practical examples 

 

I dont need to read the Quran because the manifestos of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS  are well documented, they take parts of the Quran selectively and then add the normal " end Crusader influence in the Middle East " ...its just religious demagoguery and cannot be accurately achieved

 

You do realize the entire ME is fighting ISIS.....what additional understanding would anyone need ?

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

 

'unreasonable fear'

 

HAH, Good one

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!

Democracy?

Democracy? Oh please... democracy is one of the most radical ideologies ever to exist. Ask the American independence fighters. The French revolutionaries. More recently, ask those involved in the Arab spring.

name one democratic extremist

Robespierre

 

 

OK, I dont know much about him but i would not call ending slavery and feudal system extremism 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

'unreasonable fear'

 

HAH, Good one

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!

Democracy?

Democracy? Oh please... democracy is one of the most radical ideologies ever to exist. Ask the American independence fighters. The French revolutionaries. More recently, ask those involved in the Arab spring.

name one democratic extremist

Robespierre

 

 

OK, I dont know much about him but i would not call ending slavery and feudal system extremism 

 

I meant to ask you, we have a Czech criminal who is now incarcerated in SA but initially came to SA and demonstrated a degree of brutal intelligence and unseen violence who nearly controlled most of the drug scene in SA....we were totally unprepared for this type of criminality...how prominent is he in Czech ?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radovan_Krej%C4%8D%C3%AD%C5%99

[Meshugger]

Now if i was in position of power and really hated Trump, i would do the following:

 

1) Form an alliance with likeminded in congress, the intelligence community and media

2) Push people close to him to into rhetorical traps and make them come of as lying

3) Eliminate such people through resignations due to such traps or by congressional pressure

4) Use friends in IC and media to drum up alleged crisis of confidence

5) Push likeminded friends in now vacant positions

6) Isolate Trump and give influence to him with negative outcome

7) Without any allies in power, impeachment of Trump is now possible on dubious grounds like point 2)

..

.

x) Profit!

 

Strange how no one has done that yet. Are people in power that dumb in the US?

Edited March 3, 2017 by Meshugger

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'unreasonable fear'

 

HAH, Good one

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!

Democracy?

Democracy? Oh please... democracy is one of the most radical ideologies ever to exist. Ask the American independence fighters. The French revolutionaries. More recently, ask those involved in the Arab spring.

name one democratic extremist

Robespierre

 

 

OK, I dont know much about him but i would not call ending slavery and feudal system extremism 

 

I meant to ask you, we have a Czech criminal who is now incarcerated in SA but initially came to SA and demonstrated a degree of brutal intelligence and unseen violence who nearly controlled most of the drug scene in SA....we were totally unprepared for this type of criminality...how prominent is he in Czech ?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radovan_Krej%C4%8D%C3%AD%C5%99

 

 

Hah he is kinda famous here. He is product of wild privatisation which happend after fall of comunism. Kinda a lot of these types get to the power during that turbulent times. Tons of people didn't know how valuable assets dispersed between population were and he bought them extremly cheaply and profited of it, but once easy money went off he get into shady businesses. We want you to keep him tho, our prisons are too nice

[Wrath of Dagon]

So, how about that Jeff Sessions, huh?

 

By now, the news that yet another figure in Trump's circle has been in touch with the Russian government isn't all that surprising.  The surprising thing is just how Sessions got himself in trouble.  Here's the exchange from his confirmation hearing:

 

 

 

Q: [A reference of some media reports regarding the Trump campaign's ties to Russia.] [if] there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

 

A: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities.  I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.

 

Set aside the fact that he didn't answer the question asked-- that's perfectly normal.  (And even appropriate-- a law enforcement official-to-be probably shouldn't be making comments on specific cases like that.)  Instead of answering, though, he voluntarily made a declarative statement, under oath, asserting a fact that is very very close to demonstrably untrue.  (Sessons acknowledges that he did talk with the Russian ambassador, but argues that he wasn't lying because he did so in his capacity as a Senator, rather than as somebody involved in the Trump campaign.)   I'm going to repeat that-- he volunteered an answer to a question that he was not asked, and did so arguably untruthfully. 

 

The first rule of any sworn testimony situation is that you do not volunteer information that you were not asked unless you really really want it on the record and are 100% certain that it is 100% true.  Even if all the Russia stuff amounts to nothing, in my book, he should resign immediately because any lawyer dumb enough to make that mistake has no business running the U.S. Department of Justice.

 

It's clear from the context that he meant he didn't speak to the Russians on behalf of the campaign, not that he's never met a Russian in his life. As far as volunteering information, he wasn't on trial, but I guess he forgot he's surrounded by enemies, who like nothing better than to assassinate someone's character.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/mike-pence-private-email/98637782/

Pence used personal email for state business — and was hacked

 

Vice President Mike Pence routinely used a private email account to conduct public business as governor of Indiana, at times discussing sensitive matters and homeland security issues.

 

Emails released to The Indianapolis Star, part of the USA TODAY Network, in response to a public records request show Pence communicated via his personal AOL account with top advisers on topics ranging from security gates at the governor’s residence to the state’s response to terror attacks across the globe. In one email, Pence’s top state homeland security adviser relayed an update from the FBI regarding the arrests of several men on federal terror-related charges.

 

 

Don't think Pence was required to have a security clearance as governor of Indiana. Plus AOL email is still a hell of a lot more secure than Hillary's private server.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Are people in power that dumb in the US?

Yes. Remember the election that just happened?

 

OK, I dont know much about him but i would not call ending slavery and feudal system extremism

 

He was pretty much the Stalin of the French Revolution and toppling the government and executing the previous rulers is fairly extreme.

 

 

 

 

See, even if I told you I had, it would be useless ^^

Well yeah because it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to drag Marx into every discussion, at least bother to read more than a wikipedia article.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

At the very least read that so you can stop claiming Germany's social democracy is what Marx actually wanted.

See, you simply misunderstood me. I was not saying that 18th Century communist Marx would have supported our social democracy. I was saying that if Marx was born today, he probably would be satisfied enough to be a social democrat (rather than a communist). This is simply because a social market system is very different from Victorian capitalism.

it's similar to saying Adam Smith would probably today be a social democrat as well (which I agree with) rather than a liberal (in the European sense)... it's an argument about their intentions behind their theories, not the theories themselves.

A biographical discussion, not theory based.

Then it becomes even more clear you haven't read their work if that's the conclusion you've drawn.

[Chilloutman]

He was pretty much the Stalin of the French Revolution and toppling the government and executing the previous rulers is fairly extreme.

getting rid of previous rules who promoted slavery is not extremism in my book, if he killed anyone who was not part of his movement that would be probably different story. Only revolution which didn't get rid of previous rulers was ours (Velvet revolution) and it sucked

 

Its like you would mark Lincoln as extremist