Muslim Menu runs into high speed trouble in Spain

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

The irony is that I am the only one argueing against a totalitarian society.

No, you are arguing against any society other than the socialist/fascist state you would institute.

Stan Shannon wrote:

The reason we have freedom of speech is specifically to be able to affect our society on all issues not strictly defined in the constitution

No, the reason we have freedom of speech is because we have freedom of speech guaranteed to us by our Contitution. Madison, Jefferson et al didn't add a proviso saying that Stan Shannon could determine when free speech was permitted and when it could be denied. You are like the Gun Control Nuts trying to pervert the meaning of one of the first ten amendments to support your desire to deny some people, some of the rights guaranteed to them in those amendments.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Lost User

Stan Shannon wrote:

Where does tht power properly lay? With me or with the state?

Both. Human rights are deserving of protection firstly by ourselves (taking the moral high ground if need be) and secondly by statute if we display ourselves as incapable. So yes, they should be protected and, as necessary, enforced/controlled. That doesn't mean you should not protest if those who enforce/control such rights are themselves abusing them.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

I never suggested any such thing.

Yet you fail to realize that is precisely what you are doing. The dictatorship of the majority - a danger Jefferson warned about more than once - leads relatively quickly to an oligarchy and thus to an out and out totalitarian state. Lenin worked to achieved a majority in the legislature and once he had, the Party formed an oligarchy and what was at the time arguably a constitution that guaranteed more rights than ours did, supported a bloody-handed, cruel dictatorship. The kind you seem bound and determined to bring about. Of course, Uncle Joe ignored the Russian Constitution at will - pretty much the way you say you would, if you felt it necessary. 'Constitution when convenient' seems to be your watchword as it was his. What you don't seem to understand is that the majority doesn't need the Constitution, the minority does.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Ilion

digital man wrote:

Oakman: For what it's worth, I have never claimed to be the repository of all the truth digital man: Only Illion does that ...

Your assertion about me is not true. And, even someone like you knows it is not true. Ergo: you lie.

killabyte

Oakman wrote:

fine old fascist bachground of Spain

hmmm and i thought the america dime had the symbol of fascism on it ..... it is present in the congress hall where the president give his state of the fascist nation from. hahaha

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

The dictatorship of the majority - a danger Jefferson warned about more than once - leads relatively quickly to an oligarchy and thus to an out and out totalitarian state. Lenin worked to achieved a majority in the legislature and once he had, the Party formed an oligarchy and what was at the time arguably a constitution that guaranteed more rights than ours did, supported a bloody-handed, cruel dictatorship. The kind you seem bound and determined to bring about. Of course, Uncle Joe ignored the Russian Constitution at will - pretty much the way you say you would, if you felt it necessary. 'Constitution when convenient' seems to be your watchword as it was his.

Indeed. And that is precisely why they designed the government as they did. A very weak central government with clearly defined and limited authority. That was specifically to avoid the rise of large majorities which could use the central government to control the entire nation. That was the entire rationale for the anti-federalist whom Jefferson and Madison were the leaders of. They intentionally traded one big central tyranny for a million small ones. Of course, today, that has all been thrown away. Today we have powerful factions fighting over a governmetn which has tremendous power to influence our lives precisely because of your insistence that the central government have the authority to micro-manage local government via the courts, thus creating the very oligarchy you are trying to blame me for. The oligarchy is yours, pal, not mine.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

No, you are arguing against any society other than the socialist/fascist state you would institute.

You mean the one that was instituted by Madison, Jefferson et al? The one that we were governed by for the better part of 150 years? That fascist society?

Oakman wrote:

the reason we have freedom of speech is because we have freedom of speech guaranteed to us by our Contitution.

And the reason it is guaranteed is so that we can use it for the advancement of our own beliefs and opinions, to participate in defineing the parameters of our society, our civilization. A freedom which is being actively suppressed today by the very form of government you have helped create.

Oakman wrote:

Madison, Jefferson et al didn't add a proviso saying that Stan Shannon could determine when free speech was permitted and when it could be denied.

Actually they did. And they were quite explicite about it. They merely said congress could make no law. They never said nobdy else could.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Rob Graham

You really are a rabid anti-American jerk, aren't you? Not only that, but you hardly have any idea of what you are talking about: The dime has Franklin Roosevelt on one side, and an Olive branch, Torch and oak branch on the other. There is no image of Congress, nor any 'facsist' symbol. Considering the topic of the thread, you went to great lengths to make such an erroneous and stupid remark.

modified on Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:01 AM

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

By which I take it you believe that the Railway company was providing better quality food to the Spaniards than to the Muslims? Certainly you aren't crazed enough to claim that the South provided equal educational facilities or opportunities for blacks during the first half of the previous century.

No, it is separate but equal. They are just trying to do a better job on the "equal" part.

Oakman wrote:

Entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights were found in ancient Rome, and India. In medeval Europe, churches became incorporated, as did local governments, such as the Pope and the City of London. The oldest business corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. Surely you aren't saying there weren't alliances between corporations and the state befor 1900??? Time for you to get out the history books. And you seem to totally miss the deification of the state that is one of the hallmarks of facism.

Wow, you've really done your research! Unfortunantly its just another sad example of cheery picking from history to support your preconcieved views. Fascism is, by definition, a system of governmetn that requires the collective, united, ("bundled") cooperation from all institutions which comprise a given national society. Can you find examples from history of similar associations? Well, of course. You can find any thing you like in history. But the truth is that fascism was a specific thing, that was created at a specific time, for a specific purpose. It has a specific, well documented, history which is inextricably woven into the history of Marxism that began as a socially significant movement (in terms of the modern debate) in the 1870s. There is nothing more to it of any historical importance than that.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Human rights are deserving of protection firstly by ourselves (taking the moral high ground if need be) and secondly by statute if we display ourselves as incapable. So yes, they should be protected and, as necessary, enforced/controlled. That doesn't mean you should not protest if those who enforce/control such rights are themselves abusing them.

But that would not include my fundamental human right to discriminate?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

killabyte · modified on Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:01 AM

i dont think you know what the symbol of facsism actually is? http://www.numismaticnews.net/flipside/Our+Fascist+Dime.aspx[^] and if u look closely next time something happens in congress hall you will notice that symbol on either side of the speaker ;P http://www.awakentothetruth.com/IMAGES/a17congress_fasces.jpg[^] still think i dont know what i am talking about??? i am not really anti american at all, just anti american foreign policy.

modified on Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:34 AM

Lost User

To discriminate is not a fundamental human right if it impinges upon other peoples rights and freedoms. Quoting Article 14 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998

ARTICLE 14
PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention
shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race,
colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

The UK statute reflects the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights

Ilion · modified on Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:34 AM

killabyte wrote:

i am not really anti american at all, just anti american foreign policy.

Which is to say: irrational. That is, assuming one desires a mostly peaceful-and-just world.

Stan Shannon · modified on Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:34 AM

killabyte wrote:

still think i dont know what i am talking about???

Well, yes, in fact. The use of this symbol in association with actual fascism did not occur until about 1920, long after its use in the US government. The US government incorporated many of the symbols of Greece and Rome in order to establish an association with the historic legacy of democracy in western civilization.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

modified on Sunday, July 13, 2008 10:09 AM

killabyte

i dont consider it irrational :-D but i am a dirty liberal tree huggin hippie

Stan Shannon

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

upon other peoples rights and freedoms.

Such as? And what does "impinge" mean in this context?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Rob Graham · modified on Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:34 AM

killabyte wrote:

still think i dont know what i am talking about???

No, since from your own links, in both cases, the Roman fasces were present as a symbol of justice and authority long before adoption by Mussolini's government. It would be far more appropriate to suggest that Fascism appropriated the Roman symbol of justice, than it would to suggest that the US chooses to display the symbol of facism. The fasces is also used prominently on the national emblem of France (adopted in 1953, so perhaps France honors fascism...).

killabyte wrote:

i am not really anti american at all

Bullshit. You never miss an opportunity to post disparaging remarks about America and Americans.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

Well, of course. You can find any thing you like in history.

Yeah, Facts are so inconvenient when you have a dogma to state, aren't they?

Stan Shannon wrote:

But the truth is that fascism was a specific thing, that was created at a specific time, for a specific purpose.

That's the revealed truth right? You have it chisled into those stone tablets you just came down off the mountain with? Stamn, sooner or later you're going to have to learn to say something like "Okay, I was wrong on that." By defending every half-thought-out sentence you jot down as if it were a tested scientifuc proof, you do nothing but a disservice to yourself. When you are in error, admit it and move on.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Lost User

To interfere, to incite violence (or the threat of), to deny liberty and security, to deny privacy, to deny others their freedom of expression ... For example, by discriminating, you may (inadvertently or deliberately) be a cause (incite) of violence that you and/or others may inflict upon the person/group who the discrimination was aimed at thus interfering in a right to life.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

Today we have powerful factions fighting over a governmetn which has tremendous power to influence our lives precisely because of your insistence that the central government have the authority to micro-manage local government via the courts, thus creating the very oligarchy you are trying to blame me for.

My insistence? Are you hallucinating? Simply because I point out that you want to set up the imperial state of Indiana and imprison or eject any inhabitants that don't agree with your version of the good, the true, and the beautiful, doesn't mean I prefer the one that Bush would like or the one that Pelosi would set up. The three of you are as alike as peas in a pod. You just dream a little smaller than they do, that's all.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface