Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts
Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
Nope that wasn't what I was saying, what I was trying to say was that if we were to give a country to someone based on their religious beliefs, coupled with the fact that their ancestors lived there beforehand. Shouldn't America be ruled by native Americans? It seems to me that you support that kind of logic for Israel, so why not for your own country? My main point is that Israel should not be where it is, it seemed that you supported the view that Israel had every right to be where it is. Tell me if I have misinterpreted you.
Group A (Jews, Native Americans) occupies a land first. That race of people are forced out of their homeland by Group B (European Settlers, Various tribes). Group A fights to get their home back. I see nothing wrong with that. Just like if the Native Americans wanted their homeland back. The details change the outcome but, the core is the same.
Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
@FPOD: The British Empire was in a very different situation during WW1 times change, as do a nation's capabilities/willingness to get things done. Not that I am justifying the situation at all, Israel should not have been created at all. Who was there first isn't a means by which to justify who should rule over a region. Weren't the "native" Americans in America before European settlers?So by your logic I should be trying to force out all the immigrants to America? Especially, after the use of biological weapons and genocidal treatment and forcing us onto reservations unless we gave up our culture?
Another question to you would be:
Country A Exists
Country B Invades A
Country A fights and gets their home back
Country A is unjustified because it doesn't matter that they were there first?
AJ27 wrote...
Most likely the smell was from the sulfur in the diesel fuel. Probably.USLD doesn't have that bad of a smell. It's strong but, nothing like rotten eggs. Could always been a dead body in the trunk.
Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
PersonDude wrote...
Just to let the people posting on this forum know, Israel was there before the Palestinian... Just to let you guys know... >_>Oh, were they? I must have missed that, forgetful me :) Well that changes everything!!! If Israel was there before the Palestinians then that makes it all right! Silly me thinking that playground law should not be applied to national politics.
The Palestinian homeland is closer to Jordan than it is to the land where Israel currently occupies. Jews were in the land of Israel at least around the creation of the Roman Empire. The Romans united Iudaea with the Galilee to form the Roman sub-province of Syria Palaestina (encapsulating territories of ancient Canaan, Kingdom of Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia) and thus included much of the land on both sides of the Jordan River although with further political sub-divisions along the Jordan River valley.
How far back do you you want to go? Byzantine? Roman? Hellenistic? Persian? Neo-Babylonian? or Canaanite period? I can go back to about 1200 BCE for the "region of Palestine" which is the area in conflict between Egypt, Jordan,etc and according to the Hebrew bible the Kingdom of Israel was created in 1020 BCE with Saul as the first king. if there is anybody to be pissed at it's the British for not holding up their promise of creating a large Pan-Arab state; promised to the Sharif of Mecca in exchange for Arab help fighting the Ottoman Empire) during World War I.
Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
This is a good point for this topic, what in your opinion is the right way to deal with multinational corporations who break the law? Do you think it is feasibly possible to "properly regulate" companies without placing more power in the hands of central government?Depends on the severity. In the event like Microsoft or companies who try to obtain a monopoly. Break the company up into smaller parts. For a company like Walmart, who breaks workers rights, environmental laws and even labor laws. Force them to pay for "damages" and compensation to the workers or the environment.
I don't think more power has to be given to the state for this as it already fits within my minarchist philosophy. Less money the government requires for other things. The more money can be invested into police and courts to do their job. It's not a question of more laws, just better laws and better enforcement.
Gambler wrote...
Spoiler:
In a nutshell. Things can't be perfect but, we can make it a little bit better over time.
Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
The way I see it is; that the worst people, will be the most successful people. Therefore money is tied up disproportionately between good and bad. Power corrupts, but I would rather see that power in the hands of a government who at least aim to make their country a better place. Rather than in the hands of a corporation whose main interest is making more money. Isn't it better to have people who aren't supposed to become corrupt rather than the people who flaunt the fact that they have no ideals beyond self-interest?A properly regulated company can't really become corrupt. Companies like wal-mart who break the law all the time would get their ass handed to them. Also if wall-street execs had been scrutinized more then the bank issue wouldn't be as bad or be there at all. You can write laws to restrict and punish a company but, you can't write laws to restrict or punish the government since the government will just barge through the restrictions like they usually do. Look at the bill of rights for America and look at the laws related to them.
I could go on but, I'll just say "I'm not exactly thrilled about large multinational corporations".
Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
Do you think the U.S. would take direct action to intervene and if they do, where would the rest of the world fall on this issue?Could this begin a conflict of a scale never seen before?
Israel is very close with America and America would surely send aid in the forms of either weapons to defend themselves or troops. Depending on the actions that led up to it. As long as Israel can justify it's actions America will probably send aid.
The rest of the world is a bit of a toss up as a I don't know the foreign affairs of countries outside my own as in I don't know how Cambodia is getting along with Germany. America will probably be the only supporter but, there are a few toss ups I think may back Israel due to the "Defense of Democracy" but, their support may not being anything more than a few pallets of aid or a few kind words.
Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
I am in favor of higher taxes, if a government would do more to help people and if the money was invested efficiently. I would be happy living with the bare minimum I need to survive. I understand that in America you guys have more of a "you earn what you can and it's up to each individual to decide how much they want to give to charity". However people are flawed and selfish, most people won't give anything at all, wouldn't you say that is the wrong way of doing things?Philosophical differences between us are quite clear. A government is made up of people and if people are flawed and selfish then the government itself would be flawed and selfish. It quite simple to realize that placing people in control of others that the power would quickly go to their head and they would become abusive. Larger governments are known to become corrupt along with the politicians who run it. Authoritarian governments can quickly become abusive as there is too much of a power vacuum between the average citizen and the wealthy ruling politicians. Which is the reason I support a smaller government that only concerns itself with making people behave in a way that is beneficial to society such as preventing theft, murder, rape,etc while protecting its people from groups that wish to do its citizens harm.
Collectively if we act in our own self interests by controlling and channeling our greed we can make the world a better place. People have money, I want money. I make a business that provides a good or service to people for a price. People pay for my goods or services which gives me money which allows me to hire people. In order for me to get more money I keep my prices low which brings in more customers which allows me to hire more people and expand my business. By hiring those people I give them money to get the things they want and need. I may be acting in my own self interest but, I am in an "expanded definition" donating money to help other people while at the same time helping my community.
Keeping taxes low helps people use the money they see fit. That money finds its way into the pockets of those who need it (eventually). Higher taxes mean potential jobs are lost and that prevents people from working which means that people may lose their jobs as employers try to stay in the black.
I might be one of those mean ole conservatives but, I'm still a bit of a bleeding heart.
I'm a hypocrite because I'm human. I'm inherently flawed just like every other human. I can claim the world would be a better place too if everybody followed my beliefs. There wouldn't be need for war or anything like that as well. The problem is it's just as unrealistic to think humanty will be anything more than the flaws creatures they are. You have a noble goal in the world but, it's completely unrealistic and your argument is frankly that of a spoiled child. You'd have a better argument (and also less annoying) if you just used "Well, if everybody just got along".
Actually, I wouldn't smile as there would be other problems in the world I would also like to attend to. Environmental damages, human rights violations, starving people in Africa, war zones all over the world with people fighting over control of others. Corrupt governments, corrupt companies, religious insanity, poverty, declining education, the list goes on.
I'm not talking about killing people who disagree with me over what can and can't be said but, let me ask you this. What is worse? The man who tries to kill another or the man who does nothing to stop it?
We live in a fucked up world and I do what little I can to make the place better for everyone. Even if it's a small thing like giving the last $20 out of my wallet or even my pocket change to people like ASPCA, Humane shelters, Homeless shelters, Shriners or any other groups that seek to do the same thing.
The 75% of the people in your class are doing the right thing. Unlike 75% of Americans who do nothing.
Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
When you've wiped out all the opposition to your "freedom" - will you smile?Actually, I wouldn't smile as there would be other problems in the world I would also like to attend to. Environmental damages, human rights violations, starving people in Africa, war zones all over the world with people fighting over control of others. Corrupt governments, corrupt companies, religious insanity, poverty, declining education, the list goes on.
I'm not talking about killing people who disagree with me over what can and can't be said but, let me ask you this. What is worse? The man who tries to kill another or the man who does nothing to stop it?
We live in a fucked up world and I do what little I can to make the place better for everyone. Even if it's a small thing like giving the last $20 out of my wallet or even my pocket change to people like ASPCA, Humane shelters, Homeless shelters, Shriners or any other groups that seek to do the same thing.
The 75% of the people in your class are doing the right thing. Unlike 75% of Americans who do nothing.
Back in the day when York, Noutakun and Chuu were running around. So many other things I'm too old to remember.
WhiteLion wrote...
Killing civilians is where I start having qualms, because it leads down a dangerous path of justifying a goal at any cost, and often insurgent "freedom fighting" groups prove unable to be flexible in their goals, even when it be advantageous.I never stated that civilians should be dragged into it. Property damage was really what I was pointing out. Government and military "targets" would be the only thing. A radio/tv station is putting out propaganda then we'd destroy the tower or the satellite dishes. The government puts armed forces patrolling the streets to "maintain law and order" in which they are just oppressing and harassing their citizens more. I.E.D's would probably be our weapon of choice for that. I see it as very cut and dry
Enemy-Oppressive Government, Military, supporting groups
Neutral- Neutral citizens and non-violent activists
WhiteLion wrote...
If you read what I wrote carefully, in order to slander Tim Geithner, you must1) Say something that isn't true
2) Be shown to have known that is wasn't true when you said it
3) Cause Geithner some sort of tangible loss
I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that you can slander someone with true information. I've been reiterating this repeatedly in this topic. The point of slander as something that can be taken to court is not to prevent people from criticizing others. It is to prevent people from ruining the reputations of others through malicious and untrue rumors, and the burden of proof always lies with the person claiming to be slandered.
WhiteLion wrote...
Congratulations, you are a terrorist.Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
Your philosophy will only ever be part of the problem.So fighting to protect something is part of the problem? People like you are the problem. You have no passion for a cause. I equate your philosophy vs mine as
You = The guy who sits on his couch at home complaining about the government doing it pathetic job to those around him. While making no actual effort to change anything. Just sitting around with his thumb up his ass
Mine= The guy who organizes the protests, contacts his local representatives and even his state representatives, tries to have discussions with them, works to get the truth out into the open.
The funny truth is, I'm actually like that. I have contacted Saxby Chambliss & Johnny Isakson on numerous occasions. I attend rallies such as the one for the FairTax that was held in Atlanta a couple years back and various other things. Ireland and other countries wouldn't have become free if men like William Wallace weren't hypocrites. Everybody is a hypocrite and by saying you aren't one, makes you a hypocrite. I have one life on this rock and I'll be damned if I'll spend the "blink" of my life under someones heel. Taking a "moral high ground" accomplishes nothing. You can smile with your accomplishing your cute little ideals while the people around you suffer. I'd call you a bastard
PersonDude wrote...
If I may include sir... This theory is HIGHLY improbably as humans are very greedy and selfish species. (actually what type of species isn't) Trust me, humans will never be able to live up to the ideals you have just stated, hence wee need something to keep us in check: a government.If a government didn't exist, there would be chaos like no one would believe. People are social by nature so they will form groups and will always have qualms about another group and fights will break out and even within one's own group there will be chaos as there is no government to set up laws and to police its own people.
This is my exact view on A.E.'s "ideals" in a nutshell..and put in a more polite way.
Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
Yes I advocate no government. In principle it is far better than the situation we have right now. Why is it that on this forum, people state the obvious and thinks that you haven't thought your theories through?? People should be treated as individuals, though they are, and always have been part of the human race.Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
On your "people will associate with people of their own race"; if they choose to do that then that is their right to do so, providing they do not harm others, however someone who is a little more enlightened would not merely stick to groups based on their ancestry, but would hope to learn from all the people they meet. I personally don't judge my friends based on race or ancestry at all, if everyone made a concerted effort to become better people, then they would do the same.Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
The finer details are yet to be finalized but I would imagine that if i can create a situation where it is in people's best interests to shake off their ignorance and follow an altruistic way of life, they could practice their religions without hatred. Regions would be meaningless, people could go where they pleased. Politics is a broad subject, there will always be disagreements, people just have to be mature enough to resolve them amicably.Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
The U.N. is not the "government of the planet", it's a joke. When the nations' governments have the wrong idea it is difficult to make progress. China is a member of the U.N., China......whose government have an atrocious human rights record and still revere Mao (difficult to really discern who the worst people in history were - there were a lot of them, but he is right at the top of the list, can you name anyone worse?). Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
I disagree, just because someone's ancestry may lead back to ancient Israel, it does not make them "a Jew", the choice to identify as a "Jew" in terms of race is purely subjective and one person's own choice - that does not mean they should have their own country, no matter the cost to other people. That is ridiculous, you know what? I've just decided that I am an Aztec, come on UN - give me a country!Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
You would rise up in armed rebellion? So you don't care about the methods? You only care about the end result? You may justify it by saying: well I was liberating people from a bad situation. But the truth is that you would be nothing more than a common murderer, there is no difference in my eyes. Anyone can come up with a "good reason" to kill someone, I could come up with a "good reason" to kill just about anyone on this planet, after all Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot they were all selfish humans like the rest of us, they were just better at it than most. Your ignorance shines brightly when you equate non-violent protest to doing nothing, that's pretty sad imo.
So you holding up a little sign with some witty statement against a dictator like Chavez, Stalin, Mao, Jong-Il ,etc is somehow going to get them to stop being dictators? You accomplished what? Getting thrown in jail because you half-assed resisted the government? Sit ins, love ins, etc only work when the government actually cares about the opinions and welfare of it's people people. Especially when they can't just kill you for speaking out (which is why the civil rights movement was successful. Their opposition couldn't just kill them). When a government is only concerned about gaining and maintaining power. Your pathetic attempts to protest will only serve to crush the hope of potential followers when you are crushed under the heel of that regime.
My armed rebellion would be along the lines of fighting propaganda, spreading the truth and revealing the lies to the people. Attacking the methods the government uses to oppress the people whether it is propaganda through TV, radio, etc (attack & disable the stations) to using the military as a weapon against the citizens. I wouldn't butcher people nor would I wait around to be butchered either. I would gladly die being called a devil if it meant that I gave freedom to my fellow countrymen.
You call their methods injustice. I call them justified. It was liberty or Death. You can choose death if you feel like it but, it only shows that you have no spine to take a firm stand. Your tactics would only serve to make the world oppressed under the European Empires. Liberty and Freedom don't exist unless people are willing to stand up to protect them.
Call me ignorant if it makes you feel happy but, you are no Gandhi. Nor would Gandhi's tactics work when trying to resist someone like Stalin, Mao or Hitler. His tactics would work somewhere like modern day Europe or America. This is why I equate it with nothing because nothing would get accomplished. The government wouldn't be removed, their opinions wouldn't be swayed. You treat the world like some Saturday morning cartoon where everything works out in the end. Your ignorance shines bright champ.
Klorofolun wrote...
Seriously, did someone just come up with it specifically to be ridiculed? :?
Sir, I believe you owe me royalties on the use of that picture.
On topic: People wonder why I hate the government. This is the kind of bullshit I'm talking about!
Ambivalent Ecstasy wrote...
Then I would die, but I'm not afraid to die for what I believe in. There is no merit in fighting injustice with more injustice. If I lived in a dictatorship, then I would spend a short life working against it. If everyone stood for what was right rather than what was right for them then the world would be a better place. If my death could inspire people to follow in my footsteps then I would be satisfied.If the founding fathers were like you, there wouldn't be an America. If more people were like you Ireland or India and many other countries for that matter wouldn't exist. Your "we don't need weapons" only opens the common man to be oppressed under the heel of a tyrannical government or another oppressive group. You would spend your life rotting in a jail cell because you only took a half arsed stand against the dictator. I'm sure Stalin would have stopped butchering his people if everybody just asked nicely. While someone like me would rise up in armed rebellion to remove the dictator like the Italian resistance movement. I wouldn't spend the rest of my life in jail because I would either succeed or die in the process. My method would draw more people to the cause. Nobody ever wins or succeeds by doing nothing.
WhiteLion wrote...
People can and will claim anything is a form of expression. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has upheld the idea that spending money is a form of speech/expression. It's difficult and perhaps narrow minded to claim that something unorthodox can't be intended as a method of expression, still, expression that harms others or society should not be protected. I think this is a better solution than tasking government with deciding what qualifies as expression of an idea and what doesn't.Anything that can logically fit under the three above rules should be protected. Just think about it a little bit. Criticizing politicians such as saying "Tim Geithner is a tax cheat and I wouldn't trust him with money" (which under your definition would be counted as "slander" even though it is true). He cheated on his taxes in the past which is a fact but, you wouldn't protect it under the freedom of speech. Graffiti on a train car would be protected as long as they are expressing an opinion, an idea or information. So something like "east side rules" would be protected while "Blood 4 Ever" wouldn't be. Saying George Bush was an inbred hick would be protected (opinion) while telling someone to kill George Bush wouldn't be.
Your stance only shows that you approve that the government can tell us what we can say, read, watch, listen to.
WhiteLion wrote...
@Fiery - I think your definition of what should be protected speech is in the right spirit, but in practicality, it is too broad. The constitutional rights in the Bill or Rights are mainly intended to protect citizens from the government. The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document at all and is very general and vague. For example, simply going by a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights allows one to say that burning down one's neighbor's house in the name of "self expression" should be protected speech, since the Bill of Rights provides no clause concerning protection from one's neighbor destroy one's property, and the Declaration merely says that everyone should have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It doesn't really provide a way to judge whose pursuit of happiness should take precedent here.Really, it has to go back to the idea that freedom is good, but simply letting everyone do whatever they want is not a viable form of society. Looking at social contract theory, we surrender certain freedoms we might have in exchange for protection from others using those freedoms in ways that harm us. Thus, while the constitution says nothing about a right not to be killed be fellow citizens, this follows generally from the idea that speech/expression should not be protected if it harms someone in way equivalent to an action that would otherwise be illegal. These definitions of which harmful things one person inflicting on another can be deemed illegal ultimately go back to English common law and Judeo-Christian moral theory.
It's a "rule of thumb" for good reason. A more specific view would be the freedom of speech is
The right to seek information, opinions and ideas;
the right to receive information, opinions and ideas;
the right to impart information, opinions and ideas.
I can't see how child pornography could be protected by that as fucking a child is not seeking,receiving or imparting information, opinions or ideas. While saying that you want to fuck a child would be protected as nobody is harmed. While calling fire in a crowded theater isn't an expression of one of the above three either. The freedom of speech is there to protect unpopular forms of speech such as saying you want to fuck a kid.
In the end my stance still is that speech should not be censored anywhere. Any and all ideas, opinions and information should be allowed to flow freely.