No more likely the U.S. Republic will end the same way the Roman Republic ended. A takeover by a single leader, who manipulates his way into a position of dictatorship, and then holds-on to that power using the force of government, to suppress the masses underfoot.
i agree 101%
but why do you think GUNS will save you from such a man? the only thing that matters is the power of belief: such a man will never gain power as long as enough don't believe in his charismatic lies. but if a certain critical mass believe in such a demagogue, his followers most certainly will make sure to outgun whatever resistance is offered as they claw their way, with guns, to power and to cement it... with guns
in other words, the deciding factor in such a nightmare scenario is not the gun, on the side of democracy. those who cling to the power of attraction to your cause with words do not reach for a gun, they reach for a pen. but those who depend upon coercion and fear will be armed to the hilt. guns appeal to those who wish to subdue, it is not the tool of those who wish to persuade. to depend upon the gun to save you means you don't believe in democracy and rule by consensus, you believe in rule by visceral force
simply put: the idea that guns will save us from fascism is a fallacy. when you examine it, the only thing that saves us from such a scenario is enough of the populace believing in the legitimacy of democracy over the charisma of a demagogue, who most certainly will be well-armed and will be careful to outgun whatever resistance is offered, because this is his way: physical force
simply put, in a domestic civil arena, the gun is the tool of the enemies of democracy, not the tool of democracy
1. "the media" is not some sort of monolithic controlled source at the helm of control. its thousands of disparate voices. our posts on slashdot is "the media". slashdot is "the media". there is right wing media, there is left wing media. there is media for whatever audience you can imagine, each with its own stories, prejudices, and agendas, in constant flux, and controlled by no one. in other words: the media decides nothing. there is no logical coherence to even speak of "the media", as if it were any sort of coherent identity to speak of in such a way to draw any sort of valid statement
2. parties are inevitable. we are social creatures, and in fact our most social effort is politics itself. in other words, its impossibe to have politics without parties. we naturally evolve into factions and groups. so political parties will be with us forever, make peace with that fact. at best you simply drive parties underground, or rename them as something else: pointless
3. the democrats and republicans are different. tell me with a straight face al gore would have invaded iraq. the point is, the two parties seem the same because they fight over support from the middle, so they are always drawing close to each other, in the middle. which is actually wonderful: it provides stability by ensuring the party in control never drifts too far left or right from the center of opinion: they lose control if they do. furthermore, truly far left or far right parties will never gain control as long as you have democrats and republicans, because they simply don't appeal to enough people. which again, is wonderful: protection from extremism. another thing: when you vote, your choice is NEVER going to be ideologically your ideal. it will always be slightly closer to me, or slightly further from me. you ALWAYS vote strategic, not idealistic. there never, ever, in a healthy democracy, be some sort of dream where your ideal further left/ further right candidate will win, nor should it ever be so, if the true purpose of democracy: give voice to the people it si formed from, is ever to remain valid. so you always get a choice between slightly left, or slightly right, seemingly the same, and this is something you should celebrate: stability and legitimacy and permanently banished extremism
4. political parties are a DEFENSE from corporate influence. without political parties to filter corporate interests, ie, without the independent power centers the parties represent, there is nothing to prevent direct control of individual politicians by corporations, to shop for individual politicians carte blanche. and all alone and without support, there is no choice for those individual politicians, if they want to succeed, to be nothing but a puppet for their corporate backers (or the money dries up). so if you want a true corporatocracy, you will abolish political parties. in fact, the recent supreme court ruling allowing more corporate money (an obscene decision) in elections is a direct threat to the power of political parties (so hopefully, since they know their power is threatened, the supreme's moronic decision will be legislatively annulled by the parties). of course, the ideal is to do away with all corporate influence in a democracy. so if you really want to do that, the best way to do that, is to work the independent power centers: the political parties
more than they fear morons running around with guns?
its a serious, honest question
i for one would gladly outlaw guns. the result? lots less senseless deaths. increase in risk of fascism? zero
guns are not the salvation from, nor the guard against, a descent into fascism. fascism does not derive from a gunfight, nor is some gunfight going to save us from fascism. its some sort of boyscout fantasy
indeed, if anything, if fascism comes to the usa, ti will be born of the same paranoid rantings of psychotics hording guns in the woods
put it this way: if you trust to guns, more than you trust to words, that shows the extent of your commitment to civil democratic values
guns are incompatible with democracy. they do not underpin it, they threaten it
if the noble experiment known as the united states ever comes to an end, it will done at the hands of armed factions, it will not be saved by such visceral forces
people, organizations and groups act irresponsibly all the time in the market. its the default state in fact: no regulations leads to bubbles and pops, bubbles and pops, forever, in the market
study the banking panics of the 1800s sometime. simple human greed, followed by simple human fear: thats all you need. the cra isn't a cause, that's like saying the existence of money in my wallet is the fault of me being mugged, not the behavior of the mugger: the banks CHOSE to engorge themselves irresponsibly, no one held a gun to their head asshole
the idea of purely rational players in the market is bullshit. a world without regulations is one ruled by human psychology: greed and lust followed by fear and hysteria, banking panic after banking panic. you need regulations to keep the market fair and stable
they removed regulations under clinton, then bush, and gee, what happened next? use your genius to figure out what happens when you have an unregulated market, study some economic history, you ignorant free market fundamentalist
this allowed them to act irresponsibly. any other observation falls secondary to this prime cause. do you see that, or has the propaganda choked your brain?
do you know what they are doing in washington right now?
they're introducing new (same as the old) REG-U-LA-TIONS
so it doesn't happen again. because REG-U-LA-TIONS will fix the problem. DUH
do you understand simple fucking reality yet you braindead partisan hack?
canada is near the north pole, while the usa is closer to the south pole. the more south you go in the usa in fact, the more conservative the opinion
so clearly north pole=liberal, south pole=conservative
so i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole, hide it in an office tower in dallas texas, and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality! and screw up navigation compasses everywhere!
but if you think the current situation in the usa is anything even remotely what went on in mussolini's italy, or hitler's germany, or franco's spain, you are simply unintelligent
we do not live in a fascism. really
the usa has plenty of problems, but these incredibly crude equatings that you are making with fascism does not even remotely describe the reality you live in. but they do adequately describe a lack of mental capacity on your part
and refuting him on his points directly. there is violence in the tea party movement. the grandparent denies it, i assert it as simple truth, as any perusal of any reputable news source to your liking will show. any other confusions of yours you need help clearing up?
really, that's the truth, plain and simple, deal with it
but thanks for the attempts at partisan smearing: "it's carter's fault! and then (insert creative reasoning in which no republican is ever mentioned) it's clinton's fault!"
carter?! LOL
how do you brain dead partisan assholes keep a straight face when you regurgitate this mental diarrhea? oh, right, you're brain dead, you're beyond the forces of embarrassment or irony or humor when you retch and cough up this mental pap. do you really believe the words you right? are you that fucking hypocritical and blind?
but if you believe the usa government is fascist, in any way, simply means you're low iq, highly propagandized, and beneath the intellectual charity of paying anymore attention to your ignorance
there's some very polite well tempered tea party activists
but what is the basis of tea party passion?: anger. anger at the government
you don't have a large movement whose root emotion is anger, without violence somewhere. which we've already seen, and will see more of. its inevitable. the way you talk, the tea part is some sort of philosophical debate society. sell that bullshit elsewhere please
there's no fascism in somalia for example. it is a utopia of people free of government living in happiness and prosperity. unlike socialist european countries with their silly concern for the common good, mired in poverty and misery
and i am sorry for smearing the tea party the way i do. clearly, i have absolutely zero evidence of any tea party anger. it's a meek polite debate society of highly intelligent philosophers. all of their language and actions is something out of '60s love in. and i have absolutely zero, zero! proof to the contrary. i apologize deeply for my horrible misunderstandings
when your economy is trashed by greedy speculation then fear and hysteria. that's what sent germany to the dogs: the great depression, the collapse of the financial world
aka, what the world just experiences in 2008 (on a much smaller scale, true)
but this historical parallel leads us to four observations:
1. the angry tea partiers, with their brick throwing and insane murderous anger, IS kristallnacht, on a smaller scale
2. intolerant deluded propagandized fools hording guns in the woods are the seeds of fascism, NOT our protectors from fascism
3. we need strong government regulation in the financial sector, and the assholes (greenspan and co) who dismantled the 1930s era (irony) protections need to be grilled a la congressional hearings and roundly castigated for their dangerous irresponsibility
4. hopefully the world, and the usa, can weather this horde of angry morons out of work, the seeds of fascism, without them crystallizing around some modern day hitler-like demagogue and mounting a political (and visceral: they love guns) challenge to civilization. and then let the retards fade away into history
interesintg note: many tea partiers receive government benefits (unemployment, medicaid)... while they rail against government aid. they go to tea party rallies... instead of looking for work. fucking ignorant hypocrites
i know the moronic big brother meme is popular here, but this meme is a completely intellectually bankrupt idea
the 1984 meme has gotten to the point where "something bad happened in society" (--insert creative reasoning--) "therefore, we are becoming orwellian"
orwell wrote a pleasant fiction a long time ago. it was good criticism of totalitarian societies at the time. like: ussr. not democracies (you know, governments accountable to voters?) like the uk or the usa. (also reference "animal farm")
so it made its way into a lot of high school reading curricula as a tool, ostensibly, about the dangers of totalitarian states. but in some amazing turn around, according to some sort of high school stoner logic, mixed with a lot of pink floyd i suppose, it became a critique in people's minds of the democracies they lived in
whu?
1984 bears no relation to reality in modern democracies. repeat: 1984, orwell, big brother bears NO RELATION to reality unless you live in an autocracy. please stop confusing science fiction with reality in western societies
if anything, there is LITTLE brother: for example, rodney king. that you are "oppressed" by your fellow citizens with cell phone cameras. and in fact, the STATE is hemmed in and hamstrung by citizens with cameras (a la rodney king). how does that fact jive with orwell's fiction?
1984, orwell, big brother: it would all make sense if the state had a monopoly on technological advance. it doesn't. as such, 1984, orwell, big brother: failed, dead meme, useless way of thinking about your world. please get over your fanboy reasoning. you're braindead. stop citing orwell and 1984. it is NOT instructive as to the real world you live in unless you are in a GENUINELY authoritarian state. and even then, such as this story, its not even totally the case! just look at iran and twitter
do you erroneously believe you are better in touch with reality than myself?
all i see in your words are a low iq form of cynicism
you even call yourself "orwellian", which speaks volumes about your ignorant prejudices, as if that tired fairy tale has anything to do with our reality, which is more little brother than big brother
Slashdot Mirror
male gynecomastia is quite common in the slashdot user base
you should have let the guy finish lifting his shirt: probably a nice B cup, albeit a little hairy
No more likely the U.S. Republic will end the same way the Roman Republic ended. A takeover by a single leader, who manipulates his way into a position of dictatorship, and then holds-on to that power using the force of government, to suppress the masses underfoot.
i agree 101%
but why do you think GUNS will save you from such a man? the only thing that matters is the power of belief: such a man will never gain power as long as enough don't believe in his charismatic lies. but if a certain critical mass believe in such a demagogue, his followers most certainly will make sure to outgun whatever resistance is offered as they claw their way, with guns, to power and to cement it... with guns
in other words, the deciding factor in such a nightmare scenario is not the gun, on the side of democracy. those who cling to the power of attraction to your cause with words do not reach for a gun, they reach for a pen. but those who depend upon coercion and fear will be armed to the hilt. guns appeal to those who wish to subdue, it is not the tool of those who wish to persuade. to depend upon the gun to save you means you don't believe in democracy and rule by consensus, you believe in rule by visceral force
simply put: the idea that guns will save us from fascism is a fallacy. when you examine it, the only thing that saves us from such a scenario is enough of the populace believing in the legitimacy of democracy over the charisma of a demagogue, who most certainly will be well-armed and will be careful to outgun whatever resistance is offered, because this is his way: physical force
simply put, in a domestic civil arena, the gun is the tool of the enemies of democracy, not the tool of democracy
in 1996 you need windows 95 to spread the melissa or i love you virus
clearly the aliens would be using windows word '97 or excel '97, it came out in 1996, like the movie did
nothing like a visual basic macro virus to take down an alien mothership!
even better, why didn't the movie makers use microsoft bob?
1. "the media" is not some sort of monolithic controlled source at the helm of control. its thousands of disparate voices. our posts on slashdot is "the media". slashdot is "the media". there is right wing media, there is left wing media. there is media for whatever audience you can imagine, each with its own stories, prejudices, and agendas, in constant flux, and controlled by no one. in other words: the media decides nothing. there is no logical coherence to even speak of "the media", as if it were any sort of coherent identity to speak of in such a way to draw any sort of valid statement
2. parties are inevitable. we are social creatures, and in fact our most social effort is politics itself. in other words, its impossibe to have politics without parties. we naturally evolve into factions and groups. so political parties will be with us forever, make peace with that fact. at best you simply drive parties underground, or rename them as something else: pointless
3. the democrats and republicans are different. tell me with a straight face al gore would have invaded iraq. the point is, the two parties seem the same because they fight over support from the middle, so they are always drawing close to each other, in the middle. which is actually wonderful: it provides stability by ensuring the party in control never drifts too far left or right from the center of opinion: they lose control if they do. furthermore, truly far left or far right parties will never gain control as long as you have democrats and republicans, because they simply don't appeal to enough people. which again, is wonderful: protection from extremism. another thing: when you vote, your choice is NEVER going to be ideologically your ideal. it will always be slightly closer to me, or slightly further from me. you ALWAYS vote strategic, not idealistic. there never, ever, in a healthy democracy, be some sort of dream where your ideal further left/ further right candidate will win, nor should it ever be so, if the true purpose of democracy: give voice to the people it si formed from, is ever to remain valid. so you always get a choice between slightly left, or slightly right, seemingly the same, and this is something you should celebrate: stability and legitimacy and permanently banished extremism
4. political parties are a DEFENSE from corporate influence. without political parties to filter corporate interests, ie, without the independent power centers the parties represent, there is nothing to prevent direct control of individual politicians by corporations, to shop for individual politicians carte blanche. and all alone and without support, there is no choice for those individual politicians, if they want to succeed, to be nothing but a puppet for their corporate backers (or the money dries up). so if you want a true corporatocracy, you will abolish political parties. in fact, the recent supreme court ruling allowing more corporate money (an obscene decision) in elections is a direct threat to the power of political parties (so hopefully, since they know their power is threatened, the supreme's moronic decision will be legislatively annulled by the parties). of course, the ideal is to do away with all corporate influence in a democracy. so if you really want to do that, the best way to do that, is to work the independent power centers: the political parties
we need to put environmentalism on hold, to prevent a political catastrophe
more than they fear morons running around with guns?
its a serious, honest question
i for one would gladly outlaw guns. the result? lots less senseless deaths. increase in risk of fascism? zero
guns are not the salvation from, nor the guard against, a descent into fascism. fascism does not derive from a gunfight, nor is some gunfight going to save us from fascism. its some sort of boyscout fantasy
indeed, if anything, if fascism comes to the usa, ti will be born of the same paranoid rantings of psychotics hording guns in the woods
put it this way: if you trust to guns, more than you trust to words, that shows the extent of your commitment to civil democratic values
guns are incompatible with democracy. they do not underpin it, they threaten it
if the noble experiment known as the united states ever comes to an end, it will done at the hands of armed factions, it will not be saved by such visceral forces
1. a market without regulations naturally bubbles and pops continually
2. therefore, you need regulations for a stable and healthy market
3. the reason the market crashed in 2008 is because it bubbled as regulations were systematically removed under clinton and bush
anything else i can help you with today darling?
people, organizations and groups act irresponsibly all the time in the market. its the default state in fact: no regulations leads to bubbles and pops, bubbles and pops, forever, in the market
study the banking panics of the 1800s sometime. simple human greed, followed by simple human fear: thats all you need. the cra isn't a cause, that's like saying the existence of money in my wallet is the fault of me being mugged, not the behavior of the mugger: the banks CHOSE to engorge themselves irresponsibly, no one held a gun to their head asshole
the idea of purely rational players in the market is bullshit. a world without regulations is one ruled by human psychology: greed and lust followed by fear and hysteria, banking panic after banking panic. you need regulations to keep the market fair and stable
they removed regulations under clinton, then bush, and gee, what happened next? use your genius to figure out what happens when you have an unregulated market, study some economic history, you ignorant free market fundamentalist
mod parent up, you betcha
this allowed them to act irresponsibly. any other observation falls secondary to this prime cause. do you see that, or has the propaganda choked your brain?
do you know what they are doing in washington right now?
they're introducing new (same as the old) REG-U-LA-TIONS
so it doesn't happen again. because REG-U-LA-TIONS will fix the problem. DUH
do you understand simple fucking reality yet you braindead partisan hack?
canada is near the north pole, while the usa is closer to the south pole. the more south you go in the usa in fact, the more conservative the opinion
so clearly north pole=liberal, south pole=conservative
so i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole, hide it in an office tower in dallas texas, and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality! and screw up navigation compasses everywhere!
and i stand against it, and it disgusts me
but if you think the current situation in the usa is anything even remotely what went on in mussolini's italy, or hitler's germany, or franco's spain, you are simply unintelligent
we do not live in a fascism. really
the usa has plenty of problems, but these incredibly crude equatings that you are making with fascism does not even remotely describe the reality you live in. but they do adequately describe a lack of mental capacity on your part
and refuting him on his points directly. there is violence in the tea party movement. the grandparent denies it, i assert it as simple truth, as any perusal of any reputable news source to your liking will show. any other confusions of yours you need help clearing up?
under clinton and then gwbush
that's the source of the 2008 collapse
really, that's the truth, plain and simple, deal with it
but thanks for the attempts at partisan smearing: "it's carter's fault! and then (insert creative reasoning in which no republican is ever mentioned) it's clinton's fault!"
carter?! LOL
how do you brain dead partisan assholes keep a straight face when you regurgitate this mental diarrhea? oh, right, you're brain dead, you're beyond the forces of embarrassment or irony or humor when you retch and cough up this mental pap. do you really believe the words you right? are you that fucking hypocritical and blind?
i stopped reading there
the usa has plenty of problems
but if you believe the usa government is fascist, in any way, simply means you're low iq, highly propagandized, and beneath the intellectual charity of paying anymore attention to your ignorance
please wake the fuck up from your delusions
there's some very polite well tempered tea party activists
but what is the basis of tea party passion?: anger. anger at the government
you don't have a large movement whose root emotion is anger, without violence somewhere. which we've already seen, and will see more of. its inevitable. the way you talk, the tea part is some sort of philosophical debate society. sell that bullshit elsewhere please
just wait until pinky and clyde show up from around the side of saturn
there's no fascism in somalia for example. it is a utopia of people free of government living in happiness and prosperity. unlike socialist european countries with their silly concern for the common good, mired in poverty and misery
and i am sorry for smearing the tea party the way i do. clearly, i have absolutely zero evidence of any tea party anger. it's a meek polite debate society of highly intelligent philosophers. all of their language and actions is something out of '60s love in. and i have absolutely zero, zero! proof to the contrary. i apologize deeply for my horrible misunderstandings
pfffffffffft
paranoid idiots with guns, not the government
when your economy is trashed by greedy speculation then fear and hysteria. that's what sent germany to the dogs: the great depression, the collapse of the financial world
aka, what the world just experiences in 2008 (on a much smaller scale, true)
but this historical parallel leads us to four observations:
1. the angry tea partiers, with their brick throwing and insane murderous anger, IS kristallnacht, on a smaller scale
2. intolerant deluded propagandized fools hording guns in the woods are the seeds of fascism, NOT our protectors from fascism
3. we need strong government regulation in the financial sector, and the assholes (greenspan and co) who dismantled the 1930s era (irony) protections need to be grilled a la congressional hearings and roundly castigated for their dangerous irresponsibility
4. hopefully the world, and the usa, can weather this horde of angry morons out of work, the seeds of fascism, without them crystallizing around some modern day hitler-like demagogue and mounting a political (and visceral: they love guns) challenge to civilization. and then let the retards fade away into history
interesintg note: many tea partiers receive government benefits (unemployment, medicaid)... while they rail against government aid. they go to tea party rallies... instead of looking for work. fucking ignorant hypocrites
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/politics/28teaparty.html
do not negate the existence of the assholes barreling by at 90 mph
that's the whole point
mother fucking nature
greedy douchebags
just your intellectual superior and disgusted with pathetic lowest common denominator tools like you in this world
i know the moronic big brother meme is popular here, but this meme is a completely intellectually bankrupt idea
the 1984 meme has gotten to the point where "something bad happened in society" (--insert creative reasoning--) "therefore, we are becoming orwellian"
orwell wrote a pleasant fiction a long time ago. it was good criticism of totalitarian societies at the time. like: ussr. not democracies (you know, governments accountable to voters?) like the uk or the usa. (also reference "animal farm")
so it made its way into a lot of high school reading curricula as a tool, ostensibly, about the dangers of totalitarian states. but in some amazing turn around, according to some sort of high school stoner logic, mixed with a lot of pink floyd i suppose, it became a critique in people's minds of the democracies they lived in
whu?
1984 bears no relation to reality in modern democracies. repeat: 1984, orwell, big brother bears NO RELATION to reality unless you live in an autocracy. please stop confusing science fiction with reality in western societies
if anything, there is LITTLE brother: for example, rodney king. that you are "oppressed" by your fellow citizens with cell phone cameras. and in fact, the STATE is hemmed in and hamstrung by citizens with cameras (a la rodney king). how does that fact jive with orwell's fiction?
1984, orwell, big brother: it would all make sense if the state had a monopoly on technological advance. it doesn't. as such, 1984, orwell, big brother: failed, dead meme, useless way of thinking about your world. please get over your fanboy reasoning. you're braindead. stop citing orwell and 1984. it is NOT instructive as to the real world you live in unless you are in a GENUINELY authoritarian state. and even then, such as this story, its not even totally the case! just look at iran and twitter
STOP CITING ORWELL MORONS. IT FAILS
good day, low iq tool
do you erroneously believe you are better in touch with reality than myself?
all i see in your words are a low iq form of cynicism
you even call yourself "orwellian", which speaks volumes about your ignorant prejudices, as if that tired fairy tale has anything to do with our reality, which is more little brother than big brother
you're a typical stupid tool