Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Economy / Re: On steel and aluminum tariffs .......
« Last post by Pandora on Today at 12:54:37 AM »
"Things" change, but human nature doesn't. 

You heard the saying "you will be made to care" about all things homo?  Lots of us do, and not in a good way.

You're not a liberal, you're a totalitarian.  Same as it ever was.

you mean to say that I personally am a totalitarian?

Please note the modus operandi,  here,  same as on ACOC:  ask stupid questions that he damn well knows the answer to already;  feigning ignorance as to the point you make,  same ol',  same ol',...

Aenides,

You made it very clear,  on ACOC,  that you were first and foremost a Bernie supporter (I'm sure this comes as a bit of a shock to the regulars HERE...NOT!),  ergo,  you are definitely an admitted totalitarian,  as in you support the state having TOTAL control of EVERYTHING,  including our own personal lives and fortunes.  Own it,  sweet pea.

The UK has a mixed economy more socialized than ours with features consistent with Bernie's platform such as universal healthcare. Do you consider the U.K. to be a totalitarian state?

Do I?  You're gawdamned right I do.  The hell with its "mixed economy".

They held Charlie Gard in a hospital and wouldn't permit -- PERMIT, got that? -- his parents to bring him here to the US for treatment, at no cost to the UK.  Totalitarian much?

And now they're doing it again with Alfie Evans.

I don't care what the Brit doctors say about the futility of treatment; these babies do not belong to the State, they belong to their parents, and the fact that the parents cannot even take them out of the country for treatment is sinful; it's f ucking evil.

There's your totalitarian State.

Write one friggin word other than "yes ma'am" to me, you sonofab itch, and I will ban your sorry ass.
2
Economy / Re: On steel and aluminum tariffs .......
« Last post by Syzygy on Yesterday at 10:31:49 PM »
Quote from: aenides
If I were going to list some totalitarian regimes I'd name Stalinist USSR, fascist Germany,...

No one asked you to.  We've all got a pretty good idea of what constitutes a totalitarian regime,  and a far better understanding of how they got to be that way than you do. 

But since you brought it up,  funny how you mentioned "fascist" Germany,  lumping all of Germany into one basket,  when it was East Germany only that remained a fascist state until the recent past.

Angela Merkel,  now head of a unified Germany,  was once an apparatchik of East Germany's secret police--Stasi. 

NO EU country has total sovereignty now.  Every branch of their governments takes a back seat to Brussels,  the EU's central governing body politick.  And Merkel's Germany is the tail that wags that dog.

Funny how history seems to go full circle like that. 
3
Economy / Re: On steel and aluminum tariffs .......
« Last post by Syzygy on Yesterday at 10:13:26 PM »
Here ya go,  Bozo:

Quote
BRITAIN FIRST DEPUTY Who is Jayda Fransen? Britain First deputy leader jailed after being found guilty of religiously aggravated harassment

Fransen, 31, was found guilty of four counts of religiously aggravated harassment
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5027146/jayda-fransen-britain-first-jailed-religiously-aggravated-harassment/
 

She is the one whose anti Muslim tweets Trump retweeted.  I can't say which caught the most flak over it.  Religiously aggravated harassment.
Basically for passing out tracts and politely confronting people on the street to tell them "Christians good; Muslims bad."

Sounds very totalitarian to me.  Your mileage,  should you ever choose to put any on your gray matter,  will correspond equally.   Otherwise it will indubitably vary,  as always.

 ::thinking::

I'm wondering if the good folks here at IAL can bring you up on charges of "politically motivated harassment"?  Hmmmmm......
4
So I ask for your opinion if you could please keep it brief, why do you think that through the great majority of our Republic's history power has been overwhelmingly shared between only two parties? Corruption? Collusion? Why is two the perfect number instead of three, or four, or one for that matter?

Is that even English?
Its certainly a Non Sequitur.

As previously stated, there are many factors that encourage certain politcal affiliations  at different times and in different places. In fact the GOP was a third party tat replaced the Whig party in the lead up to the Civil war, so  there are certainly circumstances that not only allow for third parties in your system , but in fact allow them to become a new dominant party.  There are certain economies of scale that drive the formation of parties, and since a political party is based in ideology, perhaps there are are simply two ideologies that tend to be reflected in such parties.  For instance, maybe there is on ideology that sees people as the property and wards of the state, and another that sees them as sovereign individuals,  and that only after one of those two ideologies has been adequately wiped out in a nation, do party's break into smaller factions, since the larger, more important, questions are held already in agreement?
5
Economy / Re: On steel and aluminum tariffs .......
« Last post by patentlymn on Yesterday at 06:37:59 PM »
...

If I were going to list some totalitarian regimes I'd name Stalinist USSR, fascist Germany, North Korea, or Hussein's Iraq as prime examples because they do not tolerate divergent opinions. In fact that's a part of the definition of "totalitarian":

"of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/totalitarian?s=t

The U.K. does tolerate parties of differing opinion. From their Human Rights act:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9

I disagree that having an economy more mixed than ours (ours is too btw) makes a country "totalitarian".

The UK can and does prosecute people for anything the govt says is 'hate speech' which includes any opinions about ethnic groups or religions.  Being factually correct is not a defense. They have also recently refused entry to people having incorrect political views from the country.  I recall that speakers corner in Hyde park featured Orwell, Lenin, and Marx in the past. Now you can be prosecuted for making politically incorrect speeches there.

It is what it is. It does not matter much whether or not you put the label 'totalitarian' on it.

I'm willing to be corrected if I am wrong, can you post a link to a good example of prosecution for having "any opinions about ethnic groups or religions"?

OMG there is a long list. I can find them as time allows.  I just happen to remember the video below because I recently watched it, mostly due to the humor.

At 24:00 to 27:00 below Katie Hopkins describes how she was to be  repatriated from Australia to UK because she had used the phrase "sweaty socks" or "sweaty jocks" in a post about some Scots woman who brought Ebola back to the UK, which  offends Scots.  I don't know who instigated it, the UK or Australia.  Also from 30:00 to 36:00., especially around 35:00 she describes how the police showed up at her door in Britain  to take her in for tweeting about Ramadan rage.  Muslim crime rates go up during Ramadan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOlj9357Tvg
6
Economy / Re: On steel and aluminum tariffs .......
« Last post by patentlymn on Yesterday at 06:12:41 PM »
...

I do like McCain. He's an honorable man and a patriot. For all his faults W. Bush was sincere and he meant well. GHWB oftentimes put himself in grave danger in World War 2. He was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our nation and nearly did when he was shot down in the Pacific. He then served in the house, as an ambassador and in the CIA helping to defend us from the USSR during the cold war despite having a successful business. He didn't serve for the money. He served to serve. Romney was unlucky to be pinched in an awkward spot between the primary and the general in 2012. As a result of that I don't think most of us got to see the "Real" Mitt.

I think that all of these men were decent and honestly cared for their country.

I don't see this kind of honor and sacrifice in the new GOP.

Whether McCain is honorable is a matter of opinion.  He barely graduated from Annapolis and used his daddy's influence to get ahead. Just because he got shot down does NOT mean I want him for president.

GHWB was better than the Dem. GHWB was head of the CIA and that is supposed to make him honorable. Putin was a mere colonel in the KGB and that is supposed to make him a monster. I could never figure that one out.  Why isn't Putin a patriotic honorable Russian?

GWB could have been worse. Romney made me puke. I don't think he actually ever ran a real business. He just bought them, stripped them of assets, loaded them with debt, and sold them to a greater fool.  The book The Great Deformation tears Romney and GWB apart pretty well.

BTW I held my nose and voted for all of them.  I recall a poster on ACOC, irish Conservative. The slogan back then was to get drunk and vote for McCain. She said she was going to have to take the bottle of Jameson with her into the voting booth.
7
Economy / Re: On steel and aluminum tariffs .......
« Last post by aenides on Yesterday at 06:08:42 PM »
...

If I were going to list some totalitarian regimes I'd name Stalinist USSR, fascist Germany, North Korea, or Hussein's Iraq as prime examples because they do not tolerate divergent opinions. In fact that's a part of the definition of "totalitarian":

"of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/totalitarian?s=t

The U.K. does tolerate parties of differing opinion. From their Human Rights act:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9

I disagree that having an economy more mixed than ours (ours is too btw) makes a country "totalitarian".

The UK can and does prosecute people for anything the govt says is 'hate speech' which includes any opinions about ethnic groups or religions.  Being factually correct is not a defense. They have also recently refused entry to people having incorrect political views from the country.  I recall that speakers corner in Hyde park featured Orwell, Lenin, and Marx in the past. Now you can be prosecuted for making politically incorrect speeches there.

It is what it is. It does not matter much whether or not you put the label 'totalitarian' on it.

I'm willing to be corrected if I am wrong, can you post a link to a good example of prosecution for having "any opinions about ethnic groups or religions"?
8
Economy / Re: On steel and aluminum tariffs .......
« Last post by patentlymn on Yesterday at 05:59:23 PM »
...

If I were going to list some totalitarian regimes I'd name Stalinist USSR, fascist Germany, North Korea, or Hussein's Iraq as prime examples because they do not tolerate divergent opinions. In fact that's a part of the definition of "totalitarian":

"of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/totalitarian?s=t

The U.K. does tolerate parties of differing opinion. From their Human Rights act:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9

I disagree that having an economy more mixed than ours (ours is too btw) makes a country "totalitarian".

The UK can and does prosecute people for anything the govt says is 'hate speech' which includes any opinions about ethnic groups or religions.  Being factually correct is not a defense. They have also recently refused entry to people having incorrect political views from the country.  I recall that speakers corner in Hyde park featured Orwell, Lenin, and Marx in the past. Now you can be prosecuted for making politically incorrect speeches there.

It is what it is. It does not matter much whether or not you put the label 'totalitarian' on it.
9

Do you think there is any merit to this as it's explained here?

Sure, I said its entirely plausible. However you have yet to provide any evidence that is what occurs. The article you cite ( did you read it?)  actually details  exceptions to this statistical phenomenon - not so much a law as a statistical likelihood. But that is a long way from proving that having a single winner in a given district  is the cause, or even the only cause. Cum Hoc ergo Propter hoc is a fallacy. Again, I ask, did you take  a logic and fallacy course  at any point?

Further this still assumes a two party system, which I do not believe you have shown to exist.

I note that - according to  Syzygy's predictions, you did not address a single point of mine, nor did you agree to follow the flow chart.  Is there a reason for this?

This is actually pretty interesting. You're right, I haven't proved it. A statement of fact should have to be falsifiable, meaning one should be able to describe a test by which the claim can be theoretically be disproven if in fact it is untrue. And in fact it is easily falsified in fact. There is a green party, and a libertarian party and several others. So no, as a matter of objective fact it is not a two-party system.

So I ask for your opinion if you could please keep it brief, why do you think that through the great majority of our Republic's history power has been overwhelmingly shared between only two parties? Corruption? Collusion? Why is two the perfect number instead of three, or four, or one for that matter?
10
Economy / Re: On steel and aluminum tariffs .......
« Last post by aenides on Yesterday at 05:40:11 PM »
"Things" change, but human nature doesn't. 

You heard the saying "you will be made to care" about all things homo?  Lots of us do, and not in a good way.

You're not a liberal, you're a totalitarian.  Same as it ever was.

you mean to say that I personally am a totalitarian?

Please note the modus operandi,  here,  same as on ACOC:  ask stupid questions that he damn well knows the answer to already;  feigning ignorance as to the point you make,  same ol',  same ol',...

Aenides,

You made it very clear,  on ACOC,  that you were first and foremost a Bernie supporter (I'm sure this comes as a bit of a shock to the regulars HERE...NOT!),  ergo,  you are definitely an admitted totalitarian,  as in you support the state having TOTAL control of EVERYTHING,  including our own personal lives and fortunes.  Own it,  sweet pea.

The UK has a mixed economy more socialized than ours with features consistent with Bernie's platform such as universal healthcare. Do you consider the U.K. to be a totalitarian state?

Absolutely.

The operative word in this is the word "mixed".  Socialism (communism/totalitarianism lite)  does not "mix" well with others.  Eventually,  it does exactly what the leaven does in Jesus' parable:

Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.


We're on GB's heels in its mad march to Marxism,  compliments Bernie's ilk,  you included. 

Next stupid question...

If I were going to list some totalitarian regimes I'd name Stalinist USSR, fascist Germany, North Korea, or Hussein's Iraq as prime examples because they do not tolerate divergent opinions. In fact that's a part of the definition of "totalitarian":

"of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/totalitarian?s=t

The U.K. does tolerate parties of differing opinion. From their Human Rights act:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9

I disagree that having an economy more mixed than ours (ours is too btw) makes a country "totalitarian".
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10