COMMENTS:
Where reverse speech reigns supreme and the masses say, "YEAH! FOUR MORE YEARS" of... War is peace. Freedom is security. Lies are the truth.
Yes, Orwell pretty much nailed it, didn't he?
Orwell to liberals seems to be the equivalent of the bible to evangelists. They quote it out of context to justify any number of positions, without really understanding any of the principles behind it.
Heh heh ... Big Brother *wants* us to believe that! ;-)
herzog, have you ever read the book for yourself? Tell me how, or why, you believe the analogy to be out of context?
Which one? His two biggest are 1984 and animal farm, so I'll assume you mean one of those. And yes, I've read both. And the situation in the US is nothing like that, if it were you wouldn't be able to say how terrible the situation in the US is.
And in his books he was protesting communism, and extreme left ideology, not exreme right. If anything you should tremble every time a democrat steps into office. Their policies are closer to the soviets than the republicans, not a lot but a distinct lead.
herzog, I was referring to 1984.
You may say the situation in the US is nothing like that, but it's steadily moving in that direction. Increasing surveillance on citizens' movements and transactions, the advent of RFID in consumer goods, the Patriot Acts and increased search and seizure powers afforded to the FBI and law enforcement, no due process for unnamed prisoners held without charges, the continuing crackdown on human rights in the courts, legislation gearing up to crack down on hard fought for freedoms, non-lethal weapons used increasingly against reportedly peaceful demonstrators, a muffled press.
You say that there is a difference between extreme left and extreme right ideology, but I don't see which is preferable. They're both forms of totalitarianism regardless of the name tag. Extreme left and extreme right are adjacent to one another on the political wheel, imo. Both are odious.
'Increasing surveillance on citizens' movements and transactions'
Like the law they passed allowing the government to place cameras in public areas and record peoples movements, or the chips they're putting in private automobiles to track them? Nevermind, that was in britain.
'he Patriot Acts and increased search and seizure powers afforded to the FBI and law enforcement'
Supported by the dems.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, fdr rounded up ethnic minorities into camps and supressed free speech, wilson ordered anyone who spoke against the war to be arrested as a traitor. And yet the republic still stands.
'no due process for unnamed prisoners held without charges'
Have we, or any other nation, ever given a trial to pows held during a period of war? Technically we could shoot them on the spot as they aren't wearing a uniform, and thus aren't protected by the geneva convention. But we don't. Awfully generous huh?
'the continuing crackdown on human rights in the courts'
Find one case please.
'legislation gearing up to crack down on hard fought for freedoms'
Example please.
'non-lethal weapons used increasingly against reportedly peaceful demonstrators'
Right, if you listen to the protestors they're always peaceful. Officer I don't know how that car was flipped over and set on fire, it must have been like that when I got here, don't take away my right to riot and destroy property.
Herzog
Everyone of your points there was either irrelevant to this discussion or easily refutable.
Ive noticed you argue more for the sake of your own EGO than for any belief in your argument most of the time.
You seem to disagree to make yourself feel important.
And amazing as you may find it, there ARE other countries besides America in the world m8, some quite developed and important ones to.. try and remember that occasionally.
'Everyone of your points there was either irrelevant to this discussion or easily refutable.'
So easily refuted, and yet you offer no counterarguments, no facts to the contrary, nothing to oppose what I said. With a wave of your hand you simply dismiss everything I said without offering a reason or something that I can respond to. Nice try, but it doesn't work that way.
Everything you said, believe, or will one day think is wrong. So there.
The big issue here is your attitude, not the point you want me to respond to. Refuting those points would be futile.
And it does work that way, watch..
* waves hand *
POOF!
* waves hand *
POOF!
im back again,perhaps i will disprove your points, just for kicks ..
" Like the law they passed allowing the government to place cameras in public areas and record peoples movements, or the chips they're putting in private automobiles to track them? Nevermind, that was in britain. "
Irrelevant. Firstly i never stated that this ballot was referring to America, which is inherently assumed in your comment ( arrogance ). I was referring to Western society in general. Secondly the fact that it is allowed in Britain mean its right anywwhere else does it?
' he Patriot Acts and increased search and seizure powers afforded to the FBI and law enforcement '
Supported by the dems "
Irrelevant. Who mentioned any particular blame on any specific party? You seem to be rather defensive on this matter, maybe understandable without the republican bashing that goes on on this site. Secondly the fact that the Dems, supposedly the more liberal of the two main parties, supports the patriot act, really proves the point doesnt it? Even the liberals are nazis.
" Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, fdr rounded up ethnic minorities into camps and supressed free speech, wilson ordered anyone who spoke against the war to be arrested as a traitor. And yet the republic still stands. "
Irrelevant. Past mistakes do not warrant present ones. And the republic still standing shows durability , not moral correctness and the promotion of liberty.
' no due process for unnamed prisoners held without charges '
Have we, or any other nation, ever given a trial to pows held during a period of war ? Technically we could shoot them on the spot as they aren't wearing a uniform, and thus aren't protected by the geneva convention. But we don't. Awfully generous huh? "
Not really that generous. The Geneva convention doesnt cover these prisoners because America isnt involved in a war. Its attacking fairly random targets out of fear of its somewhat uncertain economic and security related future. Which country has declared on, or accepted a declaration of war from, America? ...
And technically yes , you could shhot them on the spot . If you were animals ... The superpower of the world in the 21st century should really have evolved past that dont u think ?
' the continuing crackdown on human rights in the courts '
Find one case please. "
Howabout the ease with which women can accuse men of rape, with a good chance of conviction, with almost no evidence. Plus the mans reputation will be in tatters WHATEVER the outcome.
Guilty until proven innocent?
' legislation gearing up to crack down on hard fought for freedoms '
Example please. "
The Patriot act maybe ?
Taking policing forward into the 18th century
lol
" Right, if you listen to the protestors they're always peaceful. Officer I don't know how that car was flipped over and set on fire, it must have been like that when I got here, don't take away my right to riot and destroy property. "
Different for every situation . Cant really comment either way on this one to be honest .
How does that rattle your bones ?
'Irrelevant. Firstly i never stated that this ballot was referring to America, which is inherently assumed in your comment ( arrogance ). I was referring to Western society in general. Secondly the fact that it is allowed in Britain mean its right anywwhere else does it?'
Look very carefully at that. I was replying to zig, who specifically did mention the US. Therefore your argument here is wrong. And while we're on it the implication was that the party in power is to blame, which would be the republicans. Try to actually use my quotes in context.
'Irrelevant. Past mistakes do not warrant present ones. And the republic still standing shows durability , not moral correctness and the promotion of liberty.'
It does prove that in every major war we've had some crackdowns on liberties, far worse in my examples than in 2004, and every time we've managed to return those freedoms after the war. You really should study history more.
According to the geneva convention anyone caught in armed conflict, but not wearing the uniform of any nation, is not given any protections. Legally they are the same as a spy, and can be treated the same and shot on the spot, again all very legal.
'And technically yes , you could shhot them on the spot . If you were animals ... The superpower of the world in the 21st century should really have evolved past that dont u think ?'
Which is why we're holding them in humane conditions, even granting them religious freedoms, until the war is over, rather than killing them on the spot as they probably deserve.
'Howabout the ease with which women can accuse men of rape, with a good chance of conviction, with almost no evidence. Plus the mans reputation will be in tatters WHATEVER the outcome.'
Wow, that was out of left field. Have you had a bad relationship or two? Is there somethng you want to tell me? And I've read orwells works, I can't seem to recall which one dealt with the government siezing control of the masses through isolated instances of false charges of rape to destroy mens reputations. Could you tell me which book that is?
And you point out that rights are being taken away because of the patriot act, I ask for a specific example and you point back to the patriot act. A circular argument if ever there was one. 'Your rights are being taken away by the patriot act, as proof I offer you the existence of the patriot act which was written up to take away your rights'. Nice try, really. But were you hoping I wasn't paying close attention or what?
So far not one fact to counter what I have said. You're really going to have to do better.
You have looked at my comment with all the perception of a fly studying the Bayeux tapestry from a centimetre away. You talk about ME using quotes out of context?
You have entirely missed the point on several of those points, either through deliberate obtuseness or simply through a lack of understanding.
When i can be bothered i will waste some more of my time comprehensively proving you wrong, watch this space..
All i ask is that WHEN you realise you are beaten you have the good grace to back down and not retreat into semantics for the sake of your pride, like a man should.
And you have offered nothing to counter what I've said. At this point I can assume you're basing your argument on bluffs, arrogance and ignorance. In what ratios I don't know yet, but these are definately your motivating factors.
" these are DEFINATELY your motivating factors "
You assume a lot dont you lol.
You may not understand the concept, but i have a LIFE outside of this site.. I told you i would answer those points when i could be bothered, patience is a virtue my child ...
No, you're hoping to put it off until I forget about this thread, so you can put down some asinine comment which I won't respond to (having forgotten about this thread and moved on) at which point you silently declare victory and tell yourself how smart you are.
It's really kinda pathetic. Especially considering how smart you seem to think you are, it seems coming up with some sort of rebuttal would be easy for a well informed genius such as yourself. And yet you've presented nothing but hot air and bluster.
sigh....
You smoke to much weed by the sounds of your paranoia. You need to get into the real world im thinking...
Last time, reply to your points coming soon.
Four days and still nothing. Tick tock tick tock . . .
Explanation: having replaced the shrivelled prune he'd been using as a brain with the workings from inside a cuckoo clock, herzog is now waiting for a dramatic increase in his cognitive capacity. Unfortunately, he used the shrivelled prune to come up with the idea in the first place...
That's a lame excuse for a counter argument.
Since I hadn't taken part in the discussion in the first place, nobody but an idiot would consider my comment to be a counter argument.
'Since I hadn't taken part in the discussion in the first place, nobody but an idiot would consider my comment to be a counter argument.'
Since you chose to join the argument and addressed one of the people involved then yes it does count as a counterargument, just a really really bad one that made you look like you're still in middle school.
It seems I was right. . .
lol what was THAT all about? You two almost sounded like quarelling lovers!
actually, i find today's world to be a strange mix of Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World with a few bizarre twists reminiscent of Vonnegut's many stories.
|
