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

>>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.