NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan160.html

I'm leaving as soon as possible. Anyone joining me?

No Im staying because well we arent fascist, and even if we were I'd still stay. Just think how powerful and great America would become if we adopted fascist principles. P.S., where you thinking your going if your leaving?

Nah.

That site tends to go over the top on issues.

We are still light years from being the 4th Reich.

Hrmm...

We've had worse.

I'm leaving as soon as possible. Anyone joining me?

that was my initial thought. but i think i'd rather take up the old rallying cry:

¡No Pasarán!

Not to mention no matter what Bush does... he will still have to go in about 2 years, if he was gonna turn the country into a dictatorship he would of already

Americans are pretty apathetic, but they're starting to catch on.

If Bush stayed any longer than his remaining two years, things would get messy in a hurry. Frankly, we're all getting sick of him.

that was my initial thought. but i think i'd rather take up the old rallying cry:

¡No Pasarán!

What's that mean?

Awfully selective and slanted essay isn't it? Looks like someones brewing up a conspiracy theory.

[Edit]
You know, I'm starting to see it all come together. First Bush (Sr) killed JFK (http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm), then his son took over the country and will turn us all into Nazis with his brain control ray.:p

What's that mean?

“they shall not pass"

It was a battle cry when they tried to defend Madrid from the Facists.

“they shall not pass"

It was a battle cry when they tried to defend Madrid from the Facists.

ty

Ahhh, my favorite part of the day. Refuting an illogical noobs theroy.

Lets compare America, too say, the Third Reich, and the Italian Republic, circa, WWII.

Secret Prisons: How are they secret if we KNOW about them...

Torture: Cannot use lethal/ life threatening/or anything that can cause major injury.

Arrests: Please give me the list of names, of those who have "disapeared" by the evil Bush goverment! They must;ve have gotten thier familiy and friedns too shut up too, seing as they were picked off the street.

Militarism: Having 1/280 citizens, in the millitary, (.40%) along with a lowered defence budget, and an ALL VOLUNTARY ARMY, doest seem "rampant" too me. Compared too the Third Reichs full conscription policy.

Secret Detention: You just stated the same question....see Arrests.

Enforced Dissapereance: Once again, the families, friends, and witnesses were paid, too not tell of this? Or perhaos they were shot...in turn the left-news media agreed too shut up about it. hmm.

Denial of Habeas corpus: Are you refering too domestic felons, or enemy combatants?

Unfair Trials: An example....please....Plus...POW's are given the right too trial.

Please refute me.

Americans are pretty apathetic, but they're starting to catch on.

If Bush stayed any longer than his remaining two years, things would get messy in a hurry. Frankly, we're all getting sick of him.

"we all" excuse me, but I did not give you leave to speak for me, I persoanlly am rather fond of Bush for President

"we all" excuse me, but I did not give you leave to speak for me, I persoanlly am rather fond of Bush for President

Really?

Why not give a few bullets for the reasons. Strange question: Are you in Florida?

If I leave, who'se going to fix the goddamn country?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan160.html

I'm leaving as soon as possible. Anyone joining me?

Every piece of 'evidence' that your article cited still leaves us a far cry form Fascism, you know, that whole, right to vote thing, equality ('cause yeah, Muslim's are treated equally as far as I have ever seen), adn lets see, 'rampant militarism'? HA! We invaded Iraq because they broke U.N. law... 17 (?) times I believe, we should have been backed by the U.N., so lets see, that wasn't rampant, we are worried about extremists in Iran developing nuclear weaponry, so we are edgy with that... but are we invading, annexing, and taking over countries similar to Italy, and Germany in WWII? Well, Poland is still sovereign, so is Austria, and France, and Manchuria, and North Africa, hmmm, boy, we really sound hardcore fascisst, and militarily rampant now don't we?

Really?

Why not give a few bullets for the reasons. Strange question: Are you in Florida?

No, Minnesota, and the reasons are based on that I do not know of a situation, or standpoint of Bus's that I have yet disagreed with

http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan160.html

I'm leaving as soon as possible. Anyone joining me?

yeah, and I forgot in the above post, your very right to post such stuff proves hands down that we are not Fascist, do you think Hitler allowed anti NSDAP propoganda? yeah, I don't think so either

Every piece of 'evidence' that your article cited still leaves us a far cry form Fascism, you know, that whole, right to vote thing, equality ('cause yeah, Muslim's are treated equally as far as I have ever seen), adn lets see, 'rampant militarism'? HA! We invaded Iraq because they broke U.N. law... 17 (?) times I believe, we should have been backed by the U.N., so lets see, that wasn't rampant, we are worried about extremists in Iran developing nuclear weaponry, so we are edgy with that... but are we invading, annexing, and taking over countries similar to Italy, and Germany in WWII? Well, Poland is still sovereign, so is Austria, and France, and Manchuria, and North Africa, hmmm, boy, we really sound hardcore fascisst, and militarily rampant now don't we?

*double takes* Someone not anti-bush and reasonable? That makes you, me, and about 100 million more!

"we all" excuse me, but I did not give you leave to speak for me, I persoanlly am rather fond of Bush for President

Apologies. By "all", I meant "majority".

*double takes* Someone not anti-bush and reasonable? That makes you, me, and about 100 million more!

:)

No, Minnesota, and the reasons are based on that I do not know of a situation, or standpoint of Bus's that I have yet disagreed with

w00t! A fellow Minnesotan. :D

Apologies. By "all", I meant "majority".

well, that leaves a syntax problem ("we majority") but I get the point, lol

w00t! A fellow Minnesotan. :D

it honestly does not seem like there are many Minnesotans on the internet... for some reason....

well, that leaves a syntax problem ("we majority") but I get the point, lol

Really, I try speak good.

Really, I try speak good.
:D

Another interesting point; the author cites not one government official, only conservative political pundits and nutjobs-- Ann Coulter, for example, is not a member of the government. If you want to indict the entire Republican party, and every single human being who is a member, go ahead. Just don't expect anyone to believe your claim of fascism based on the words of an unknown writer on an alarmist website, who quotes Ann Coulter as his reasoning that a government in which she plays no part is a fascist one.

it honestly does not seem like there are many Minnesotans on the internet... for some reason....
I'm from and in Minnesota. Maybe we just don't advertise it that much.

I'm from and in Minnesota. Maybe we just don't advertise it that much.

guess not, lol, feel a little foolish now... (not that many... three out of like 7 people in this thread so far)

AH....AH....AHCOOO! *sniff* Sry I'm allergic to left wing Democrats. Personally i don't feel bad for the terrorists at Gitmo... Thats what you get when you mess with the US.

True we are violating human rights but somebody needs to check how long these people have been doing it so i don't feel bad for Religious fundamentalists like the terrorists.

Nothing wrong with the Amish though... The coolest fundamentalist there is!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan160.html

I'm leaving as soon as possible. Anyone joining me?

I'm not reading that article, but leaving is a mistake. Stay and help make things better.

Jeez, this whole "love it or leave it" attitude should be matched by "I love it and I'm staying, motherfucker!" not "OK, I guess I'll go to Canada. Bye!"

No, Minnesota, and the reasons are based on that I do not know of a situation, or standpoint of Bus's that I have yet disagreed with

Interesting. So he has done nothing wrong?

Interesting. So he has done nothing wrong?

well see, your question, and my statement do no align, you are asking an objective question, I was making a subjective statement....

well see, your question, and my statement do no align, you are asking an objective question, I was making a subjective statement....

Actually you basically said you agreed with everything he has done when you said you could not think of a situation or standpoint you disagreed with.

The Florida comment is because I have family there and they and their friends think he is the best Pres ever!

Can't we all just get along?


:(

<snip> Personally i don't feel bad for the terrorists at Gitmo... Thats what you get when you mess with the US.

True we are violating human rights but somebody needs to check how long these people have been doing it so i don't feel bad for Religious fundamentalists like the terrorists.<snip
Okay, no. I don't think we're fascists, but the violation of human rights is something against which this country has tried to stand for for years. The legal rights that are being denied the people at Guantanamo Bay (Right to a speedy trial, right to face one's accuser, etc) are written into our jurisprudence.

Our nation, as much as any other, must abide by its own laws and the laws to which it is a signatory. I do not claim to agree (see my previous post) that we're a fascist country. However, we are systematically denying rights to people (something to which you stipulate). You seem to think that because someone has tried to wrong us, they are no longer subject to the rights of a human being, and need not be treated as one.

If we stoop to that level as a matter of course, the United States becomes nothing better than the terrorists that it fights. Yes, that's a cliche. But it's true; in any ideological war (such as this) it simply does not do to commit the same or similar crimes to those that you fight. In this case, we operate under the burden of having to observe laws and such that our enemies do not. However, it is a burden that the United States-- if it is honest in its intent to be a champion of human dignity-- must uphold.

I'm not reading that article, but leaving is a mistake. Stay and help make things better.

Jeez, this whole "love it or leave it" attitude should be matched by "I love it and I'm staying, motherfucker!" not "OK, I guess I'll go to Canada. Bye!"

Actually, I was thinking the Philippines...

Can't we all just get along?


:(

FRACK OFF!


:p ;)

Can't we all just get along?


:(

NO! :mad:

*punches random NSer*



:p

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/09/thus-world-was-lost.html
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/10/torture-and-fascism.html
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115953279697963927

*lights Congo on fire*
I won't get along with liberal, pinko slime! NEVARR!

(To prevent myself from being sigged in ridicule, I'll have you know that I'm joking.)

I don't think we're fascists

on the grounds that the fascist movement hasn't completely solidified it's hold on power, or on the grounds that there isn't a fascist movement?

On the grounds that the fascist movement has not solidified its hold on power to any meaningful extent. To wit, Bush isn't a fascist. His policies are distasteful, some more than others. I'm not a huge fan of Guantanamo Bay-- I think that's coming across. I would, however, suggest that the article provided doesn't represent the US government. It uses as its evidence statements made by Ann Coulter and Douglass MacKinnon, neither of whom are members of the government. They speak for a minority viewpoint held by some Republicans, not the Republican party itself-- at least, no more than Michael Moore speaks for the Democrats.

Can't we all just get along?


:(

No

http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan160.html

I'm leaving as soon as possible. Anyone joining me?

I would love to! But I'm only 13, 14 tomorrow.

EDIT: To Finland, of course? Canada is fine too.

NO! :mad:

*punches random NSer*



:p

Ouch

*puts steak to eye*

*eats steak*

Isn't it plausible that if you leave America and it becomes fascist it will turn several countries into radioactive craters? It's probably safer to stay.

Just think how powerful and great America would become if we adopted fascist principles.
Hitler had the same dream, not about America but Germany, and he is dead and so are tens of millions of others. Yea Fascism!! :rolleyes:

How does this term grab you?

A military democracy.

Has both amor para la guerra and joie de vivre.

The fact that you can call the US fascist and not be killed or imprisoned is proof that we are not fascist.

The fact that you can call the US fascist and not be killed or imprisoned is proof that we are not fascist.

Wait, the U.S. government DOESN'T detain protest leaders?

Wait, the U.S. government DOESN'T detain protest leaders?

Not unless they're breaking the law. I could walk down the street with a shirt that says "Fuck Bush" on the front and a burning American flag on the back and not have to worry about being arrested or harassed by police.

We still have freedom of speech, and in fact our freedom of speech is a lot more than other countries, even many European ones.

Not unless they're breaking the law. I could walk down the street with a shirt that says "Fuck Bush" on the front and a burning American flag on the back and not have to worry about being arrested or harassed by police.

We still have freedom of speech, and in fact our freedom of speech is a lot more than other countries, even many European ones.

Bullshit. And the 'arrested' statement could be pushing it as well.

Bullshit. And the 'arrested' statement could be pushing it as well.

Really? I seem to recall protests all the time during the 2004 election, and they were allowed to protest without police interference.

Actually, I was thinking the Philippines...

Yes, I hear the dirt poor Abu Sayef ridden Philippines is a wonderful place to live.

Really? I seem to recall protests all the time during the 2004 election, and they were allowed to protest without police interference.

And do you know why? Most of them were televised. Look at the ones that aren't receiving media coverage. Authoritarianism ahoy!

Really? I seem to recall protests all the time during the 2004 election, and they were allowed to protest without police interference.

Because there were shitloads of them. If it's just you, or a small number of people you're in trouble. Maybe it's different in the US, but where I come from, the police are there with cameras and ill-will.

Tch. And the claim of 'no police interference' is a little misleading. People were arrested during those demonstrations and the police presence was heavy. So no skulls got cracked? No Cochabamba riots? Good stuff.

Isn't it plausible that if you leave America and it becomes fascist it will turn several countries into radioactive craters? It's probably safer to stay.

Better to disappear in a firey radioactive cloud then to be disappeared by your own government. Hopefully the person we "elect" in 2008 will be less dangerous then the guy in the White House currently.

Because there were shitloads of them. If it's just you, or a small number of people you're in trouble. Maybe it's different in the US, but where I come from, the police are there with cameras and ill-will.

Tch. And the claim of 'no police interference' is a little misleading. People were arrested during those demonstrations and the police presence was heavy. So no skulls got cracked? No Cochabamba riots? Good stuff.

Most protesters I've spoken to appreciate the police presence and even go so far as to thank them as they leave.

:p
If we were facist, Michael Moore, would be rotting in a gulag, rather than producing human fecal matter out of his mouth.

Because there were shitloads of them. If it's just you, or a small number of people you're in trouble. Maybe it's different in the US, but where I come from, the police are there with cameras and ill-will.


They're there with cameras only to prosecute any who would hijack a protest and turn it violent. Good for all wouldn't you say?

On the grounds that the fascist movement has not solidified its hold on power to any meaningful extent. To wit, Bush isn't a fascist. His policies are distasteful, some more than others. I'm not a huge fan of Guantanamo Bay-- I think that's coming across. I would, however, suggest that the article provided doesn't represent the US government. It uses as its evidence statements made by Ann Coulter and Douglass MacKinnon, neither of whom are members of the government. They speak for a minority viewpoint held by some Republicans, not the Republican party itself-- at least, no more than Michael Moore speaks for the Democrats.
Perhaps you missed the point raised in the article?

Herr Goebbels – oops, I mean MacKinnon – writes, "Until we severely punish those who leak classified information, then the traitors among us will not only continue to flourish, but will grow more brazen with the secrets they reveal."

Yes, what we ought to be able to do, you know, is simply seize anyone who even mentions our government’s "secret" prisons, and, without a trial, throw them in a secret prison! This is the logical conclusion of this fascist’s article, after all, since those who talk about the American Gulag are pretty much terrorists themselves.

Folks, this is coming real soon, and, once it does, domestic opposition is pretty much over. One journalist – that will be about all it takes – will be seized as a "terrorist" and thrown in the Gulag. The government may release him, but then another will simply disappear in the night in Iraq or Afghanistan, and rumors will circulate that he is being kept in a cage somewhere and waterboarded. No journalist lacking heroic courage will any longer be willing to seriously protest government policy.
They are already practising this in Iraq?

In Iraq, the US does eliminate those who dare to count the dead (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1366349,00.html)

Certainly an interesting article.

More....

Journalists Take Flak in Iraq (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040112/rozen)

"Our journalists in Iraq have been shoved to the ground, pushed out of the way, told to leave the scene of explosions; we've had camera disks and videotapes confiscated, reporters detained," says Sandy Johnson, Washington bureau chief for the Associated Press. On November 12 Johnson sent a letter to the Pentagon, signed by thirty other media companies, which cited their concern at "a growing number of incidents in Iraq in which journalists are harassed by U.S. troops in the course of covering the news."

Even scarier:

Independent Press Was a Target in Iraq (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0228-20.htm)

Mr. Jordan, who had been with CNN for 23 years, said during the World Economic Forum in Switzerland that a dozen journalists covering the war "not only [had] been killed by U.S. troops in Iraq but they had in fact been targeted," according to press accounts.

Or the US could just buy favourable journalism?:

Controversial group wins public relations contract in Iraq (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/09/26/1904628-ap.html)

A public relations company known for its role in a controversial U.S. military program that paid Iraqi newspapers for stories favourable to coalition forces has been awarded another multi-million dollar media contract with American forces in Iraq.

Whatever the "truth" may be, one should always be wary when the warning bells are ringing?

Not unless they're breaking the law. I could walk down the street with a shirt that says "Fuck Bush" on the front and a burning American flag on the back and not have to worry about being arrested or harassed by police.

We still have freedom of speech, and in fact our freedom of speech is a lot more than other countries, even many European ones.
Yet you could get arrested for wearing a T-shirt at a State of the Union address?

Sheehan, Young arrests net apology from chief (http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/Feb/20060203News014.asp)

Freedom of speech is not so "free"?

Every piece of 'evidence' that your article cited still leaves us a far cry form Fascism, you know, that whole, right to vote thing, equality ('cause yeah, Muslim's are treated equally as far as I have ever seen), adn lets see, 'rampant militarism'? HA! We invaded Iraq because they broke U.N. law... 17 (?) times I believe, we should have been backed by the U.N., so lets see, that wasn't rampant, we are worried about extremists in Iran developing nuclear weaponry, so we are edgy with that... but are we invading, annexing, and taking over countries similar to Italy, and Germany in WWII? Well, Poland is still sovereign, so is Austria, and France, and Manchuria, and North Africa, hmmm, boy, we really sound hardcore fascisst, and militarily rampant now don't we?

What is UN law 17?
I thought the US couldn't invade Irak, that's why there were so many manifestations against the war in Irak, even more than the war in Afganistan.
What did Irak do wrong?
Did they have weapons of mass destruction? Don't think so
Is there a proven link between Al-Qaeda an Saddam? No link found
Did Saddam murder thousands of people? Yes, but how about in Kazachstan, where the opposition has nothing to say and gets beaten up whenever they say something?
Did Saddam use biological/chemical weapons? Yes, but how about WOI? How about Vietnam? etc
So you see why should the US have the right to murder hundreds of people in Irak?

Yet you could get arrested for wearing a T-shirt at a State of the Union address?

Freedom of speech is not so "free"?

The police misinterpreted a vague law and made a mistake. It happens, and it will always happen because the police are human beings who made a mistake. They know they did, and they apologized, and it has been settled.

And do you know why? Most of them were televised. Look at the ones that aren't receiving media coverage. Authoritarianism ahoy!

Could you provide some sources that show protests are routinely cracked down on? Because if that happens, it is definitely against the law and people would be able to take the government to court for it.

Those be heavy words you're throwing around out there.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The police misinterpreted a vague law and made a mistake. It happens, and it will always happen because the police are human beings who made a mistake. They know they did, and they apologized, and it has been settled.
You really are soft soaping that incident and you know it. :p

You really are soft soaping that incident and you know it. :p

What, did Dick Cheney insist the Police arrest the guy? Something tells me the Po-po's were doing what they mistakenly thought was appropriate.

We are still light years from being the 4th Reich.

Especially considering that the US hasn't even had a First Reich yet.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan160.html

I'm leaving as soon as possible. Anyone joining me?

Don't let the door hit you on the way out :p

What is UN law 17?
I thought the US couldn't invade Irak, that's why there were so many manifestations against the war in Irak, even more than the war in Afganistan.
What did Irak do wrong?
Did they have weapons of mass destruction? Don't think so
Is there a proven link between Al-Qaeda an Saddam? No link found
Did Saddam murder thousands of people? Yes, but how about in Kazachstan, where the opposition has nothing to say and gets beaten up whenever they say something?
Did Saddam use biological/chemical weapons? Yes, but how about WOI? How about Vietnam? etc
So you see why should the US have the right to murder hundreds of people in Irak?


Lets review...

What did Irak (might wanna spell check "Iraq" buddy) do wrong: Killed 500,000, rampantly tortured and raped civilians, refused UN weapon inspectors.

Did they have weapons of mass destruction? Thousands of tons of conventional arms, stored in hospitals, "milk" homginization plants, etc.

Proven link between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda? Nope. I just figured a fanatical muslim dictator, with acess too a massive, oil supported goverment budget, would support terrorists who wished ill to the nation that defeated him in the Gulf War. (Hey, liberals speculate, so will I)

Did Sadaam murder thousands of people? This is differnt than tribal wars, or disputes over goats. This was an organized goverment, funding, and carrying out chemical strikes on civilians. (Not too mention the mass garves...whats the deal with thos. Did they just blow over, after Farenheit 9/11 came out?)

Did Sadaam use chemical warfare? Yes....ON CIVILIANS, NOT ENEMY SOLDIERS (well with the exception of the Iranians)

Why should the US have the right too murder terrorists, who support and praise the muder of 3,000 american civilians, while they continue too opress thier fellow muslims, too follow thier facist twist on Islam, and call for death too america? You tell me.

Basically you're asking, why are we killing facist islamic anti-american terrorists? Well pinko, you tell me. :rolleyes:

The police misinterpreted a vague law and made a mistake.

They dug up a vague law by accident, or something?

Most protesters I've spoken to appreciate the police presence and even go so far as to thank them as they leave.

Once again its perhaps cultural differences here, but on protests I've been on, the police are viewed with a little skepticism. Why are they there? Who are they meant to protect? Why such large numbers for what the majority wishes to be a peaceful protest? I've never seen or heard of anyone thanking the police for their presence. What did these people say? "Thanks for cordoning us in back there. I loved spending seven hours in Trafalgar Square. Thank god no-one kicked off and you didn't wade in, swinging your batons indiscriminately"?


They're there with cameras only to prosecute any who would hijack a protest and turn it violent. Good for all wouldn't you say?

Except that they're there with their cameras for lone protests and small demonstrations. I dig where you're coming from, but information is double-edged. National database, and all that.

They dug up a vague law by accident, or something?



Once again its perhaps cultural differences here, but on protests I've been on, the police are viewed with a little skepticism. Why are they there? Who are they meant to protect? Why such large numbers for what the majority wishes to be a peaceful protest? I've never seen or heard of anyone thanking the police for their presence. What did these people say? "Thanks for cordoning us in back there. I loved spending seven hours in Trafalgar Square. Thank god no-one kicked off and you didn't wade in, swinging your batons indiscriminately"?



Except that they're there with their cameras for lone protests and small demonstrations. I dig where you're coming from, but information is double-edged. National database, and all that.

I hate this statement but "whats the problem if you arent doing anything wrong?". I don't mean this to look the way it is. I mean it as a sincere question

On the grounds that the fascist movement has not solidified its hold on power to any meaningful extent. To wit, Bush isn't a fascist. His policies are distasteful, some more than others. I'm not a huge fan of Guantanamo Bay-- I think that's coming across.

the only things seperating the bush movement from the fascism of old is that it pretends it isn't a revolutionary movement (most of the time, anyway) rather than revelling in it, and it hasn't really taken up organized street violence. but since they didn't need to do either in order to consolidate power, i'm not sure that matters. they've got the rest down cold.

and i disagree with david neiwert's position, at the end of the article of his i linked to before (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/10/torture-and-fascism.html):

The chief reason we can say that this is not yet genuine fascism is because the latter only arises in a democracy in a state of crisis, following a significant period of decay. There has not yet been a real crisis of governance, which is most likely to arise in our system of democracy as a constitutional crisis.

Unfortunately, this administration seems determined, in its mad rush to power, to spark just such a crisis.

it looks to me as if the bush movement, from election day 2000 on, has been nothing but an extended crisis, each little part of which has left the bush movement holding more and more power.

It uses as its evidence statements made by Ann Coulter and Douglass MacKinnon, neither of whom are members of the government. They speak for a minority viewpoint held by some Republicans, not the Republican party itself-- at least, no more than Michael Moore speaks for the Democrats.

ann coulter is completely integrated into the movement. her status as an author and media personality are entirely propped up by official movement funding sources and propaganda outlets.

and how often does moore get to share the stage with the bigwigs of the democratic party during major party events? cause ann coulter gets invited to be be her open, extremist fascist self while standing next to cheney and mehlman and hastert, etc.

ann coulter plays a very specific role within the movement - she serves to transmit ideas from the fringes to the mainstream. that's why they employ her. today's ann coulter outrageous comment has a nasty tendency to become tomorrow's openly spoken common belief within the core of the movement, and then become the day after's official state policy.

What, did Dick Cheney insist the Police arrest the guy? Something tells me the Po-po's were doing what they mistakenly thought was appropriate.
They did know that Sheehan would be there. They were waiting for her. :p

Soft soaping on your part as well. :eek:

Lets review...

What did Irak (might wanna spell check "Iraq" buddy) do wrong: Killed 500,000, rampantly tortured and raped civilians, refused UN weapon inspectors.

Did they have weapons of mass destruction? Thousands of tons of conventional arms, stored in hospitals, "milk" homginization plants, etc.

Proven link between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda? Nope. I just figured a fanatical muslim dictator, with acess too a massive, oil supported goverment budget, would support terrorists who wished ill to the nation that defeated him in the Gulf War. (Hey, liberals speculate, so will I)

Did Sadaam murder thousands of people? This is differnt than tribal wars, or disputes over goats. This was an organized goverment, funding, and carrying out chemical strikes on civilians. (Not too mention the mass garves...whats the deal with thos. Did they just blow over, after Farenheit 9/11 came out?)

Did Sadaam use chemical warfare? Yes....ON CIVILIANS, NOT ENEMY SOLDIERS (well with the exception of the Iranians)

Why should the US have the right too murder terrorists, who support and praise the muder of 3,000 american civilians, while they continue too opress thier fellow muslims, too follow thier facist twist on Islam, and call for death too america? You tell me.

Basically you're asking, why are we killing facist islamic anti-american terrorists? Well pinko, you tell me. :rolleyes:
You "speculate" and spell poorly. :p

Lets review...

What did Irak (might wanna spell check "Iraq" buddy) do wrong: Killed 500,000, rampantly tortured and raped civilians, refused UN weapon inspectors.

Did they have weapons of mass destruction? Thousands of tons of conventional arms, stored in hospitals, "milk" homginization plants, etc.

Proven link between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda? Nope. I just figured a fanatical muslim dictator, with acess too a massive, oil supported goverment budget, would support terrorists who wished ill to the nation that defeated him in the Gulf War. (Hey, liberals speculate, so will I)

Did Sadaam murder thousands of people? This is differnt than tribal wars, or disputes over goats. This was an organized goverment, funding, and carrying out chemical strikes on civilians. (Not too mention the mass garves...whats the deal with thos. Did they just blow over, after Farenheit 9/11 came out?)

Did Sadaam use chemical warfare? Yes....ON CIVILIANS, NOT ENEMY SOLDIERS (well with the exception of the Iranians)

Why should the US have the right too murder terrorists, who support and praise the muder of 3,000 american civilians, while they continue too opress thier fellow muslims, too follow thier facist twist on Islam, and call for death too america? You tell me.

Basically you're asking, why are we killing facist islamic anti-american terrorists? Well pinko, you tell me. :rolleyes:

weapons of mass destruction? Mmmh, how about attick yourself, or the UK, or Russia, or India or maybe your good friend Isreal, noet behaving so nicely either huh, with the palestinians. But it's probably all palestinian fault.

Refused UN ispectors? How about Hans Blix, really short term memory.


Yea, he used it on his own citizens, but the US used it on citizens from Vietnam/Cong and on plants and tress, it still has effect now.

I'm asking why youre killing so called fanatic islmaics and no fanatic catholics?

sorry if there are spelling mistakes, in dont know the english language perfectly

I hate this statement but "whats the problem if you arent doing anything wrong?". I don't mean this to look the way it is. I mean it as a sincere question

I'm with it.

I should have used better language in my last post. Along with skepticism, there's also a sense of wariness around the police. We know we're not doing anything wrong when we go on a march, or perform certain other acts of protest, or stand in Oxford St and loudly denounce the government, but if someone does do something wrong, and he really fucks things up, then the police are going to go in mob handed. No-one needs that.

The grey area is what you see as 'wrong', so two examples I give:

1) Until last year, it was your inalienable right to stand outside parliament and protest. This is no longer the case. Now you have to apply to the police before protesting in the 'exclusion zone'. So, if we protest without a permit, we're doing something wrong. We are then arrested. It feels bizarre, to say the least, because the people inside that building are meant to represent us.* (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4640007.stm)

2) At speaker's corner in Hyde Park, you can talk about anything you want except the overthrow of the goverment and regicide. If you do so, you will be arrested. I've seen it happen. Strange atmosphere. The police were nervous.

I'm with it.

2) At speaker's corner in Hyde Park, you can talk about anything you want except the overthrow of the goverment and regicide. If you do so, you will be arrested. I've seen it happen. Strange atmosphere. The police were nervous.

Didnt know this. I live and learn. Is there a specific point where normal dissent against the government becomes talking about overthrow of the government.

It also seems to me, although I may be wrong, that it isn't so much the police use of cameras that you dislike, but their tactics in the event of violence. What would be the difference though if they weren't around and the protest was hijacked? Its more an issue of planning protests along with the police than anything else

Didnt know this. I live and learn. Is there a specific point where normal dissent against the government becomes talking about overthrow of the government.

I suppose when you're saying that you want to overthrow the government and you're asking people for help. Speaker's corner is a good example, because it's like an off-key protest march where you don't go anywhere. Ready made mob for a truly brilliant speaker (I mean messianically brilliant).

It also seems to me, although I may be wrong, that it isn't so much the police use of cameras that you dislike, but their tactics in the event of violence.


My bioidentity-card quip was a backhand reference to this. Two negative conclusions against one positive:
+ In the event of trouble, police can deal with it later
- You are among those reclassified when the law tightens
- It's not helping anything on the day. It pisses people off. That's why people respond by taking photos of the police, which really pisses them off. We don't need to be reminded that a vast bureaucracy works the strings in power. Stay behind a window.


What would be the difference though if they weren't around and the protest was hijacked? Its more an issue of planning protests along with the police than anything else


There's the rub. When the potentate looks at a protest, it looks at a bunch of people who, it is convinced, wants to wrest power away from itself. It's probably partly right, but the insane lengths that it goes to in protecting itself makes the mob more aware that there's something to be gained from a ransacking. If the protest was hi-jacked by the police, what would you think?

If I leave, who'se going to fix the goddamn country?

Why, the people who will own it, of course. You know, China and Mexico.