Repubs and warmongers, read and learn

[cockdezl]

You don't live in a free country. Your government now has the most far reaching powers over you through organisations which aren't really accountable to the public or a democratic process. You have lost the most basic of freedoms in the US since 9/11 which my government where I live can't deny me.

I agree with your statements, but I bet we differ in the specifics. Be specific in what basic freedoms we have lost, that your government cannot remove from you.

This lack of freedom isn't completely new either. No other Western government has the right to execute its citizens. Capital Punishment is considered a human rights abuse somewhat like torture in these countries.

This is why I realize that we do not agree on specifics. You believe that the execution of a convicted murderer, given due process of the law, tried by a jury of his peers, is somehow immoral. Yet I watch on TV as most of Europe (countries that is, not the individuals, but a significant number mind you) will kill and destroy at the drop of a hat over soccer games.

Only in modern times has capital punishment become some sort of human rights issue, ignoring the fact that it is simply the most logical means of individual punishment. Somehow many make the leap in logic that there is moral equivalency in societal punishment for crime and the immoral act of the criminal.

For a long time the US has been at the bottom of the list of Western countries when it comes to respect for human rights. The US sits around about the same rank as Israel.

I read further down that you took this from a UN statistic, but I must ask: Why do we care what the UN states? Can you give me some reason why a multi-national body, consisting of undemocratic officials, despots, and figure-heads, has some sort of unbiased credibility?

Also, I must ask what specific human rights violations have we commited in the eyes of this benevolent organisation, which represents a multitude of nations, some of which impose forced abortions on its women, condone slavery and outright kill its civilians at whim?

Your freedoms exist largely in rhetoric more than in fact.

Again we agree in idea, but not in specifics. It is evident that what you conceive as rights are not what my philosophy defines as rights. I have read the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and it becomes ridiculous as it begins to mention such pseudo-liberties as:
The right to social security
The right to a standard of living
The right to rest and leisure
(all qualified mind you in Article 29 which states: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.")

I do believe my freedoms are being infringed upon, with ever expanding central government depriving me of individual liberties, all under the guise of "security" and the "general welfare".

 

[cockdezl]

The far right government currently stinking out the White House has done more in the last nine months to remove the basic rights and freedoms of Americans than any other administration in living memory.

I agree with you, but I am afraid to ask you to elaborate, since I have a feeling that you will refer to some pseudo-liberties, such as right to health care and right to a pristine environment.

Yu don't live in a free country. You live in a country ruled by a right-wing monied elite. The USA has to be the most plutocratic society in the Western world. Money dominates your most basic requirements in terms of quality of education, healthcare, or legal representation. None of the other so called "less free" developed countries have such extreme variations and inequitable distribution of these basics as the US does. But this is what happens in right wing societies.

Your assertion that economic status is correlated to individual freedom is a pure product of the collectivist, dialectical materialistic mentality that predominates in Europe (and is spreading in the US). Because one does not have a million dollars does not mean that he is not guaranteed the rights afforded our constitution. Money can buy leisure and luxury, but these are not rights, simply the products of success. America is not founded on the premise the all are guaranteed access to our national treasury, or that one has pre-eminence over another due to his economic situation, but that one has right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Actually all rights derive from the first right, the possession of life. America was created with the idea of individual responsibility, while Europe is permeated with the idea of individual entitlement (don't think that I am putting the US on a pedastal, we are becoming very much like this).

In any case your right wing idea of government involvement and individual freedom is just double-speak for taking away power from democratically accountable organisations and giving it to the monied classes under the quise of "individual freedom"

??????

It is known as economic fascism - those who own are those who control. This is why you can't trust anything you see in the American media - it is controlled by the same plutocratic corporate elite who control your congress which masquerades as a democratic institution. The rest of the world is laughing at you because you are just so damned brainwashed. But you dismiss these "unfree" foreigners because you are so complacent about the US's largely illusory "superiority".

Fascism denotes State control, not corporate, another left semantic tool, used to correlate conservatism with Fascism.

But I agree, I do not trust anything that comes from the TV or press, until I have investigated the topic as much as possible to try to validate the claim. What is hilarious is your assertion that what evidently occurs in the US (we are very blind) somehow, magically, does not occur in Europe. Is Europe not made of humans? I guess they laugh because they don't want to feel like they are the only one's duped.

I lived in the former USSR briefly. A major difference between the Russian and American publics was that the Russians knew they were being manipulated and were wary of what they heard. They watched the nightly news with a sceptical eye in the way an American might look at advertising. In the US, brainwashed people like yourself just soak it all up hook, line, and sinker, and that is why you are so easy to manipulate.

Very true, since this is a true of all humans. Man is mentally and ethically lazy, he prefers tyranny over self rule.

 

[cockdezl]

Actually the Europeans I have met who do want to immigrate usually want to go to Australia, not the USA.

Europeans don't have the freedom to decide their own futures? In fact Europeans probably have more chance to do this because their opportunities are not tied so closely to how much money you have as is the case in the US.

Obviously you fail to understand that for one to be GIVEN social services: healthcare, education, social security, then someone else had to have private property (income) taken away. So your idea that money does not play a part in the collectivist utopia is false. Collectivist governments simply denies the right of private property, from the successful, and gives "rights" to the "underpriviledged" (healthcare, housing, etc). This is why collectivist philosophy is immoral, all individuals are not equal, some have needs that are deemed greater than others' needs.

And if the US prevents acheivement due to economic disparity, then why is it that the US produces more Nobel Prize winners, foreign and native born, than any other country?

To think and say whatever they want? I don't see the US offering these freedoms any more than other developed nations.

Really??? Try writing an anti-Holocaust book in Germany. Put a national flag in your front yard, and see if the police don't come knocking asking questions.

Your media is such a plutocratic monopoly that I actually doubt that Americans enjoy as much freedom to think and say whatever. Other Western nations are much more politically diverse societies. The US two-party system locks people out from representation who aren't part of the establishment. In fact your country has actively crushed political opposition it doesn't like - i.e. communists. You've lost a great many basic freedoms under the Bush administration.

The European system of fifty million parties is not particularly pleasing. It imposes a greater tyranny than a two party system, since you can have a party that only a small percentage of citizens agree with gain control of government.

I agree with the problem of the two party system, since it prevents the voice of parties such as the Libertarian Party, but that is the limitations of governmental systems.

You are deluded if you think that ordinary Americans can change the system. An American can only impact on the system once they become part of your society's establishment with support from special interest groups.

Generally, yes, but I would never say never.

How is it that Americans somehow can choose their type of education more than others??? Other nations have public or private, religious or secular education. You name it, it is there. In fact money is what determines American educational choices more than any other factor.

Agree

State-of-the-art healthcare??? You must be joking. There are 20 million people in your country with no healthcare cover. Point out any other Western nation that has any segment of its population without healthcare cover! There isn't one!

As much as leftists wish to play with words, the US DOES have healthcare for ALL of its citizens. The argument that people in the US do not have healthcare is semantics.

Quality of healthcare in the USA is directly determined by how much money you have. In fact healthcare costs are so out of control in the USA that state-of-the-art medicine is less accessible to ordinary Americans than it is to Europeans.

Actually sky-rocketing healthcare costs is a direct response to government intervention. Healthcare costs only became outrageous after government established government healthcare programs.

You are a typical arrogant American, typically brainwashed by propaganda designed to manipulate you for the benefit of those who ACTUALLY rule your society. Americans would rank up at the top of the list in terms of its levels of false consciousness among ordinary citizens.

Probably.

 

[cockdezl]

Best analogy I've heard to explain what I see all around.

What is worse is that a lot of the privileged in America are really NOT protected. Many of these people live on credit. The minute they lose their job or suffer a tragedy, they are poor just like the rest. Since none of us save money, most of us have no more than $10K in the bank. That doesn't go very far if you are laid off from work more than six months, which is what is happening to thousands.

Define "priviledged". Take it from leftist code to real world meaning. I assume you are referring to monetary status as somehow being a priviledge, since this is how collectivists view the world: people aren't successful from acheivement, but from "priviledge" and "luck".

Since none of us save money, why should any of us receive sympathy? If I decide to take all of my paycheck and spend it on the Lottery (a very real everyday occurance), why should I be given aid? Should we condone stupidity? Why should those who are saving for retirement be required to assist the foolish and lazy?

Americans won't fight back until it gets much much worse.

Fight back against what? Personal responsibility? A work ethic?

We are heading for another recessionary dip. I hope we get smashed, not because I hate my country and what it stands for, but because we have the potential for greatness and the middle class is under the illusion that they are immune, while slowly but surely we are being wiped out.

This makes loads of fucking sense. A devout Democrat/leftist who preaches about altruistic socialist policies to help the "poor" and "unfortunate", but dreams of a recession to wipe out people's incomes and life savings.

There is no greatness in your Utopia of theft and entitlement. It is tyranny of the masses, nothing more.

We have to take a stand together.

Yes, and crush the bourgeoisie, eh Lenin?

 

[HansNZ]

This blue writing you have is immune to the "quote" function, so i'll have to do another cut an paste job.


SPONGEBOB: first, i never said it was decisive, but to say it didnt contribute is wrong. non-military supplies was already being sold to the allies under the 1937 neutrality act. weapons were allowed in nov 1939 under a modification of the law. and as i mentioned the US was the MAIN supplier of oil to the allies(tanks and aircraft fuel). the land lease act was passed in march of 41. at this point great britian had already been fighting for 18 months and was broke.

HANSNZ: Any weapons sold under a modification of the neutrality act in 1939 were too late to matter for the Battle of Britain.

So you are also saying that because Britain traded with the US, buying your goods for the profit or your industries that you saved them? The British also traded such material with the Dutch and the French and others, and later raw material with the Russians (which the US also needed). NZ and Australia were huge suppliers of food to the UK which kept them afloat as well, or is food non-essential? This is like saying that I owe my supermarket something because it provides me with the food to stay alive that I spent my money buying from it.


SPONGEBOB: are you telling me that at this point the british could have continued to fight the germans with success?

HANSNZ: If the US had remained outside the conflict then that doesn't mean Germany would have been victorious. It certainly would have changed the character of the war though.

Britain most probably would have sued for peace after it won the battle of Britain. In fact Hitler and Mussolini called on the Brits to call of the war now that they realised that Britain couldn't be knocked out through invasion. Hitler's real target was Russia and didn't want to have to the British biting at his ankles while he was focussing on the Russians. The Spanish dictator Franco refused to join Germany in the war until it had either invaded Britain (which it was unable to do) or made peace with Britain.

Although in the first 6 months of the Russian invasion Western aid hadn't made an impact, the War with Germany may have meant the loss of Leningrad and Moscow to the Germans (as it was to Napoleon). Although loss of these cities would have been psychologically devastating, this in fact would have probably be to the Russian's advantage since these cities were a drain on resources and their strategic factories had either been quickly removed to behind the Urals, or were unusable (i.e. leningrad was under seige and cut off).

To cut a long story short, the war in Russia would most likely have become more partisanlike as it was in Yugoslavia which Germany was also unable to defeat. WW2 certainly would have been longer without US involvement. It is likely to have become more a war of attrition which would ultimately have been to the Russian's advantage.

The Eastern front was a huge bloodbath with Germany eventually just starting to run out of soldiers towards the end of the war (as happened with Napoleon's France too). Considering the USSR had 2.5 times more people than Germany then the Russians were at a clear advantage if the war had dragged on in the long-term. Hitler's whole war strategy against the USSR was one with a short war in mind.


SPONGEBOB: i never said it would not been a direct threat. that is the reasoning roosevelt used to convince the americans to enter the war. we could have just as easily dropped h-bombs on germany and who ever else.

HANSNZ: Well the US nuclear programme was a continuation of the British nuclear programme. Without the extra resources of the US the British feared the Germans would get a bomb first, that is why they ran a joint project. Without the head-start the Brits had made, the whole manhattan project would have had years of research to make up. Britain's exit from the war would have denied the Americans this.

With this scenario it is not unlikely that Germany's nuclear programme may have got to the bomb first. The allies frequently attempted to bomb nuclear research installations yet the German programme continued nonethless. This is why Russia managed to have nukes by 1949. They captured these installations. Obviously the Germans had destroyed much of their research before the Russians could get to it, but they weren't far off. This is why Russia got the bomb so quickly and without the scientific resources that Britain or the USA had.


SPONGEBOB: i wasnt referring to you calling americans arrogant as your arrogance. you attempted to discredit americas contributions and even went on to say that germany could have easily defeated the americans. thats arrogance to me. basically your emotions took over at that point in your post.

HANSNZ: You say I have belittled the sacrifices of American blood. Yet you have also ignored the role or other non-european allies in the war, implying that it is only the US which was decisive. You seem to ignore the role the European powers played in allowing the US to be where it is today. I frequently find it amusing when the Americans say that Europeans would be speaking German if it wasn't for them. Few Americans seem to consider the possibility that they too may be speaking German now also.

 

[HansNZ]

Too bad Hanz's and Strongchick's families weren't killed in the Sept 11th attack......maybe then they wouldn't be cheering it on as the US "getting what it deserved". Again just look at the staements these fools make, they are haters of freedom and the USA just like the Taliban.

Interestingly more civilians have been killed by American bombing in Afghanistan than were killed on sept.11. The Bush administration calls this "collateral damage" which is necessary for the greater good of American "whatever".

This is the same attitude as Bin Laden who says that US civilian deaths are necessary for the greater good of Islamic salvation.

I actually love freeom which is why I oppose militarism and ignorance justified by blind nationalism.

 

[HansNZ]

I agree with your statements, but I bet we differ in the specifics. Be specific in what basic freedoms we have lost, that your government cannot remove from you.

If your government can remove them from you then i'd imagine my government can remove them from me also. But it hasn't done so.

This is why I realize that we do not agree on specifics. You believe that the execution of a convicted murderer, given due process of the law, tried by a jury of his peers, is somehow immoral. Yet I watch on TV as most of Europe (countries that is, not the individuals, but a significant number mind you) will kill and destroy at the drop of a hat over soccer games.

Only in modern times has capital punishment become some sort of human rights issue, ignoring the fact that it is simply the most logical means of individual punishment. Somehow many make the leap in logic that there is moral equivalency in societal punishment for crime and the immoral act of the criminal.

Well it wasn't my intention to start a debate on the death penalty. That is subject matter for another thread completely.

But briefly, let's just say it is an issue of moral authority. You cannot punish a murderer by murdering them because then you are just repeating the same violation and moral authority is lost. I find is a weak argument to say to someone that you can't do something while doing it yourself. That is why you have to treat criminals completely ethically (the perceived "cushy" treatment which the public generally gets so upset about). If your behaviour is not beyond reproach then you automatically begin to lose the moral authority to punish the criminal in the first place, so that is why the law, jails, etc have to be careful about jail conditions, etc.

Murder is murder no matter who is doing it, who did what first, or whatever justification is given. I simply think it is laughable for the USA with its death penalty to preach to other countries about human rights.

But I accept that we are in disagreement. So we'll leave it at that.

I read further down that you took this from a UN statistic, but I must ask: Why do we care what the UN states? Can you give me some reason why a multi-national body, consisting of undemocratic officials, despots, and figure-heads, has some sort of unbiased credibility?

Also, I must ask what specific human rights violations have we commited in the eyes of this benevolent organisation, which represents a multitude of nations, some of which impose forced abortions on its women, condone slavery and outright kill its civilians at whim?

Again we agree in idea, but not in specifics. It is evident that what you conceive as rights are not what my philosophy defines as rights. I have read the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and it becomes ridiculous as it begins to mention such pseudo-liberties as:
The right to social security
The right to a standard of living
The right to rest and leisure
(all qualified mind you in Article 29 which states: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.")

I do believe my freedoms are being infringed upon, with ever expanding central government depriving me of individual liberties, all under the guise of "security" and the "general welfare".

I didn't cite it as a UN statistic. It was either a US government survey or an organisation linked to the US gov't, using American definitions of human rights. Many of the categories of what consititutes a human right were very American ideologically and I did not agree with them all. (e.g. that it is not a violation to execute someone so long as they've had a free trial, etc.)

It was a report issued every year. It's been a while since I saw it. From memory the US scored somewhere in the mid 80% mark. Most European countries scored in the 90s, and Norway and NZ scored 99-100% (although they may have dropped). I think most countries fluctuate a couple of percent from year to year.

 

[HansNZ]

I agree with you, but I am afraid to ask you to elaborate, since I have a feeling that you will refer to some pseudo-liberties, such as right to health care and right to a pristine environment.

From reading this latest post it is becoming apparent that you are speaking from a Libertarian ideological perspective.

And I am refering to libertarian style negative rights rather than positive rights - i.e. right to healthcare, etc - which libertarians don't recognise.

Your assertion that economic status is correlated to individual freedom is a pure product of the collectivist, dialectical materialistic mentality that predominates in Europe (and is spreading in the US).

No actually it was a response to the idea that the US has greater opportunities. State-of-the-art healthcare was one example cited, education was another. I pointed out that access to these was dependent on money in the USA more so than in Europe. It wasn't debating ideas of whether these were rights. I don't consider them rights.

Because one does not have a million dollars does not mean that he is not guaranteed the rights afforded our constitution. Money can buy leisure and luxury, but these are not rights, simply the products of success. America is not founded on the premise the all are guaranteed access to our national treasury, or that one has pre-eminence over another due to his economic situation, but that one has right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Actually all rights derive from the first right, the possession of life. America was created with the idea of individual responsibility, while Europe is permeated with the idea of individual entitlement (don't think that I am putting the US on a pedastal, we are becoming very much like this).

These "entitlements" you talk about are paid for through tax revenue derived overwhelmingly from income taxes (not business taxes) on the middle and working class to whom the vast majority of these entitlements are returned.

I also think you have misunderstood my intentions (or I have not clearly conveyed them). I don't rember saying that everyone was entitled to the same as a right. I was responding to the comments about "opportunity" again.

I was also pointing out the fact that rights in theory don't necessarily translate into rights in practice. I also cited how you need a great deal of money to get elected in the USA. Certainly anyone has the right to run, but without financial backers you are unlikely to get elected.

Even though the US congress is "democratically elected", it is very much under the thumb of special interests which manipulate political outcomes and policies. Even Eisenhower, when he left office, commented on how much influence the military establishment has.

Fascism denotes State control, not corporate, another left semantic tool, used to correlate conservatism with Fascism.

Well I was using the term facism in a different semantic context. I wasn't correlating it with conservatism but with unelected unaccountable people being in control because they happen to control wealth. And yes I do agree with the Marxian idea that societies are controlled by those who control the means of production.

But I agree, I do not trust anything that comes from the TV or press, until I have investigated the topic as much as possible to try to validate the claim. What is hilarious is your assertion that what evidently occurs in the US (we are very blind) somehow, magically, does not occur in Europe. Is Europe not made of humans? I guess they laugh because they don't want to feel like they are the only one's duped.

Oh no, I agree, people in other Western countries get manipulated too. I see it in my own country. What I was commenting on was how prevalent this was in the USA's mainstream media. US movies and TV programmes are absolutely pervaded by rhetoric - far more so than those from other countries.

Because you do have press freedom in the USA there are some independent newspapers who cover everything. But sadly only 3% of the population (estimated) ever really access this alternative media.

The US media also comes across as being "left-wing" from the perspective of so many right-wing Americans. I too acknowledge it's superficial "liberalism", but at the same time I am very conscious of a rather American set of basic values and ideas which pervade it and it's journalists which is very much loaded, manipulative ideas designed for the benefit of establish US elites.

very true, since this is a true of all humans. Man is mentally and ethically lazy, he prefers tyranny over self rule.

Actually I think you might be quite surprised how much more we'd agree on if we weren't limited by this medium and the limits it places on expressing subtle points.

 

[HansNZ]

Obviously you fail to understand that for one to be GIVEN social services: healthcare, education, social security, then someone else had to have private property (income) taken away. So your idea that money does not play a part in the collectivist utopia is false. Collectivist governments simply denies the right of private property, from the successful, and gives "rights" to the "underpriviledged" (healthcare, housing, etc). This is why collectivist philosophy is immoral, all individuals are not equal, some have needs that are deemed greater than others' needs.

OK this is based on a libertarian "tax is theft" type of perspective. The idea being that the way wealth is distributed by the market (an economic liberal construction) is somehow "natural" and "earned".

Access to this wealth is also highly dependent on opportunity which is why modern liberals/social democrats (the people you call "socialists") started to introduce concepts such a free education, etc.

And if the US prevents acheivement due to economic disparity, then why is it that the US produces more Nobel Prize winners, foreign and native born, than any other country?

I don't think economic equality is a pre-requisite for achieveing much in the fields of science, technology, literature, etc. The USA's massive population is another reason, as well as your excellent research endowments and the high proportion of GDP you invest in reasearch and development. This is certainly an example to the rest of the world.

Really??? Try writing an anti-Holocaust book in Germany. Put a national flag in your front yard, and see if the police don't come knocking asking questions.

Try being a Communist in the USA.

The European system of fifty million parties is not particularly pleasing. It imposes a greater tyranny than a two party system, since you can have a party that only a small percentage of citizens agree with gain control of government.

I agree with the problem of the two party system, since it prevents the voice of parties such as the Libertarian Party, but that is the limitations of governmental systems.

We moved from a two-party Westminster system to a Proportional Representation system about 8 years ago. It is certainly far more democratic and accountable.

Your theoretical argument about the smaller party having a democratically disproportional amount of power makes sense but is not translated into reality. Our experience has been that the policies of each party are included in proportion to their size of their electorate vote.

There are two main parties and several smaller parties in parliament here in NZ. If the smaller partner is not co-operative then a coalition with a different party is formed. The coalition is usually based on support during cofidence and supply votes. When it comes to legislation, the coalition partners often vote against eachother in parliament - joining forces with the "opposition" on areas of common ground.

As much as leftists wish to play with words, the US DOES have healthcare for ALL of its citizens. The argument that people in the US do not have healthcare is semantics.
Actually sky-rocketing healthcare costs is a direct response to government intervention. Healthcare costs only became outrageous after government established government healthcare programs.

Really? Well experiences overseas have shown the opposite. In fact the US system is often cited as the reason FOR having state provisioned healthcare.

I have received medical treatment in the USA. Without going into details lets just say that I was overtreated. When something is provisioned for profit then the incentives are to sell more of the "product". I was required to have expensive blood tests which seemed to serve no crucial function - it was "procedure". I also received X-rays which cost FAR more than they would cost here (about 3 times more).

I also felt that much of my overtreatment was to cover the doctor's own back in case something went wrong. I was given routine care by doctors when a nurse could have done the same job just as effectively. Money was spent testing and avoiding "possible" side-effects which seemed highly unlikely to occur, and seemed motivated simply out of fear of lawsuits.

The US spends about twice as much per person as Europe on healthcare. Yet despite what you say not everyone in your country receives the "state-of-the-art" healthcare that someone earlier was claiming. Two basic social statistics - infant mortality and life-expectancy - are not as good as Europe's, despite the USA's excessive expenditure.

A state run system can keep costs on medical treatment under control, and the price of prescription drugs down. But once again I suspect we won't ever agree on this point.

In any case it has taken me two hours to respond to these posts. While I find your comments interesting, I am not sure whether i'll have the time to continue the debate. I have work to do, so I will leave you to have the last word.

 

[aurelius]

The European system of fifty million parties is not particularly pleasing. It imposes a greater tyranny than a two party system, since you can have a party that only a small percentage of citizens agree with gain control of government.

I can´t tell you how funny you sound clumping "Europe" together. Big differences in this "union."

Your hypothetical situation above doesn´t exist in Spain. You see, you must have 50% plus 1 like anywhere else to pass anything. That means coalitions with other parties UNLESS you win an abslute majority of seats. That´s what the Partido Popular has here right now so they can pass what they want, but before 2000 that wasn´t the case.