Muslim Menu runs into high speed trouble in Spain

[Ilion]

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]

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]

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

[Stan Shannon]

I'm not the one who needs to admit to any error. The historic facts are as I have stated. You, on the other hand, are flailing about trying to find some sort of historic legitimacy for your own personal world view (just as you do with the ever so eloquent Mr. Jefferson). That is an altogether too common part of the debate these days. The problem you have with me is that I am someone who has not only actually studied history, but who understands how to study it. For example, I am currently trying to improve my understanding of the progressive era. My personal bias (that is, my working thesis) is that the progressive movmement was intimately associated with the rise of Marxism in Europe. That the two cross fertilized one another intellectually. But, I have several books by authors from a variety of perspectives to attempt to ascertain the validity of my bias.

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.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I'm not the one who needs to admit to any error

You could start by admitting that one.

Stan Shannon wrote:

The historic facts are as I have stated.

You state "facts" which are opinions and interpretations. I'm beginning to realise that you don't know the difference. For instance, jibber-jabbering on and on about how everyone is either a Marxist or a Jeffersonian doesn't make it a fact. It remains a religious belief announced from the pulpit of your keyboard with all the passion the Pope has for Easter.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Joan M]

Of course... I hate that happening. I have friends of all cultures and places in the world, but sometimes it is misunderstood what it means "to be as tolerant as possible" for "you must make whatever to make me happy". I simply hate that. I appreciate that anyone of my friends is tolerant with me, as much as they appreciate the same behaviour in me. Of course if RENFE wanted to do that, they should had done it properly, but when I take a plane, and I take lots of them, and I go to any country, if I don't like what do they serve even after I've been able to choose between the two things that they allow me to choose from, I simply don't eat that day. I suppose that if one company (being from Spain or from any other country in the world) makes this kind of effort (this means a lot of paperwork, subcontractors,...) everybody should at least respect it. I don't understand which kind of trick can it be. I'm from Spain and I can promise you that the only trains that are there are the ones from RENFE (some others in some autonomous communities but they are no real competitors). So why to worry about the meals if for any reason everybody that will want to go from Lleida to Zaragoza will have to take a plane or the AVE train? :mad:

[www.tamelectromecanica.com][www.tam.cat]

[Oakman]

Joan Murt wrote:

So why to worry about the meals if for any reason everybody that will want to go from Lleida to Zaragoza will have to take a plane or the AVE train?

Spain has no cars?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

You state "facts" which are opinions and interpretations. I'm beginning to realise that you don't know the difference. For instance, jibber-jabbering on and on about how everyone is either a Marxist or a Jeffersonian doesn't make it a fact. It remains a religious belief announced from the pulpit of your keyboard with all the passion the Pope has for Easter.

My interpretations are based on facts. For example, it is an historic fact that the enlightenment produced two basic philosophies which most modern western governments are founded upon. One was the American revolution and the other was the rise of Marxism in Europe about a century later. If you know of some other, you are free to specify what it was, and what philosophers articulated it. I claim that all modern governments are either Jeffersonian or Marxist, that is indeed my thesis, because those are the only two possibilities that I am aware of. I know of no other source that any modern government could possibly be derived from. I don't claim that they are prestine examples of what either the original Jeffersonians or the original Marxists envisioned, only that they can generally be traced back to one of those two sources. futher, Jeffersonianism is based upon a bottom up, grass roots, self regulated collectivism, and Marxism is based upon a top down, centrally planned collectivism. They are mirror images of one another, they are polar opposites and cannot be cobbled together by any sort of political manipulation to produce a viable offspring.

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.

[Ilion]

killabyte wrote:

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

I'm sure you don't. So what? Regardless of your considerations, it is irrational to be "anti american foreign policy" ... unless, of course, one wishes the world to be even worse than it is now. If one does indeed wish the world to be a more dangerous and less civilized place that it is now, then of course it is rational to be "anti american foreign policy" ... it's wicked, but it is rational. I'm sure you also don't consider you hemi-demi-Buddhism to be irrational. Again, so what? It is the height of irrationality to say (and claim to believe): "I do not exist"

[killabyte]

i am glad you made the comparision to the roman empire, but fascism as a doctrine was around long before the 1920s

[killabyte]

hahaha as i said i dont prescribe to any religion ;) and i dont think a rational person would make the choice to attack his own people in a false flag operation 9/11 just to secure 24% of the global oil reserves, that is crazy. and i will always consider 911 to be false flag until u can tell me how WTC7 was "pulled". (words of the owner himself) And how a whole plane can disappear from the pentagon crash site leaving no debris at all. only 3 modern steel structured buildings have ever fallen for the "cited" reason of fire WTC1,WTC2,WTC7.... put on your engineering hat and tell me that there is nothing sinister going on :confused:

[Stan Shannon]

killabyte wrote:

i am glad you made the comparision to the roman empire

I didn't.

killabyte wrote:

but fascism as a doctrine was around long before the 1920s

No, as a matter of fact, it was not. Just as with the progressive movmenet, it evolved directly out of Marxist political theory. It is very much a part of the post enlightenment modern era.

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.

[Oakman]

The only fact you actually cite is that there was a period of history called the enlightenment. Everything else is interpretation.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Joan M]

No, we always go everywhere by plane or by foot, and if those nasty guys from RENFE would allow us to eat something decent we could add the train to that list, but of course, they don't. Of course speaking on the public transport, you have to choose between plane, train, bus or taxi. and the real options are always the plane and the AVE train in order to make that travel... And my question was: why to bother on the meals if you don't have competitors to worry about?

[www.tamelectromecanica.com][www.tam.cat]

[Oakman]

I think you are striving for humor, but I am afraid we don't share enough cultural referents. I wish I knew more about Spain.

Joan Murt wrote:

why to bother on the meals if you don't have competitors to worry about

Well, if you give them fewer reasons to hate you, perhaps they'll use you even when it's not absolutely necessary?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface