Politics 2017 part 4

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

 

So is Lenin an extremist then?

 

Kinda, I feel much more negatively about Stalin. I am not sure if there was slavery in Russia during Tzar ruling. But as I already stated, I don't mind that Stalin get rid of ruling 'class' aka aristocracy. My problem with his that he killed anyone who was not part of his revolution

[Bartimaeus]

 

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

 

...Except Louis wasn't executed for his involvement in slavery, but rather being a "threat" to national stability.

[Chilloutman]

I mean look at gandhi... you people sympathise with him, right?

 

Gandhi, my friends, is a full on anarchist

 

According to Dr. Dhawan, "Gandhi was a philosophical Anarchist because he believed that the "[the greatest good of all] can be realized only in the classless, stateless democracy."2 While Gandhi advocated democracy, he differentiated between direct democracy and western democracy. Commenting on the parliamentary system, Gandhi says, "If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined. Parliaments are merely emblems of slavery."3 He had no more appetite for majority democracy of America, "It is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority."4 By centralizing power, western democracies feed into violence. Thus, he thought decentralization was the key to world peace."

 

 

This is from an Indian historian.

 

Don't get me wrong, I still like Gandhi

 

But I don't think many of you would've supported anarchism

 

And I think we can agree anarchism is a fairly extreme ideology

 

So what defies an extremist for you? And does it necessarily have to be a bad thing?

 

To me, an extremist is someone following a very extreme path of any ideology. It doesn't have to be a bad thing, but it can easily lead to unnecessary violence, thus I'm very sceptical.

No but I for sure support decentralization of power

Edited March 3, 2017 by Chilloutman

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

 

You'd have to be more specific about which measures you think they're ramping up for me to answer that. If you're talking about the travel ban, it's only a temporary measure until they can improve scrutiny of visitors, which isn't sufficient as we saw in the San Bernardino attack.

 

The San Bernadino shooting was committed by an American citizen and his wife, what sort of scrutiny do you suggest that will prevent that? http://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-immigration-file-san-bernardino-shooter-tashfeen-malik/story?id=35912170

 

The wife was admitted in spite of terrorist links.

 

This is an example of ramping up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/03/01/police-chiefs-immigration-task-force-outlines-opposition-to-trump-policy/?utm_term=.7fcfef384afa

This is primarily about illegal immigration, not terrorism, no? Btw, do you believe that foreign criminals should not be deported?

 

 

The administration is working very hard to tie the two together. I think foreign criminals deserve the rights of due process, and I tend to side with the police chiefs on this specific scenario.

 

As for the wife, I think you are giving the government a tremendous amount of power over the rights of an American citizen. Does he not have the right to marry who he wants and have her live in his country? How long do you plan on denying her entry based on those links? How many real families are you willing to break up in order to prevent one of these situations from happening again?

 

Well, OK then, let's let foreigners with terrorist links in, we wouldn't want to keep terrorist families apart. I just wish you guys would secede already and stop putting the rest of us at risk. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/03/san-franciscos-withdrawal-from-national-terror-intelligence-network-hikes-risks-officials-say.html

 

And why do criminals who have no right to be here in the first place have due process rights not be deported?

Edited March 3, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Malcador]

 

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

 

At least my recollection of him being a murderous fellow was somewhat accurate.

[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

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

 

At least my recollection of him being a murderous fellow was somewhat accurate.

 

Seems like scumbag, I agree

[Wrath of Dagon]

Heh, Robespierre. Democracy isn't really compatible with the government being able to declare anyone an enemy of the people and cutting his head off.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

I mean look at gandhi... you people sympathise with him, right?

 

Gandhi, my friends, is a full on anarchist

 

According to Dr. Dhawan, "Gandhi was a philosophical Anarchist because he believed that the "[the greatest good of all] can be realized only in the classless, stateless democracy."2 While Gandhi advocated democracy, he differentiated between direct democracy and western democracy. Commenting on the parliamentary system, Gandhi says, "If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined. Parliaments are merely emblems of slavery."3 He had no more appetite for majority democracy of America, "It is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority."4 By centralizing power, western democracies feed into violence. Thus, he thought decentralization was the key to world peace."

 

 

This is from an Indian historian.

 

Don't get me wrong, I still like Gandhi

 

But I don't think many of you would've supported anarchism

 

And I think we can agree anarchism is a fairly extreme ideology

 

So what defies an extremist for you? And does it necessarily have to be a bad thing?

 

To me, an extremist is someone following a very extreme path of any ideology. It doesn't have to be a bad thing, but it can easily lead to unnecessary violence, thus I'm very sceptical.

No but I for sure support decentralization of power

 

So what do you think of his idea that majority rule is basically not all to different from dictatorship?

 

Well that is why I am against globalisation. Its massive centralisation of power. If you don't like to live in Germany where majority feels that way you still can go somewhere else where majority thinks same as you. I am not sure where you are heading with this?

[Chilloutman]

The very foundation of what makes our democracy:

 

I am putting the question out there as to why being ruled over by the majority of voters is different from being ruled over by a dictator.

 

Just a topic that is interesting to discuss.

Well in ideal word majority would not vote/force laws which goes against their interest where in dictator regime ruler pretty much can do whatever he likes no matter if its benefit for majority, its quite simple no?

[Chilloutman]

 

 

The very foundation of what makes our democracy:

 

I am putting the question out there as to why being ruled over by the majority of voters is different from being ruled over by a dictator.

 

Just a topic that is interesting to discuss.

Well in ideal word majority would not vote/force laws which goes against their interest where in dictator regime ruler pretty much can do whatever he likes no matter if its benefit for majority, its quite simple no?

 

No. Because the majority can still do anything they want, and for te minority it makes no difference to be ruled by them or the dictator.

 

Let's say there are 49% women and 51% men in a country. What would stop the men from declaring all women slaves?

 

Now, this is a very extreme example, but I hope you get the notion

 

Thats why there are constitutions ya know? And I don't think I get a notion. You don't present any alternative and historically we have evidence its best working system so far. And that is why nationalism have its meaning. You then don't end up in country which have relatively big groups with vastly opposing ideas

[Hurlshort]

The primary purpose behind the judicial branch is to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

[Chilloutman]

Not know much about it, I already pointed out that you can move out to place which suits you better. I am not saying that you should break up country you live in to suit your views (especially if you are clearly a minority)

Edited March 3, 2017 by Chilloutman