A Round of Applause for John Bolton!

    http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/0712edbarr.html

    Thank god for John Bolton!

    He deserves a round of applause, people! Thumbed his nose at the U.N., and adamantly defended our constitutional right to keep and bear arms!

    Hmm, I wonder what might have happened if Gun Grabber Gore or Kerry got to pick the U.N. ambassador?


    http://volokh.com/posts/1152314168.shtml

Yes, this is actually a positive (and honorable) turn for Bolton, who ended up where he is because of his involvement in Wolfowitz's failed neo-con plan to topple Saudi oil. Unfortunately, Houston and Saudi Arabia worked together to screw that plan and Bolton got demoted.
http://c2ore.com/archives/?itemid=1506

*claps* Send those U.N. gun grabbers packing.  I felt like cheering after reading that article. 

I honestly didn't think much of John Bolton before reading this, and now I can honestly say he's moved up a notch in my book.  I read something on poli that actually changed my mind a bit-thank you!

>>1 Nice.  When I heard about him getting appointed to that position a while ago I didn't really think much of it.  These things are so much more important than I realized at the time..

http://www.nraila.org/news/VideoLauncher.aspx?id=19

Good thing we have Bolton in the U.N.  (appointed by Bush (R)), and Republicans in the White House, Senate, and House.  I hope, for the sake of the 2nd Amendment, they win again in a landslide in the upcoming elections. 

>>6
Do you people fucking *eat* guns? Do you die without them? Sad.

>>7
Yes, some people live off of hunting in the U.S.  Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised if quite a few do.  Of course, many just hunt for sport. 

>>7
Yes, people die when they are unarmed. 

http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/

>>9 I know about that. I just think the debate is going overboard. I prefer secularism over getting guns super-cheap and super-easy. Then again, that movie has interesting implications. Ah, I just dislike conservatism, evangelicals, anti-abortionists and death penalty-lovers, not to mention the crusade on drugs. I couldn't take that package along with more lax gun legislation, I'd betray my principles.

We should let people buy and sell anything and react to the consequences rather than try to restrict any freedom.

>>11 Couldn't it then be argued that the current laws themselves are viable responses to already experienced, human consequences? Nah, I dunno. I'm but 17 and a Swede so technically I'm supposed to sniff glue, kill gays and have sex right now. Or something of the flavor.

>>12
My response and their response are different. My response puts liberty above justice in the full and complete knowledge that justice exists to preserve liberty and so justice which impedes liberty is not justice. Their response puts justice above liberty because it is easier.

In the future someone will eventually by-pass the law, get their hands on explosives or chemical weapons and use them. Wouldn't it be more logical to prepare aswell as prevent?

>>13 Complex shit. I'm with the liberatrians on most issues, I just hope they'll have the guts to stand up to the less flexible christians in America. I mean, you can't argue well with people who consider a metaphysical dimension, right? Plus, capitalist corruption is still very possible, even if it can't use a government and its army for power...

>>10
Not many liberals, even among the more liberal members of the democratic party are pro-legalization.  Some might take 'liberal' views on pot, but it's pretty much limmited to that.  The libertarians are -THE- party if you are interested in legalization.

Even the ultra-liberal green party isn't as pro-legalization as the libertarians.  However, there are some republitarians like Ron Paul (R-TX), who, though he supports a more or less 'conservative' agenda (i.e. pro gun rights, lower taxes, promotes traditional constitutional values, and withdrawl of tax funds from the anti-gun U.N.,) is also pro-legalization.  It's been mentioned before, but yeah, he happens to be a lifelong member of the libertarian party.  He runs on the republican ticket though. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Another example, is Arlen Specter, a republican senator from PA, who supports gay rights and a woman's right to choose-- as well as low taxes, smaller government, less spending, gun rights, etc. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter

In a recent senate vote to allocate funding for the war in iraq, and afghanistan, of all the united states senators, Specter (R) was the only one in the senate to vote against it. 

Both, as I understand it, are also members of the RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus) a somewhat libertarian-oriented group. 

http://www.rlc.org/

i took that libertarian questionnaire ('World's shortest!'  more like world's most stupid).

seriously, if you think their political philosophy contains ideas any more effective than communism, you need to live for a year in somalia or albania (circa 1993).

niggers

>>16
Paranoid goverment loving security fetishist?

>>16
Libertarian politics is basically just capitalism, and hands off everything--market, and personal life.  We had something very close to laissez-faire capitalism for a while in the United States, and it made us the richest country in the world. 

We are rich because of our freedom.  If we were more free, we would be richer. 

>>19 Probably. I think you'd have a lot to lose though. Maybe you should try to slowly take over or modify one of the two big parties, or form a united front with the greens, the pot legalizers and the constituionaries? Nah, it's your battle.
 

>>We are rich because of our freedom.  If we were more free, we would be richer.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/bookstore.asp?z=y

>>21 Yawn. What is this link good for?

>>22

for buying books in order to read up on how the world's wealthiest nation become as such due to a shitload more important reasons than a bout of free trade

>>23 Slavery, then. Well, America got a lot of its riches by not being nationalist assholes who thought it viable to risk its population over some prestigious slews of land in Africa. More slaves went to Brazil than America, and you don't hear the muslim nations who purchased slaves get lambasted that often.

>>24
Slavery had minimal effect to American economy. Note that America started to truly flourish long after slavery was abolished. Very succesful private corporations are reason behind American wealth.

>>25 Yup. It's a shame bastards like Nike, McDonalds et al. are give capitalism a bad name. I mean, they don't care whether you have a free market or not; they are sewn together with society and no one has the attention span to fight them.

>>24
Wrong, slavery doesn't do any good. This is possibly the most evil opinion you have. At least you noticed the fact that when you take away people's economic freedom you bring them closer to slavery. Well America became an economic super power after slavery was abolished and absolutely not because of slavery, and the success is primarily due to the freeing of a large segment of the population's economic freedom so they could contribute their skills and intelligence to a market economy.

In effect the inbred rednecks you love to brand anyone who believes in the constitution, were the original communists of the 19th century and had little to do with the constitution.

>>27 You misunderstood completely, or my written communication didn't reflect y opinion and intent. Take it easy. The nationalist assholes I was referring to wa the European powers. France really treated its colonies like shit.

>>26
I do...

I don't eat at mcdonalds.  I guess you were making a generalization about people generally though. 

>>1 *claps*

>>28
Stop listening to african propaganda. French colonisation didn't end up very well but you can't say they treated the colonized population like shit, at least they tried to make something out of this countries by building schools, industries, roads...
Heard of Algeria, Congo or Central African Republic recently ? Civil war, coup d'etat, terrorism, corruption.
And they give us, Europeans, lessons ?

>>31 They have given us everything. All the comforts we enjoy come at the opportunity cost of people who were fucked over and are being so. Said infraastructures are not used sufficiently because we are not giving them the aid they deserve considering our economic superiority is partially based on stolen resources.  Now I may hear the low argument of how these people in the third world should pick up capitalism, get a good, enlightened government so that we can't take their resources for our cup holders, linoleum, formica and other important whatnots. Please, give me that argument. 

>>32
"All the comforts we enjoy come at the opportunity cost of people who were fucked over and are being so."
Well if you are going to think in terms of groups instead of individuals, they would still be in the middle ages at the rate they werew going before colonisation, don't they owe us for the technology we've given them?

The above premise is wrong as we should think in terms of individuals and not groups. However if you can convince me that we should think in terms of groups and heavy handed punishment I will think in terms of groups and heavy handed punishment.

>>33 Convince... Well, I am not convincedd because I don't want to, but considering that we all enjoy an economy that is built with materials stolen from other countries, we are all guilty. Haiti's central bank, the liquidation of Iraq's social institutions. In a way, we enjoy an economy that is saturated with the money and opportunities of others, and it's the taking for granted that bothers me. In this way, we are damned as a group, but we can ameliorate ourselves if we scrutinize ourselves and try to make others aware of our cushioned situation. The tech that we give them always come at a price, and we won't let them construct their own economies unless we can manipulate it.
Yet, at the moment we have two contenders in Asia that are perfect experiments of capitalism. No doubt will their lives become better, perhaps more free, individualistic and equal. But to what degree, and at what price? I'm always ready to accept facts, and so I never seek conviction on issues that are outside of science or basic morality.

>>34
Tell that to my grandad as he plummetted from the sky burning alive over London. Oh wait, you can't, he died saving your ass from the Nazis. I guess since he was white he must have been a nazi and responsible for the war as much as Adolf Hitler, we're all guilty *cut cut cut cut* oh noez why did I start world war 2 waaah.

Stop trolling stupid fucktard, my point was that no one should be judged for actions they didn't commit purely because they were born a certain race or a certain nationality I'm going to repeat this 8 times so you look like an idiot if you ignore my point again. Read it all the way through.

Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.

The only reason why I came up with the argument was to show you how stupid your idea is because you seem to judge the truth, not on the truth, but what you like the sound of. I disagree with the argument I came up with and your argument because...

Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.

I don't discriminate against black people due to their higher crime rates because it is illogical, unfair on the innocent and damn evil.

Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.

On another thread it seemed as though you were almost trying to justify slavery and I thought I would let that pass and that maybe it was misunderstanding, now you are trying to justify discrimination fool me once shame on you, I'm not fooled anymore. What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>35

If you indentify yourself as someone from a group, you cease to be an individual.

>>35 Um, by defending his more democratic country from a dictatorship he didn't excuse the next generation thriving partially because of extortion of other countries. But, despite the horrors of colonialism, it is the 2nd half of the century that has featured the worst examples of thievery and manipulation of other countries. Collective responsibility is a poor term semantically. I prefer "accumulated responsibility" because that highlihts the fact that humanity's deterioration or elevation is nothing but the result of six billion animals acting upon each other and their environment. Revolutions have nothing on the power of slow, incremental change.

>>35 I also seem to explain that I don't justify judging of anyone because of whom they share their genotype or phenotype with (doye), but that any individual in a country that builds on resources taken from other countries should make active change. I don't judgee groups because they are not a singular unit, neither physically nor mentally. I judge ideologies, cultures and environments on the observable effect it has on individuals, but in the end I recognize how everything, from the best to the worst of human civilization, is due to every human being having lived or being alive.  

>>37
"I judge ideologies, cultures and environments on the observable effect it has on individuals"

Unless you are completely insane you should agree that, observably and generally, tyranny is evil and democracy is good. How much accumulated responsibility do the ideologies, cultures and environments which support tyranny have compared to the accumulated responsibility of the ideologies, cultures and environments which support democracy?

Given the chance the gunmen of Somalia (just the gunmen responsible for tyranny, not the innocent civilians or masculine honourable libertarian warriors) would colonise and exploit Italy since they do this very easily to their own people, this makes their ideology, culture and environment more deserving of penalty than Italy's which currently has no wish to colonise and exploit Somalia or any other nation.

>>39 "Unless you are completely insane you should agree that, observably and generally, tyranny is evil and democracy is good. How much accumulated responsibility do the ideologies, cultures and environments which support tyranny have compared to the accumulated responsibility of the ideologies, cultures and environments which support democracy?" Um, naturally I like democracies and ideologies that support them. I haven't said the opposite.
"Given the chance the gunmen of Somalia (just the gunmen responsible for tyranny, not the innocent civilians or masculine honourable libertarian warriors) would colonise and exploit Italy since they do this very easily to their own people, this makes their ideology, culture and environment more deserving of penalty than Italy's which currently has no wish to colonise and exploit Somalia or any other nation." Well, these gunmen wouldn't have a shot at power or dominion if it was't for the fact that our ancestors beat Africa and parts of Asia into a swagger, we haven't made good on our obligation to help these countries back and we still allow corporations that abuse their weakened states to do business while we don't raise our voices. Hence- we are responsible.

Actually, I don't want to participate in this discussion any more. I agree on your points and I didn't try to oppose them anyway. We're talking by each other, not with each other.

>>39

This is completely fucking ridiculous. What does his opinion that "democracy is better than tyranny" have to do with what he's saying? It really doesn't matter if you gained immortality in exchange for the exploitation of other countries and cultures (Slavery, Colonization).

The way "you" went about it was wrong. It was dishonorable, dishonest and completely lacking tact or virtue. If at any point, you attempt to counter what all of history basically echoes then "you" indentify with Slave-keepers and Colonizers and thus you are a part of them. Don't say you care about the judgement of individuals when you don't. This "end before means" apathetic attitude and acceptibility of unethical behavior is what breeds this human lust for war, strife and unending conflict.

The wicked and most terrible irony is that it is beginning to look like democracy didn't save mankind from all the ideologies that were the root of tyranny. It just replaced them and did so using the tools of tyranny.

It's disgusting that you try and use your dead grandfather to prop up your ignorant delusions about democracy. The fact of the matter is that the system hasn't made good on the promises made when it was exploiting it's way to the top. There are people who aren't enjoying democracy and all it has to offer...and it's not tyranny's fault. It's Democracy's.

"It's Democracy's." I understood and agreed with everything you said but this. A democratic system is not intrinsical in causing OR rooting out corruption/exploitation/manipulation either inside or outside of the borders. It helps but it doesn't sort out imbalances automatically. It is all up to the populace to decide what the state should do and considering the western states either don't have the jurisdiction, character, interest or desire to stop companies that do immoral business abroad, it is up to us consumers to put our feet down while they are still not shackled.

>>40
I'll start with this quote since I agree with it and it might help alleviate some of the extremist paranoia and ignorance boiling up in Xel's amygdala.

"It is all up to the populace to decide what the state should do and considering the western states either don't have the jurisdiction, character, interest or desire to stop companies that do immoral business abroad, it is up to us consumers to put our feet down while they are still not shackled."

If you can prove that someone is committing a crime, go right ahead and tell the police or send the facts to various newspapers and across the internet. You won't face execution since we live in a democracy.

"Actually, I don't want to participate in this discussion any more."
You want to discontinue the discussion because you know your argument is defunct and you have some pathological desire to claim backward tyrants on the other side of the planet are responsible for all our wealth and that democracies should be penalised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/maoism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hong_kong democratic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/south_korea democratic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/north_korea maoist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/vietnam maoist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/japan democratic

I can tell you people are paniccing as these quotes of idiocy testify.

"Well, these gunmen wouldn't have a shot at power or dominion if it was't for the fact that our ancestors beat Africa and parts of Asia into a swagger"
What decisions exactly would have prevented this as democratic european powers de-colonialised after world war 2? If you are suggesting democratic countries must pay for the actions of tyrants in their history you have completely by-passed my argument. Which is not suprising since you obviously have no intention of discussing the matter.

"It really doesn't matter if you gained immortality in exchange for the exploitation of other countries and cultures (Slavery, Colonization)."
What? I'm not immortal and I have never enslaved or aided in colonising other countries or cultures.

"This "end before means" apathetic attitude and acceptibility of unethical behavior is what breeds this human lust for war, strife and unending conflict."
What the fuck do you expect me to do? Go back in time and single-handedly bring all the slavers and tyrants to justice? All I can do is support democracy and oppose tyranny, which is incidentally what I am doing when I stand up for people's right not to be judged for crimes they have not committed.

"There are people who aren't enjoying democracy and all it has to offer...and it's not tyranny's fault. It's Democracy's."
Naive dumbass, I fail to see why you think democracy is evil because it does not eliminate all sufferring and crime in humanity. No one said it was perfect, but compared to tyranny it's a hell of a lot better.

>>43 Listen. I guess I'm not going to be able to change your mind or even find some common ground, because you live in a monochrome world, the type of world were people move in a disturbing, jittery manner, people fall on their asses and get pies thrown in their faces and women who drive are european lesbian witches who hate Jesus.
But know this; I am not anti-american and I am trying to get away from my socialist roots. I am not your fucking ideological enemy but that doesn't mean I want to have anything in common with polarizings nuts like you.

I'm not- oh forget it, you're not going to listen. I'm going to take a bath and I think you better get your poppa his J & D or else he gonna be mighty upset with you indeed. A pitying warning, BTW; If you keep up this inane jabbering then your life - much like uncle Mikey when you had to sit on his lap at the movies that one time- will be extremely hard.

>>44
wtf

>>42

Let me clarify, then. What do I call this system, with all it's flaws? What term do I give Democracy when Democracy isn't holding up to Democracy's expectations? I say it's Democracy's fault not to point out that the system is vastly inferior [to tyranny]. I'm only pointing out that Democracy isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing. Who's fault is it that Democracy isn't working the way it's drum-beaters claim it is? Hahaha...Tyranny's?

>>43

"What the fuck do you expect me to do? Go back in time and single-handedly bring all the slavers and tyrants to justice? All I can do is support democracy and oppose tyranny, which is incidentally what I am doing when I stand up for people's right not to be judged for crimes they have not committed."
No, but at the very least you can stop making allowances for their past lack of ethics? You're basically saying that slavery, colonization and all that was a fair trade for what you percieve to be system that is better than tyranny. Not everyone is enjoying the benefits of Democracy [some are actually victims of it] and it has less to do with competing ideologies and more to do with the slap-dash, half-handed, morally reprehensible way Democracy has been forced on the rest of the world.
Stop deluding yourself into thinking that you're standing up for anyone but yourself. Just because you're standing up for people not to judged for crime they have not committed, doesn't mean you just ignore those are actually committing crimes in the first place. When you stick up for the end result without addressing the means, it makes you a casual supporter of past misdeeds. The crime you commit is moral complatency and intellectual apathy.

"I fail to see why you think democracy is evil because it does not eliminate all sufferring and crime in humanity. No one said it was perfect, but compared to tyranny it's a hell of a lot better."
In that case you're a just a general failure. What is so hard to understand? Democracy doesn't have to eliminate *all* suffering and crime. That's not what I'm talking about. What I am referring to is the unadulterated fact that Democracy is using the tactics of tyrants to further Democracy's goals and that, in and of itself, is UNdemocratic.

Those who continue to taut Democracy as the greatest ideal, while at same ignoring and CHOOSING to remain ignorant that those fighting in the Democracy's name are causing just as much suffering and pain as past tyrants are SLAVES. Mindless, fucking slaves.

>>46 But democracy is a very basic system, as basic as "he who is squeezed out of the royal breedess shall be king"-system. The electorates and the electees of the electorates are subject to the public, as are their actions. It all boils down to the vigilance and desires of the public, though I understand that said public in itself is influenced by those they have elected. Democracy has few expectations, considering it only requires some facilities, some control and an interested public. I mean, the 'greatest democracy' in the world has elected the loser twice, but if the losing half would have stood firm and the winning half had realized they were unworthy of victory, that wouldn't have happened.

>>46 I agree with the other paragraph of the post though.

*yawn*
>>46
"No, but at the very least you can stop making allowances for their past lack of ethics?"
I never attempted to justify the ethics of tyrants. The rest of the paragraph is obsolete by this fact.

"Stop deluding yourself into thinking that you're standing up for anyone but yourself. Just because you're standing up for people not to judged for crime they have not committed, doesn't mean you just ignore those are actually committing crimes in the first place."
I do not support criminal acts. From now on have the common courtesy to quote me when I support unethical acts.

"That's not what I'm talking about. What I am referring to is the unadulterated fact that Democracy is using the tactics of tyrants to further Democracy's goals and that, in and of itself, is UNdemocratic."
You are free to report them to the police and post/link what you believe proves that these crimes are taking place on this message board.

"What do I call this system, with all it's flaws? What term do I give Democracy when Democracy isn't holding up to Democracy's expectations?"
"Those who continue to taut Democracy as the greatest ideal, while at same ignoring and CHOOSING to remain ignorant that those fighting in the Democracy's name are causing just as much suffering and pain as past tyrants are SLAVES. Mindless, fucking slaves."
Democracy is not perfect and does not solve all crime. Tyranny makes it astronomically easier for criminals to enter positions of power and commit devastating crimes, therefore democracy is more desirable. I do not claim democracy is 100%perfect or that crimes committed by those in a democracy are justified.

>>48
If you think inadequate proof for assertions and putting words into opponents and critic's mouths is acceptable, I certainly hope there aren't too many of you in my democracy.

Lawl you fags, the UN anti-gun thing was fucking irrelevant from the beginning. As if John Bolton went in there and stopped something that really mattered.

>>50
gb2 Canada

>>51
Irrelevant as in no relevant country would've cared, not irrelevant as in guns don't matter.

GB2 having down syndrome

>>50

Are you implying that the U.N. doesn't, and won't have any effect on us? That is such complete horse shit on so many levels. 

>>53
The UN has no real means to enforce its resolutions. And if you really think any relevant country would follow a resolution that gives the UN control over its gun laws, you're really naive.

That gun crap was all talk and not worth the paper it was written on.

>>54
Actually that's not true.  Many countries would have gone along with it, for one thing.  For another, when international laws, treaties, or any other such bullshit is floating around at the U.N., the Supreme Court, and government HERE tends to want to "harmonize" the United States' body of laws with international laws. 

If you think that the U.N. as no effect on us, you are sadly mistaken. 

>>55
Pretty much every country is in violation of several UN resolutions because they don't give a shit about them. You don't really believe one day somebody would've just said "oops, seems we have to take all your guns now, the UN said so". Get a grip.

Nobody but a few gun advocacy fags even noticed the UN gun control efforts. That's how utterly irrelevant they were.

>>49

"I never attempted to justify the ethics of tyrants. The rest of the paragraph is obsolete by this fact."

Haha. "Ethics of Tyrants". OK that's some cute wordplay dipshit but that's not what's up for discussion.

Simplified version: Slavery, Colonization, Foregin Policy designed to cripple and control other countries economically...even when done under a democractic system = Tyrannical Behavior.

You inability to address this = Massive Failure.

I do not support criminal acts. From now on have the common courtesy to quote me when I support unethical acts.

Why would you ever come right out and say: "In exchange for Democracy's tyrannical behavior and heavy-handed out-right destructive nature- we get Democracy abroad and stronger Democracy at home. So it's all good." ?

A quote from you is not even nessacary because your statement  already implied by your unwillingness to admonish these bahaviors (past and present) for what they are: The behaviors of an undemocratic tyrannical republic.

You are free to report them to the police and post/link what you believe proves that these crimes are taking place on this message board.

You already know of the crimes that have been committed. (Slavery, Colonization, Western Foreign policy, etc)

Again: We're not arguing if these crimes that Democracy has committed, actually exist. History tells us they do. What we are discussing here is your ability to give Democracy a "pass" when they, for instance....institutionalize inequality and inspire terrorism and other atrocities- direct or indirectly- through their foreign policy.

"Tyranny makes it astronomically easier for criminals to enter positions of power and commit devastating crimes, therefore democracy is more desirable."

Proof? There were always be a criminal element in government. Because there's always malice in hearts of men. The idea that one idealogy or another has this market cornered is laughable.

But I suppose your last sentence ends this argument, even though I don't believe a word of what you say.

>>57
You said "No, but at the very least you can stop making allowances for their past lack of ethics?".

I said "I never attempted to justify the ethics of tyrants. The rest of the paragraph is obsolete by this fact.".

You said "Haha. "Ethics of Tyrants". OK that's some cute wordplay dipshit but that's not what's up for discussion.".

I meant "I never attempted to justify the lack of ethics of tyrants.".


You said "A quote from you is not even NESSACARY because your statement"...

1+1=3
Therefore stating something doesn't make it true and evidence is needed. A quote from me is NECESSARY otherwise you will have inadequate

proof of your assertions.

..."already implied by your unwillingness to admonish these bahaviors (past and present) for what they are: The behaviors of an undemocratic

tyrannical republic.".

What country and period in history are you referring to?


You said "You already know of the crimes that have been committed. (Slavery, Colonization, Western Foreign policy, etc)".
Who remains unpunished?

You said "Again: We're not arguing if these crimes that Democracy has committed, actually exist. History tells us they do. What we are discussing

here is your ability to give Democracy a "pass" when they, for instance....institutionalize inequality and inspire terrorism and other atrocities-

direct or indirectly- through their foreign policy.".
You are free to report them to the police and post/link what you believe proves that these crimes are taking place and which perpetrators remain

unpunished on this message board.


You said ""Tyranny makes it astronomically easier for criminals to enter positions of power and commit devastating crimes, therefore democracy

is more desirable."

Proof? There were always be a criminal element in government. Because there's always malice in hearts of men. The idea that one idealogy or

another has this market cornered is laughable.".

The rest of the paragraph you responded to answers your question, I said "Democracy is not perfect and does not solve all crime. Tyranny makes

it astronomically easier for criminals to enter positions of power and commit devastating crimes, therefore democracy is more desirable. I do not

claim democracy is 100%perfect or that crimes committed by those in a democracy are justified.".

"Proof?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

lol gun nuts

>>59
lol nun guts

>>60
lol communists

>>60
>>61
lol conservatives and liberals

>>62
lol libertarians

>>63
lol green party

Is he related to Michael Bolton?

>>65 not sure, but i doubt it

>>66
I celebrate the man's entire catalog. To me, it doesn't get any better than when he sings 'When a Man Loves a Woman.'

Bump for humiliating defeat of extremist liberal.
>>58

I typed less than extremists so I wasn't trolled. We can all assume the extremist was serious and that I pwned it.

There's nothing wrong with extremists, provided they are 'extreme' in the right direction.  The problem is with the extreme liberals - be they Nazi's, commies, or Socialists.

>>70
Extremism by definition means they are wrong. For instance an extremist libertarian may see reason to kill people for saying free speech is a bad idea.

>>71
I'm an extremist libertarian and I would never say that.  You evidently don't know much about the libertarian party, or it's ideals. 

To be an "extremist" libertarian, all it means is that you strongly agree with what they have to say.  It does not, in any way, mean that you advocate killing people to attain your political goals. 

>>72
Wrong, if you would never do anything that extreme, then you are not an extremist.

To be an extremist means being illogical, apologetic, refusing to take criticism and using machiavellian oppressive tactics to get others to "agree" with you.

>>73
Well, according to the dictionary I have here, YOU are wrong.

Extremist:  someone who holds extreme views

So essentially, a hardliner laissez-faire Capitalist is an "extremist", even if they don't advocate the initiation of violence as a means to achieve their goals. 

A human rights activist (which is, in my opinion, essentially the same thing),  who is very strongly in favor of human rights, and holds hardliner views on human rights, is thus an "extremist". 

>>58

What country and period in history are you referring to?
Every country. All of history.
Who remains unpunished?
Anyone who has benefitted from that tyranny, directly. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge how the use of tyranny by their own society indirectly benefitted them and their way of life. See: Europe, America, China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel...
(...need I go on?)
You are free to report them to the police and post/link what you believe proves that these crimes are taking place and which perpetrators remain unpunished on this message board.
And this is my point exactly. You are still in the camp of delusional children who believe that "reporting it to the police" (the government are the police) is an effective method of stopping tyranny. History has shown us that there is only one way to stop tyranny. Protip: It doesn't involve taking away the right to bear arms. As for posting something on this message board and expecting some type of action...I'm going to assume you're either trolling or joking. This is 4chan, and this post is "posting proof on this message board". It's not might fault your head is too far up on your ass to grasp what I'm saying.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide";
You still don't seem to understand. You're showing me numbers that differ between a range of 5,000-20,000 at the most. You're talking about the "relative good" and I'm talking about the "absolute good" of ethical behavior. The point I'm making is that it is not unreasonable to see that Democracy has replaced tyrrany, or in the very least become a tool of tyranny itself. The evidence is slavery, colonization, the war in iraq, institutionalized discrimination against minorities (gays, blacks, the middle and lower classes), the creation of the North American Union, The push to take away our gun rights, etc. etc.

>>75
Democrats want to take away our gun rights, and likely want the North American Union as well.  Conservatives are usually those who want to promote national sovereignty, smaller government, gun rights, etc.

>>76

Conservatives are also usually those who use tyranny to spread democracy acoss the world. George Bush and his administration are the ones laying the groundwork for the NAU. The lib/cons meme, doesn't apply here. This is about something else entirely.

Actually the term "extreme" is ambiguous.

Extremist:  someone who holds extreme views

Extreme generally has 2 definitions. The maximum possible and exceeding the maximum as dictionary.com states...

2: Being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree; very intense: extreme pleasure; extreme pain.
3: Extending far beyond the norm: an extreme conservative. See Synonyms at excessive.

I am >>73 and I took definition 3, you took definition 2.

However I was under the impression that normal was synonymous with logical, which it isn't I can't be botherred to look up the definition of normal.

Concerning our versions of the definition of extremism, we were both right and I agree with you and me. Someone who goes beyond what is logical must be an extremist, especially if what they are doing is obviously wrong.

>>78
Extremism can also be just the holding of an extreme, or hardliner position on some issue..

There is nothing wrong with that.  People should stop equating "extremism" with violence, or for that matter, negativity in general, since it could simply mean you hold strong, hardliner views on a given issue. 

extremism:  any political stand taken that is immoderate and uncompromising

My point would be, you can take an "immoderate and uncompromising" stand on any number of issues, and it means a completely different thing each time.  You should judge the validity of the issue at hand, rather than deciding something is "good," or "bad," simply based on the fact that it could be considered "extreme" in relation to some other idea or set of ideas. 
All it means is you have a stand, and you stick to it. 

>>75

"What country and period in history are you referring to?
Every country. All of history."
...
Can you be more specific?

"Who remains unpunished?
Anyone who has benefitted from that tyranny, directly. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge how the use of tyranny by their own society indirectly benefitted them and their way of life. See: Europe, America, China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel...(...need I go on?)"
Anyone who has benefitted from tyranny directly should pay reparations. Everyone benefits indirectly from tyranny and crime since every country has had a history of tyranny crime is universal. People should be free to say whatever they want, punishing people for not saying what you want is tyranny, so the only way to get people to agree with you is by proving that tyranny in history is one factor explaining their current wealth. The roman slave trade for instance was detrimental since it reduced the need to invent labour saving devices stunting the few technological legacies the romans left behind aswell as the rate of technological development thereafter.

"The point I'm making is that it is not unreasonable to see that Democracy has replaced tyrrany, or in the very least become a tool of tyranny itself. The evidence is slavery, colonization, the war in iraq, institutionalized discrimination against minorities (gays, blacks, the middle and lower classes), the creation of the North American Union, The push to take away our gun rights, etc. etc."
Communism became a tool of tyranny as communism simply degraded into tyranny in the first few years after the russian revolution. Democracy is nothing like tyranny as these stats (and many others if you could be botherred to look for yourself) proved. You are right that we must look out for the signs of tyranny... Earlier you clearly stated you think that anyone who refuses to acknowledge how the use of tyranny by their own society indirectly benefits them should be punished. Can you blame me for thinking that perhaps you have something against rule by the people (democracy) and liberty? How can you expect me to take you seriously with your claim that you are trying to reveal crimes by people in the government and abuses of democracy if your argument is so weak you must resort to force to silence your critics?

Look at this article again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

"You're showing me numbers that differ between a range of 5,000-20,000 at the most."
No. I'm not. The first few stats I just quickly copy pasted

Sudan 10/56-3/72 400,000-600,000
South Vietnam 1/65-4/75 400,000-500,000
China 3/59-12/59 65,000
Iraq 6/63-3/75 30,000-60,000
Algeria 7/62-12/62 9,000-30,000

a couple of others

Cambodia 4/75-1/79 1,900,000-3,500,000
U.S.S.R 1917-1987 61,911,000
By Mongols 14th-15th Century 29,927,000
By Aztecs Centuries >1,000,000

None of these despotisms permitted the same level of freedom of speech you are allowed today, existence under them was worse than even the poorest most oppressive times under a democracy. Democracy isn't perfect, but it is certainly nothing like tyranny. I believe only the perpetrators of tyranny should be punished, but the people they oppressed should not be punished further no matter how free they are in the distant future.

>>80
We should not fucking pay reparations.  There's no reason at all I should be punished by having to pay reparations for something my ancestors did.

"Anyone who has benefitted from tyranny directly should pay reparations. Everyone benefits indirectly from tyranny and crime since every country has had a history of tyranny crime is universal."

The underlined is the assertion that I'm having trouble accepting. It's very clear that the statement "Everyone (can you be more specific?) benefits indirectly from tyranny." is wholly false. The statement is rendered illogical and lacking, because it still doesn't address what I want to see: 'Those who benefit or have benefitted from tyranny, to be punished." ---Something tells me that your refusal to accept this stems not from a love of Democracy, but a knowledge that your lifestyle comes at the expense of others. You don't want to admit it. You don't want to pay for it. You want your hands to be washed of any blood. But you can't. It rubs off from the money you and I spend.
Keep in mind

"People should be free to say whatever they want, punishing people for not saying what you want is tyranny, so the only way to get people to agree with you is by proving that tyranny in history is one factor explaining their current wealth. The roman slave trade for instance was detrimental since it reduced the need to invent labour saving devices stunting the few technological legacies the romans left behind aswell as the rate of technological development thereafter."

But, this is so obvious. You're telling me you really think the way America earned it's country, it's democracy, was 100% ethical? You consider the strife we purposefully spread through out the world in the form of misapproiated aid, "Free Trade" and our 'Baby Huey' of a Foreign Policy to be ethical? Explain to me how you justify the things I listed.

"The evidence is slavery, colonization, the war in iraq, institutionalized discrimination against minorities (gays, blacks, the middle and lower classes), the creation of the North American Union, The push to take away our gun rights, etc. etc."

These were all forms of recent tyranny inacted by our government or through corporation with our governments blessing. How do you justify this? Do you even believe in justice?

"Communism became a tool of tyranny as communism simply degraded into tyranny in the first few years after the russian revolution. Democracy is nothing like tyranny as these stats (and many others if you could be botherred to look for yourself) proved.


That's just the thing, though. You're still approaching this in relatives. Yeah, relatively speaking Democracy is better than alot of things. But this doesn't disprove the fact that we hold onto this democracy and all the prosperity gained from it via tyrannical methods. You could throw numbers at me all day, but you can't put a numberical value on unethical behavior and injustice.


"Earlier you clearly stated you think that anyone who refuses to acknowledge how the use of tyranny by their own society indirectly benefits them should be punished. Can you blame me for thinking that perhaps you have something against rule by the people (democracy) and liberty? How can you expect me to take you seriously with your claim that you are trying to reveal crimes by people in the government and abuses of democracy if your argument is so weak you must resort to force to silence your critics?


"Force"? Where did you read that? I said "punishment" not, "force". Who will dole out this punishment and what this punishment should be...I'm not sure, yet. But there should be consequences. Any ethical or honorable person can understand this.



"None of these despotisms permitted the same level of freedom of speech you are allowed today, existence under them was worse than even the poorest most oppressive times under a democracy. Democracy isn't perfect, but it is certainly nothing like tyranny. I believe only the perpetrators of tyranny should be punished, but the people they oppressed should not be punished further no matter how free they are in the distant future."

That's great.

But the bread on your plate, the television that brings you your "free speach" still comes at the expense of millions starving in Africa, millions with parched throats because their water has be privatized in South America, it comes at the expense millions of dead chinese and arabs, it comes at the expense of once soverign nations forced to join the EU just to compete with our tactics. Perhaps... we are about to pay for our lack of willingness to take responsibility for the tyranny our democratic government has wrought across the globe and at home.  Maybe our punishment was just dealt out by Bush signing up with Canada and Mexico.

>>82
My television didn't come from Africa.