And since when has supporting one's government been equated with "just making a lot of noise".
As an ex-Mountie you ought to know better than that.
I think you are projecting out of the front of your pants.
[quote="blatham"]folks
In a discussion such as this one, my personal recommendation is that you simply don't bother playing with spendi.
Sorry spendi, I loves ya but you are pretty much just making a lot of noise here. It is definitely not that you want others to shut up because your fun apparently derives almost solely from telling people how foolish or prideful they are to be talking at all. What you are doing is rather more like farting loudly in church rather than anything socratic. And your consistent suggestion that you, and anyone else, have no proper stance in life and social affairs other than pervasive apathy suits a teenage female or an old besotted Englishman who has concluded that all his country has bequeathed to the world is rum, the lash and sodomy.[/quote]
I'm taking this opportunity to repost blatham's post, because it seems spendi missed it - completely - as evidenced by his subsequent posts.
Bernie wrote-
Quote: And your consistent suggestion that you, and anyone else, have no proper stance in life and social affairs other than pervasive apathy
Not true. Obviously those in the "anyone else" who have been elected, or appointed by people who have been elected, to take decisions and bear the responsibility of them do have a proper stance in life and social affairs.
The rest is mere entertainment. Which is fair enough as long as it isn't preached. Then it's boat rocking.
c.i. wrote-
Quote:I'm taking this opportunity to repost blatham's post, because it seems spendi missed it - completely - as evidenced by his subsequent posts
You see, Bernie, what talent you have on your side.
spendius wrote:Bernie wrote-
Quote: And your consistent suggestion that you, and anyone else, have no proper stance in life and social affairs other than pervasive apathy
Not true. Obviously those in the "anyone else" who have been elected, or appointed by people who have been elected, to take decisions and bear the responsibility of them do have a proper stance in life and social affairs.
The rest is mere entertainment. Which is fair enough as long as it isn't preached. Then it's boat rocking.
Does that include a Hitler or Stalin some other despot?
In Hitler's case it does- yes. He was elected in a situation where both contending parties admitted there would be no more elections. It was either Hitler or Communists. The German people exercised a decision and took the responsibility for it at the polling booths. I assume the American people do the same regarding electing Mr Bush. Twice. Hanging Chads notwithstanding. Although I am aware that many Americans either don't choose to vote or can't for one reason or another.
I don't think Stalin was elected except in a limited sense.
When I first came on A2K there was a label in use for those who brought Hitler up to make a point. I forget it though.
I gather Mr Putin has very high approval ratings compared to Mr Bush. And we have a PM who hasn't been elected yet.
I think Iran has elections which would mean that the people there are responsible for their government and are presumed to approve of its actions.
How about Saddam and Castro?
You consider giving the people an either or mandate constitutes a valid choice. Or in the case of Iran where the ruling clerics removed all of the reform candidates from the ballots is valid. You have a poor view of a fair election . AS to the stupidity of the American electorate, electing Bush not once but twice I can only wonder.
There is a saying "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."
spendius wrote:In Hitler's case it does- yes. He was elected in a situation where both contending parties admitted there would be no more elections. It was either Hitler or Communists. The German people exercised a decision and took the responsibility for it at the polling booths. I assume the American people do the same regarding electing Mr Bush. Twice. Hanging Chads notwithstanding. Although I am aware that many Americans either don't choose to vote or can't for one reason or another.
I don't think Stalin was elected except in a limited sense.
When I first came on A2K there was a label in use for those who brought Hitler up to make a point. I forget it though.
I gather Mr Putin has very high approval ratings compared to Mr Bush. And we have a PM who hasn't been elected yet.
I think Iran has elections which would mean that the people there are responsible for their government and are presumed to approve of its actions.
It's called Godwin's law - he who invokes Hitler first, loses the argument.
Cycloptichorn
Quote: There is a saying "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."
Bush tried to say that once as I recall.
Brand , This is probably what you are referring to.
au wrote-
Quote:You consider giving the people an either or mandate constitutes a valid choice. Or in the case of Iran where the ruling clerics removed all of the reform candidates from the ballots is valid. You have a poor view of a fair election .
I didn't say any such thing. All sorts of stuff goes on in elections. It's a complicated business.
I don't think it fair that a 90 year old person can vote on issues relating to long term future investment in such things as nuclear power generation when a woman with three young children has only one vote which the other could cancel out.
What does "fair" mean?
Thanks Cyclo- I remember now.
spendius wrote:au wrote-
Quote:You consider giving the people an either or mandate constitutes a valid choice. Or in the case of Iran where the ruling clerics removed all of the reform candidates from the ballots is valid. You have a poor view of a fair election .
I didn't say any such thing. All sorts of stuff goes on in elections. It's a complicated business.
I don't think it fair that a 90 year old person can vote on issues relating to long term future investment in such things as nuclear power generation when a woman with three young children has only one vote which the other could cancel out.
What does "fair" mean?
.
Indeed it is fair. Any citizen in a democratic society can and should cast his or her vote.
It would appear that you think people should vote only on issues that concern and effect them directly.
Being in my late seventies, should my taxes go toward supporting schools? Or voting on education issues? Since I will never them. The answer is of course. YES!!
The answer is not "Of course. YES!!" That is an opinion. And it justifies you keeping your vote.
And I didn't say I disagreed. I simply asked whether it was fair or not. Those kids might have to clean up the mess you make. And what about the debt that's being hung around their necks just for being born so that your taxes are lower.
If you want to try to be fair about that vote for what you think those kids would want rather than for what you want.
I never said anything about what should or shouldn't be.
Wonder if Lieberman is in on the propaganda...
Quote:Iran: U.S. Senator Discusses Democracy-Promotion Efforts
September 6, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman (Independent, Connecticut) talked to Radio Farda's Kambiz Tavana on September 5 about the recent U.S.-Iran talks on Iraq, U.S.-Iran relations, and the U.S. administration's request for $75 million for democracy promotion in Iran.
RFE/RL: Senator Lieberman, about the Iraq issue, let us have a picture: what's the role of the Iranian government in Iraq?
Joseph Lieberman: Well, at this point the role of the Iranian government is a destructive one, particularly in Iraq, particularly when it comes to the United States. We now have very clear documentation that Iran has essentially been running a proxy war against American and Iraqi individuals and forces, to the extent that Iraqi extremists are taken to bases in Iran to be trained then sent back, and have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilians because of the extremists' aggression once they get back into Iraq.
Now this is why...look, I have supported discussions between the United States and Iran, but they have to be honest and mutually respectful. And the initial discussions that have occurred in Baghdad between our ambassador [Ryan Crocker] there and the ambassador of Iran have really focused on this problem with a request -- a plea -- from the American ambassador to the Iranian representative, to accept the evidence we have and to stop this aggression, and then we can begin to talk about other questions.
RFE/RL: Senator Lieberman, as you said, you supported the current talks between Iran and United States on the ambassador-level. Why now? There is a history between the Islamic Republic of Iran and United States for the past 27 years. The question is, why now?
Lieberman: Well, these are talks for a very limited purpose, which is to confront the Iranian government with the evidence of the proxy war that they're running against us and the people of Iraq.
But I think we have to be very careful as we talk about U.S.-Iranian relations, and it's very important for me to say here that I and, I would say, most every member of the U.S. Congress, differentiates between the current Iranian regime, which we take to be fanatical and extremist and totalitarian, and the people of Iran who are the victims of this regime, just as others who the regime is attacking through proxies are victims.
I don't think we can suggest that we can simply reason the current regime of Iran into behaving in a more law-abiding and humane way. We cannot deceive ourselves; I'm always interested in diplomacy but diplomacy has to produce action. And thus far, as you go back -- really to the beginning of the revolution and the late '70s and the first shouts of "death to America" in Iran, those shouts that have been repeated hundreds of thousands of millions of times -- that's not the kind of message that should encourage any American government to think that it's possible to really have peaceful relations with this Iranian regime, as distinguished from the Iranian people. .....
Radio Free Europe
spendius
I do not know what world you are living in. However from time immemorial the present generation has been left with having to deal with that which the preceding generation or generations have left it . Good or bad. It is not as if the present generation can wipe the slate clean and start from scratch.
No. That's not strictly true with our generation. What other generation has left the future ones hanging out to dry in the sun like this one.
Do you really think that burying waste, nuclear, industrial and household, in the ground won't have to be sorted out at some point.
The tragedy at Aberfan was symbolic of our times. And the one in Bopal. And Chernobyl and many others. All over the ex-Soviet Union.
Television has driven us off our heads. So be it. But I'm not going to say it's alright. The whole environment movement is posited on it not being alright.
You can get cash in your hand for half your house now as long as you sign it over to the insurance company, all of it, when you're gone. They advertise it on TV. Show pensioners partying in the sunshine. Sod the kids. They send them cards with lots of loving kisses instead.
What's your national debt. Why do you care. You won't be paying it off.
The inflation of the 70s- well- work it out. Some of got our properties for next to nothing. Once we had them we voted to stop inflation.
spendius
Have you ever heard of the Great Depression and world war 2. They were the product of the generation before them. That is the way of the world.
I would offer one more truism. Consider all the advances in medicine the past generations bestowed on the present one. To mention just one,when I was young Infantile Paralyses was running rampant and the slightest scratch could end in blood poison which was a killer.
spendius wrote:Ghandi eh?
Quote:Gandhi was criticized by some Congress party members and other Indian political groups, both pro-British and anti-British. Some felt that opposing Britain in its life or death struggle was immoral, and others felt that Gandhi wasn't doing enough. Quit India became the most forceful movement in the history of the struggle, with mass arrests and violence on an unprecedented scale.[13] Thousands of freedom fighters were killed or injured by police gunfire, and hundreds of thousands were arrested. Gandhi and his supporters made it clear they would not support the war effort unless India were granted immediate independence.
So he helped Hitler, he caused "violence on an unprecedented scale" and the above means he would have supported the war had he got what he wanted.
He used "non-violence" as a "weapon".
Didnt Ghandi run a gas station in the St. Louis area?
