Do you have such an easy explanation for this story
on the site? Eh? (quote:
When are the 97% of Americans who are not Jewish going to wake up to the subversion of their democracy by an alien money power busy subverting Christian principles and dictating a dangerous Babylonian-satanic foreign policy?
) This comes at the end of an article whose second half is a claim that ``there were no mass exterminations at Auschwitz'' and
``concentration camp conditions couldnt have been that harsh at all''
I'd provide quotes of some of the really nasty, hateful stuff which was in the story I
linked to above, but the editors of the site seem to have yanked it after it was pointed
out here....
Face it -- this site is chock full of anti-semitic nonsense. I see no problem at all with
the fact that a (voluntary, independent) rating service classed it as `hate speech'.
Interesting. So, let me ask you a question? When you are looking through
TV Guide (or your Tivo directory, or whatever), and trying to decide what
to watch, do you read the descriptions of the shows/movies you are considering?
Because that's what these rating sites are. They are automated summaries of
the type of content a site contains, for use by viewers who are interested in
seeing some types of content but not others.
Speaking as a parent, I see a big difference between my four year old being exposed
to some of the really nice kid-friendly stuff
that's out there and some of the really nasty stuff [no link provided, use your damn
imagination] that's out there. If you don't, well, let me say, as politely as I can,
that `we disagree'.
And yes, this does indeed mean that:
some things are objectively bad
children should be shielded from some things
it's not only `okay' for a parent to exercise some control over what their child is exposed
to, it's their responsibility to do so
That's part of what being a parent means -- something you will, I hope, understand long before
you get there.
Yup. You did read the submitted story asking what recourse he had (and what pressure he could apply) if the (voluntary,
independent) service doesn't change its mind, didn't you?
What kind of `libertarian' is against private ranking services? Aren't they in fact the ultimate free speech / free market
solution for site filtering?
And while we're on the subject, doesn't it seem likely that the `hate speech' designation has more to do with the fact that
the site in question seems to think ``do Jews use the blood of non-Jews to make pastry'' is a question which might be answered
either way, rather than with the author's black helicopter theories that he is being `suppressed' because of his opinions?
(that thread is on the lower left of the linked site, if you're looking
for it. There are about four pages of thread debate attached to it, in which much of the
opinion voiced seem mostly to range from `yes, Jews do that' to `no, Jews don't do
that, but they did plan the 9/11 attacks'.
And while we're at it, do you suppose the fact that the linked site's readers can't seem to decide whether
``Jews use human blood in baking '' is a true news report might have something to do with the `Hate Speech'
label?
Remember, this is a private and voluntary ranking system, by the way -- we're not talking about
whether its use should be mandated.
You're a `libertarian' (you say), asking what your options are to go to
court to try to change your review in a voluntary ranking system?
I guess I'm not buying it. Especially considering that the content of your
site is mostly boring retreads or black-helicopter stuff, and doesn't
seem particularly `libertarian' at all...
The two sections of USA PATRIOT which you cite are discussed at length in the discussion attached
to the journal entry I linked to above.
What they do is add another category (`organized terrorism') to the list of categories (including
`organized crime/racketeering' and `espionage') for which wiretap applications can be made to
the FISA court. This in no way changes the supervision of such wiretaps, merely changes the
venue in which they are applied for.
As for the arrest you refer to, there are plenty of organizations, such as the Institute
for Justice which can help you if your rights were violated -- as it sounds like they may have been.
But as you say, this happened two and a half years ago, so it doesn't help your claim that you've lost rights
since September 11.
As I said, all you've done is made weird claims which don't match PATRIOT, or which
are already discussed in the thread I linked above. If there is language in PATRIOT
which you can cite which does what you claim it does, fine. Otherwise, you're just
blowing hot air.
No, first you provide references to the specific sections of USA PATRIOT
you are referring to, as you are distorting it quite badly.
Nothing in USA PATRIOT allows unsupervised wiretaps at all, for example -- some
wiretap applications move from a closed civil court to the closed FISA court, but
the FISA court has existed for decades, for exactly this purpose (indeed, slashdot
just reported on FISA oversight of the DoJ during the Clinton years two weeks ago),
and were already used in organized-crime and terrorism investigations.
Nor is it new for common carriers to be asked to voluntarily hand over
information -- this has been done for a long time, and slashdot has also reported on
cases of this.
Your other claims are even weirder.
So, again, rather than make random specious claims about what USA PATRIOT does, you will
have to provide the specific language in USA PATRIOT which you feel has curtailed your
rights, and describe what rights you feel have been curtailed.
He is still pushing to attack Iraq, even though they accepted his original demands.
First off, they're not his demands, they're the UN's demands, articulated in a dozen
UN resolutions which Mr. Hussein has flaunted for a decade. If the UN won't enforce them, though,
we will be forced to, as we're the ones in danger when Mr. Hussein starts handing out nuclear
devices at meetings of the bin Laden booster club.
Second, he hasn't met them, at any rate -- while he initially stated that he would allow `unfettered'
inspections, the Saudi representative at the Arab League, who brokered the deal, has already admitted
that Mr. Hussein only promised `unfettered' access to military bases -- the one place we can
be quite sure he is not hiding his weapons of mass destruction.
Besides, allowing a resumption of inspections is only one of Mr. Hussein's promises to the UN
which he has broken, and which we are now enforcing. See the text of the President's speech to the UN
for details.
Well, if we, in fact, had someone who was a lackey of the oil industry, a good example
of something which we would not be trying to achieve is regime change
in Iraq, as this will increase the available oil supply, and thus lower
prices.
You know, the really annoying thing is that I'm SURE there are people who would seriously agree with this line of reasoning, if not come up with it, themselves.
Now you're just being silly. Can you provide me any example of this type of reasoning being used? At all? Anything even like this?
Rather than repeat myself for every new/.er who has read the hype
coming from the left about USA PATRIOT, I'd like to point you to
the recent discussion of just these sections of USA PATRIOT in
my journal.
The punchline is that neither of these sections provides government
any powers it hasn't been actively using since the early sixties, or
which hadn't been already codified in law since the RICO statutes
of 1970.
Enjoy your date, and when you come back maybe you can answer the question
which was asked: name one right which you feel you had on September 10, 2001 which
you feel you do not have now.
If you think that USA PATRIOT has taken away your rights, however, you should provide an example
(any example) of a right which you had before USA PATRIOT but which you do not have now.
If you can't, you're just blowing hot air.
(Hint: if you want readers to believe that USA PATRIOT has taken away their rights, you should
explain how a bill which only extended to organized terrorism measures which were already
ruled constitutional when JFK and RFK applied them to organized crime forty years ago
could possibly be accused of taking away your rights?)
Hey, why not -- the MPAA and RIAA (both of which gave about 95% of their political
donations in the 2000 election campaign to Gore and other Democrats) certainly think
he'd do good things for them.
Oh, you mean you want someone who's not a lackey of the recording industry? Well,
looks like we elected the right guy after all.
FUD, and nothing but. If you think our rights are being taken away,
please provide a single example of a right which you had on September
10, 2001 which you don't have now. One.
Even the `poor' in the US have televisions, refrigerators, a car or two, and often a computer. These
are things that even the middle classes in China often can only dream of, while the poor of China live
in a state of squalor completely unknown in the US (and they make up much more than twenty percent of
the population there).
As for the homeless, not only has the actual number of homeless persons not increased substantially
in over a decade, the larger picture here is that 80%-90% of those who are homeless in the US are homeless
due to mental illness or drug abuse -- any who are willing to work here can get themselves off the streets
in pretty short order.
The same cannot be said for the homeless of China, never mind the inmates of the vast prison camps of the
Laogai.
Anyway, I strongly suspect that anyone who, like you, defends the crushing of unarmed protesters at Tianenmen
is a troll. Are you?
We have a jail in cuba to do that out of the public eye.
Umm, sure, as long as `out of the public eye' means `under close supervision of the press and
the international Red Cross, in a resort-like setting, with an average of one physician per
prisoner, and extra care taken to respect the religion and special needs of the inmates'.
"This is simply a lie. I welcome you to point to a single example of anyone in the US being censored. "
Why won't the Bush administration allow an independant commission into the events of 9/11?
I understand that you're not actually very familiar with the US or with freedom, but hello, it's
a free country. Bush doesn't need to `allow' an independent investigation because anyone who
wants can investigate anything they want and say anything they want. Of course, for someone like you,
who just described the protesters in Tianenmen Square as `rebels' and `terrorists', perhaps the workings
of free speech seem a little strange.
The truth involves $43 million in aid given to the Taliban by the Bush Administration while Bush they were harboring Bin Laden. Holy fucking shit, Bush is a traitor. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/
us.afghanistan.ai d/ . Iraqis are starving, Palestinians are starving and are being killed by US money, why don't we help there?
Black-helicopter nonsense and incoherent ranting. The alleged money to the Taliban has already been retracted
by CNN and every other responsible news agency, the people who die in Iraq are dying not because of sanctions but
because the billions of dollars in food money we send are being spent by Mr. Hussein to buy weapons of mass
destruction and summer palaces, and even Arafat now admits that those Palestinians who were killed in the fighting
this year were almost all civilians.
"More nonsense. Show me anything in USA PATRIOT that allows anything of the sort. "
Have you read the patriot act? obviosuly not if you do not already know this.
I have read USA PATRIOT, and it says nothing of the sort. So again, show us the text which
you claim says this.
"Sure, as long as your definition of `works' is `starves hundreds of millions of people, murders millions more, and locks tens of millions more in the Laogai [laogai.org] (prison camps for political
dissidents) while providing a lower standard of living than any democracy in the world. "
Why don't you factor the US population to that of china and then make a fair comparisan. Given that 1 in 5 Americans is either living in extreme poverty or in jail or homeless, scaling that to china's
population would mean that hundreds of millions of Americans would also be suffering. probably more because our infrastructure could not handle it. What is that prison camp in Cuba called again. How
many people are in their but have never fired a shot against America?
No one is in Guantanamo who didn't take up arms against the US, whether they got the chance to fire a shot
or not, and for that matter, no one is in there who is a US citizen or who was apprehended in the US.
And as for poverty, the `poor' in America have cars, cell phones, refrigerators, air conditioned homes,
and all of the other things which even the tiny middle class in China dream of. Do not assume that because
`poverty' in China means starvation and squalor that that is what it means in the US.
First off, no one in Iraq is dying because of sanctions. When billions of dollars
are sent to Iraq every year to feed the population, and Saddam Hussein uses the money
to build summer palaces and weapons of mass destruction instead of to feed his people,
the deaths are his fault. When Saddam is gone, no one will be starving. With Saddam
in power, people will starve whether there are sanctions or not, as starvation is one
of the main weapons he uses against his political enemies.
Second off, no one is talking about `revenge' either. To the extent that we are going
to war, we are doing it not to avenge the 3,000 Americans who were murdered on September
11, 2001, but to save the lives of the tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans who
will die if a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack occurs in the heart of a US city.
But all of this is tangential to your argument. You seem to think that if we are not
perfect, than we have no right to act in our own defense (never mind the defense of those
in his own nation whom Mr. Hussein is murdering. This is nonsense, and if we fail to
prevent the next attack, the blood of those murdered will be on the hands of those whose
petty moralizing stopped us from preventing the attack.
This is why your statements about `the wishes of other nations' are meaningless (they are
also largely untrue -- a number of nations have voiced their support, and we are acting in
enforcement of no less than 13 UN resolutions passed over the last decade). The president
and the congress of the US are not in office to be liked by European appeasers or third-world
dictators. They are in office to defend the American people. And this is why they will
not allow European-ness envy or petty appeasement to stand in the way of preventing the
next attack.
What a load of nonsense. While most of this is incoherent enough to be meaningless, I'd like
to respond to a few points:
If America is free, why did 3 muslim men who were American citizens get detained because someone accused them of laughing at the events of 9/11.
Oh yes, the Florida police investigating (and releasing) someone accused of planning a bombing attack is just like the Chinese police
investigating (and torturing, and killing) people accused of saying something the government doesn't like. Oh wait, no it's not.
Ever hear of TIPS, the turn in your neighbor program here in the US?
Oh yes, asking citizens who may have information about upcoming terrorist attacks to contact the police so that this information can be investigated
under the framework of due process is just like spying on people so that they can be hauled away if they say something the government doesn't like.
Oh wait, no it's not.
Try organizing a revolt in the US and the government will run you over with tanks also.
Oh yes, arresting people who plan terrorist attacks (I welcome you to point to anyone being `run over with tanks') is just like
slaughtering unarmed protesters with tanks because they dare to ask for elections to be held. Oh wait, no its not.
Censorship, you do not think the US censors!!! The whole war on terrorism is beign censored. The truth about 9/11 is being censored. Speak out too loudly against the US government and you will also be censored
This is simply a lie. I welcome you to point to a single example of anyone in the US being censored.
And I'm just dying to hear what you think the `truth about 9/11' is.
possibly detained forever under the new patriot act.
More nonsense. Show me anything in USA PATRIOT that allows anything of the sort.
Communism works in china because the Chinese culture has always been about China coming first.
Sure, as long as your definition of `works' is `starves hundreds of millions of people, murders millions more,
and locks tens of millions more in the Laogai (prison camps for political
dissidents) while providing a lower standard of living than any democracy in the world.
The rest of your post is simply hilarious in the post-1989 world. I didn't know there were still people
dumb enough to buy that shit. Oh well...
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have such an easy explanation for this story on the site? Eh? (quote:
) This comes at the end of an article whose second half is a claim that ``there were no mass exterminations at Auschwitz'' and ``concentration camp conditions couldnt have been that harsh at all''I'd provide quotes of some of the really nasty, hateful stuff which was in the story I linked to above, but the editors of the site seem to have yanked it after it was pointed out here....
Face it -- this site is chock full of anti-semitic nonsense. I see no problem at all with the fact that a (voluntary, independent) rating service classed it as `hate speech'.
Interesting. So, let me ask you a question? When you are looking through TV Guide (or your Tivo directory, or whatever), and trying to decide what to watch, do you read the descriptions of the shows/movies you are considering?
Because that's what these rating sites are. They are automated summaries of the type of content a site contains, for use by viewers who are interested in seeing some types of content but not others.
Speaking as a parent, I see a big difference between my four year old being exposed to some of the really nice kid-friendly stuff that's out there and some of the really nasty stuff [no link provided, use your damn imagination] that's out there. If you don't, well, let me say, as politely as I can, that `we disagree'.
And yes, this does indeed mean that:
- some things are objectively bad
- children should be shielded from some things
- it's not only `okay' for a parent to exercise some control over what their child is exposed
to, it's their responsibility to do so
That's part of what being a parent means -- something you will, I hope, understand long before you get there.What kind of `libertarian' is against private ranking services? Aren't they in fact the ultimate free speech / free market solution for site filtering?
And while we're on the subject, doesn't it seem likely that the `hate speech' designation has more to do with the fact that the site in question seems to think ``do Jews use the blood of non-Jews to make pastry'' is a question which might be answered either way, rather than with the author's black helicopter theories that he is being `suppressed' because of his opinions?
Pathetic.)
Remember, this is a private and voluntary ranking system, by the way -- we're not talking about whether its use should be mandated.
You're a `libertarian' (you say), asking what your options are to go to court to try to change your review in a voluntary ranking system?
I guess I'm not buying it. Especially considering that the content of your site is mostly boring retreads or black-helicopter stuff, and doesn't seem particularly `libertarian' at all...
That's what I thought.
A good day to you, sir.
The two sections of USA PATRIOT which you cite are discussed at length in the discussion attached to the journal entry I linked to above.
What they do is add another category (`organized terrorism') to the list of categories (including `organized crime/racketeering' and `espionage') for which wiretap applications can be made to the FISA court. This in no way changes the supervision of such wiretaps, merely changes the venue in which they are applied for.
As for the arrest you refer to, there are plenty of organizations, such as the Institute for Justice which can help you if your rights were violated -- as it sounds like they may have been.
But as you say, this happened two and a half years ago, so it doesn't help your claim that you've lost rights since September 11.
As I said, all you've done is made weird claims which don't match PATRIOT, or which are already discussed in the thread I linked above. If there is language in PATRIOT which you can cite which does what you claim it does, fine. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.
Nothing in USA PATRIOT allows unsupervised wiretaps at all, for example -- some wiretap applications move from a closed civil court to the closed FISA court, but the FISA court has existed for decades, for exactly this purpose (indeed, slashdot just reported on FISA oversight of the DoJ during the Clinton years two weeks ago), and were already used in organized-crime and terrorism investigations.
Nor is it new for common carriers to be asked to voluntarily hand over information -- this has been done for a long time, and slashdot has also reported on cases of this.
Your other claims are even weirder.
So, again, rather than make random specious claims about what USA PATRIOT does, you will have to provide the specific language in USA PATRIOT which you feel has curtailed your rights, and describe what rights you feel have been curtailed.
He is still pushing to attack Iraq, even though they accepted his original demands.
First off, they're not his demands, they're the UN's demands, articulated in a dozen UN resolutions which Mr. Hussein has flaunted for a decade. If the UN won't enforce them, though, we will be forced to, as we're the ones in danger when Mr. Hussein starts handing out nuclear devices at meetings of the bin Laden booster club.
Second, he hasn't met them, at any rate -- while he initially stated that he would allow `unfettered' inspections, the Saudi representative at the Arab League, who brokered the deal, has already admitted that Mr. Hussein only promised `unfettered' access to military bases -- the one place we can be quite sure he is not hiding his weapons of mass destruction.
Besides, allowing a resumption of inspections is only one of Mr. Hussein's promises to the UN which he has broken, and which we are now enforcing. See the text of the President's speech to the UN for details.
Nice try, but looks like that shoe doesn't fit...
Read the replied-to post. It very clearly suggested exactly that.
You're not seriously arguing that child porn should be legal, are you?
Put simply, I don't believe you.
How 'bout you post a link to any example of anyone ever forwarding such a position, instead of asking us to take you at your word?
But no, you won't. Random smears and implications are much more your style, aren't they?
Intellectual Property, like flying pigs, cannot be found in nature.
True. Neither can representative government, property rights, or any of a hundred other necessary ingredients of a free and open society. Your point?
You know, the really annoying thing is that I'm SURE there are people who would seriously agree with this line of reasoning, if not come up with it, themselves.
Now you're just being silly. Can you provide me any example of this type of reasoning being used? At all? Anything even like this?
Rather than repeat myself for every new /.er who has read the hype
coming from the left about USA PATRIOT, I'd like to point you to
the recent discussion of just these sections of USA PATRIOT in
my journal.
The punchline is that neither of these sections provides government any powers it hasn't been actively using since the early sixties, or which hadn't been already codified in law since the RICO statutes of 1970.
Enjoy your date, and when you come back maybe you can answer the question which was asked: name one right which you feel you had on September 10, 2001 which you feel you do not have now.
If you think that USA PATRIOT has taken away your rights, however, you should provide an example (any example) of a right which you had before USA PATRIOT but which you do not have now.
If you can't, you're just blowing hot air.
(Hint: if you want readers to believe that USA PATRIOT has taken away their rights, you should explain how a bill which only extended to organized terrorism measures which were already ruled constitutional when JFK and RFK applied them to organized crime forty years ago could possibly be accused of taking away your rights?)
Oh, you mean you want someone who's not a lackey of the recording industry? Well, looks like we elected the right guy after all.
FUD, and nothing but. If you think our rights are being taken away, please provide a single example of a right which you had on September 10, 2001 which you don't have now. One.
Even the `poor' in the US have televisions, refrigerators, a car or two, and often a computer. These are things that even the middle classes in China often can only dream of, while the poor of China live in a state of squalor completely unknown in the US (and they make up much more than twenty percent of the population there).
As for the homeless, not only has the actual number of homeless persons not increased substantially in over a decade, the larger picture here is that 80%-90% of those who are homeless in the US are homeless due to mental illness or drug abuse -- any who are willing to work here can get themselves off the streets in pretty short order.
The same cannot be said for the homeless of China, never mind the inmates of the vast prison camps of the Laogai.
Anyway, I strongly suspect that anyone who, like you, defends the crushing of unarmed protesters at Tianenmen is a troll. Are you?
We have a jail in cuba to do that out of the public eye.
Umm, sure, as long as `out of the public eye' means `under close supervision of the press and the international Red Cross, in a resort-like setting, with an average of one physician per prisoner, and extra care taken to respect the religion and special needs of the inmates'.
"This is simply a lie. I welcome you to point to a single example of anyone in the US being censored. "
Why won't the Bush administration allow an independant commission into the events of 9/11?
I understand that you're not actually very familiar with the US or with freedom, but hello, it's a free country. Bush doesn't need to `allow' an independent investigation because anyone who wants can investigate anything they want and say anything they want. Of course, for someone like you, who just described the protesters in Tianenmen Square as `rebels' and `terrorists', perhaps the workings of free speech seem a little strange.
The truth involves $43 million in aid given to the Taliban by the Bush Administration while Bush they were harboring Bin Laden. Holy fucking shit, Bush is a traitor. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/ us.afghanistan.ai d/ . Iraqis are starving, Palestinians are starving and are being killed by US money, why don't we help there?
Black-helicopter nonsense and incoherent ranting. The alleged money to the Taliban has already been retracted by CNN and every other responsible news agency, the people who die in Iraq are dying not because of sanctions but because the billions of dollars in food money we send are being spent by Mr. Hussein to buy weapons of mass destruction and summer palaces, and even Arafat now admits that those Palestinians who were killed in the fighting this year were almost all civilians.
"More nonsense. Show me anything in USA PATRIOT that allows anything of the sort. "
Have you read the patriot act? obviosuly not if you do not already know this.
I have read USA PATRIOT, and it says nothing of the sort. So again, show us the text which you claim says this.
"Sure, as long as your definition of `works' is `starves hundreds of millions of people, murders millions more, and locks tens of millions more in the Laogai [laogai.org] (prison camps for political dissidents) while providing a lower standard of living than any democracy in the world. "
Why don't you factor the US population to that of china and then make a fair comparisan. Given that 1 in 5 Americans is either living in extreme poverty or in jail or homeless, scaling that to china's population would mean that hundreds of millions of Americans would also be suffering. probably more because our infrastructure could not handle it. What is that prison camp in Cuba called again. How many people are in their but have never fired a shot against America?
No one is in Guantanamo who didn't take up arms against the US, whether they got the chance to fire a shot or not, and for that matter, no one is in there who is a US citizen or who was apprehended in the US. And as for poverty, the `poor' in America have cars, cell phones, refrigerators, air conditioned homes, and all of the other things which even the tiny middle class in China dream of. Do not assume that because `poverty' in China means starvation and squalor that that is what it means in the US.
First off, no one in Iraq is dying because of sanctions. When billions of dollars are sent to Iraq every year to feed the population, and Saddam Hussein uses the money to build summer palaces and weapons of mass destruction instead of to feed his people, the deaths are his fault. When Saddam is gone, no one will be starving. With Saddam in power, people will starve whether there are sanctions or not, as starvation is one of the main weapons he uses against his political enemies.
Second off, no one is talking about `revenge' either. To the extent that we are going to war, we are doing it not to avenge the 3,000 Americans who were murdered on September 11, 2001, but to save the lives of the tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans who will die if a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack occurs in the heart of a US city.
But all of this is tangential to your argument. You seem to think that if we are not perfect, than we have no right to act in our own defense (never mind the defense of those in his own nation whom Mr. Hussein is murdering. This is nonsense, and if we fail to prevent the next attack, the blood of those murdered will be on the hands of those whose petty moralizing stopped us from preventing the attack.
This is why your statements about `the wishes of other nations' are meaningless (they are also largely untrue -- a number of nations have voiced their support, and we are acting in enforcement of no less than 13 UN resolutions passed over the last decade). The president and the congress of the US are not in office to be liked by European appeasers or third-world dictators. They are in office to defend the American people. And this is why they will not allow European-ness envy or petty appeasement to stand in the way of preventing the next attack.
If America is free, why did 3 muslim men who were American citizens get detained because someone accused them of laughing at the events of 9/11.
Oh yes, the Florida police investigating (and releasing) someone accused of planning a bombing attack is just like the Chinese police investigating (and torturing, and killing) people accused of saying something the government doesn't like. Oh wait, no it's not.
Ever hear of TIPS, the turn in your neighbor program here in the US?
Oh yes, asking citizens who may have information about upcoming terrorist attacks to contact the police so that this information can be investigated under the framework of due process is just like spying on people so that they can be hauled away if they say something the government doesn't like. Oh wait, no it's not.
Try organizing a revolt in the US and the government will run you over with tanks also.
Oh yes, arresting people who plan terrorist attacks (I welcome you to point to anyone being `run over with tanks') is just like slaughtering unarmed protesters with tanks because they dare to ask for elections to be held. Oh wait, no its not.
Censorship, you do not think the US censors!!! The whole war on terrorism is beign censored. The truth about 9/11 is being censored. Speak out too loudly against the US government and you will also be censored
This is simply a lie. I welcome you to point to a single example of anyone in the US being censored.
And I'm just dying to hear what you think the `truth about 9/11' is.
possibly detained forever under the new patriot act.
More nonsense. Show me anything in USA PATRIOT that allows anything of the sort.
Communism works in china because the Chinese culture has always been about China coming first.
Sure, as long as your definition of `works' is `starves hundreds of millions of people, murders millions more, and locks tens of millions more in the Laogai (prison camps for political dissidents) while providing a lower standard of living than any democracy in the world.
The rest of your post is simply hilarious in the post-1989 world. I didn't know there were still people dumb enough to buy that shit. Oh well...