Moreover, unlike India-Bangladesh relations are not benign as the US-Mexico relations currently seem to be, with a number of alleged fundamentalist religious organizations from Pakistan using the porous border to carry out terrorist activities on Indian soil.
But 99.9% of both Pakistan and Bangladesh (East Pakistan) are Religion of Peace members. Don't Indians know that Islam means peace. Why do they have to be so racist in their immigration policy?
Americans are in some heavy denial about how dependent the economy is on illegal, cheap immigrant labor. The Texas economy in particular would fall over, die, and burst into flame if all the illegal immigrants vanished.
If that is true, the US/Texas economy deserves to "fall over, die, and burst into flames." How can the Western European (especially pre-EU enlargement), Japanese, South Korean, and Taiwanese economies function decently without illegal, external labour, but the mighty US's cannot? The only country that depends on cheap, external labour as much as the US is advertised to be is Saudi Arabia; glad to see you have such high aspirations.
Hey, look at that: after I bitched about the tags, they added a few more. Now the tags are: "xenophobia, politics, immigration, surveillance, stupid" It seems that bitching about sometimes actually accomplishes something, sometimes. Too bad they left the original, subjective, and useless "xenophobia" and "stupid" tags. I guess my work here isn't done yet.:)
If your parents are the aristocracy of England should you be entitled to a better life than the average working slob due to your lineage? If your parents are the aristocracy of North America ("Native Americans") should you be entitled to a better life than the average working slob due to your lineage? I (and Marxist-Leninist theory) reject heredity and lineage as a proper claim on capital (land).
P.S. The claim to "Native American" lineage is simply at attempt to claim a patent on "the Americas." We discovered it *first*, therefore we should have an *infinite monopoly* on it; I'm sorry, but patents expire, and theirs expired a long time ago.
Oh, please. Immigrants have always been labeled as lazy drains on society. Mexicans are no different. Reality is that they are just as hard working as anyone else. Quite often they do the work that no other Americans would want to do... for less than minimum wage. The problem is that getting "documented" is not easy.
I wouldn't consider first-generation illegal Mexican migrants to be lazy at all: in fact, they almost certainly have far better work ethic than the average American, who feels quite entitled, on account of the illegal Mexican migrants having very little, but realizing that they can get quite a bit through hard work (whereas the average entitled American prefers to whine to the government).
Quite often they do the work that no other Americans would want to do... for less than minimum wage.
If you hold the minimum wage in such contempt, I suggest you abolish it, especially as a simple supply and demand graph will indicate that putting a lower barrier on the price of the supply of labour will lead to a surplus of labour (unemployment) if that lower barrier is above the equilibrium point (as equilibrium can now no longer be established). That being said, there will always be people outside of your borders willing to work for less than an American fat cat; should your government let them all in?
The problem is that getting "documented" is not easy.
If you broke into someone else's country, I suppose it wouldn't be (if someone broke into my house and started doing chores I definitely wouldn't "document" them). If they had waited in line like legal immigrants (from every country in the world) are doing, it might have been a bit easier, although that moron Bush seems to be doing everything in his power to "document" (grant amnesty) to illegal migrants (and with the full support of the Democratic party - a match made in hell - it looks like he will succeed; we shall see how long your House of Representatives holds up).
Clue: If you want to be considered a good guest, don't slaughter your hosts and steal their land.
Marxist principles justify it: the "Native Americans" (people who had immigrated to the US a bit earlier than the pilgrims, as all humans originated somewhere in Africa) were the "bourgeoisie": they controlled an immensely disproportionate amount of capital (land) given their tiny population. The Pilgrims on the other hand were the "proletarians," controlling very little capital (including land). Marxist principles dictate that the proletarians rise up and strip the bourgeoisie of their property, and then redistribute it amongst themselves (potentially killing or otherwise punishing the bourgeoisie in the process).
PS: No Mexicans
How about "PS: No People whose first act in this country is violating its laws and sovereignty" instead.
What about all those people in the world who aren't lucky enough to live in a country along your southern border (like me). Are they doomed to never be allowed into your country legally because Mexicans are illegally flooding into your country, illegally filling whatever "immigrant" quota exists (unofficially, of course)? Or do we have to enter your country illegally as well now? If you believe that every person who wants to should be allowed to enter and live in the US, I suggest you find some place to put 3 billion people at least (the pop of the world - Western Europe - Canada - Australia - New Zealand - Japan - South Korea - Very Rich of China & India - Hong Kong - Singapore - Taiwan >> 3 billion). Or is entering your country at will a privilege only available to Mexicans?
The tags for this article: xenophobia, stupid (tagging beta)
It seems that the sole use of the tagging system is to allow the "editors" to further "editorialize" the articles.
P.S. If protecting your border is xenophobic and stupid, the US is in a lot of good "xenophobic and stupid" company (i.e. almost every other country in the world).
Am I the only one who is thinking? Why the hell are these things connected to the Internet then?
No, but American incompetence and complacency should come as no surprise.
the Bush Administration has been crying "Wolf Wolf" since they started running for office
Admittedly I didn't pay much attention to the 2000 election as both the major candidates were morons and it wasn't even my country, but I don't remember Bush mentioning terrorism all that much (at all?) before 9/11.
Cindy Sheehan was really effective against Bush for a while because she's a strong family-protection figure who made it clear that Bush had endangered her family rather than protecting it.
I'm glad you're so concerned with propaganda (and yes, Sheehan was propaganda, she didn't add anything resembling intellectual discourse).
And Katrina was even more effective, because it demonstrated that Bush wasn't decisive, or strong, or competent,
I'm glad you enjoyed the suffering and misfortune of all those people in NOLA (as long as it hurts Bush, its worth it!).
Osama bin Laden was just fine - if you're crying Wolf Wolf and a real Wolf shows up on occasion, that demonstrates that your strong leadership is needed just like you said.
See first point.
Why has America not gone after Saudi Arabia, where 9 of the hijackers were from? Why are our borders still porous?
Beats me, especially as Saudi Arabia has more oil than Iraq as does Iran (and Canada). Bush is so incompetent he can't even wage a war for oil properly. I was promised that Americans would be stealing "Iraqi" oil (no idea what exactly makes it "Iraqi" oil, as "property is theft"), and to this day, I haven't seen that happen to my satisfaction. I am also dissatisfied by the misuse of the American military, which is wasting most of its time in the cities (where there is no oil!) instead of securing the oil fields (out in the desert). They should have just secured the "Iraqi/Mesopotamian" oil fields; immediately afterwards, the American forces should have been split into three groups: 1) guard the "Iraqi" oil, 2) Go south, get the "Saudi" oil, 3) Go east, get the "Iranian/Persian" oil.
According to Marxist principles: "from each according to [oil capacity], to each according to [oil need]." Frankly, I don't recognize Muslim property rights to oil especially as they conquered almost all of the land they now hold, and then proceeded to ethnically cleanse their newly conquered land. How do you think Mesopotamia ("Iraq", the cradle of civilization) ended up 99.9% Muslim and Persia (Iran, strong Zoroastrian country) ended up 99.9% Muslim? And that doesn't even take into account that oil only has value because the West invented technology to make use of it, and that all oil is extracted using Western tech, and that before being nationalized, all those Middle Eastern oil fields were being operated by Westerners (since they were the only ones who had the tech and the need for oil).
Ahhh! The corpses of the Twin Towers victims. Being waved around loudly on facist poles since Sep-2001. I certainly can't think of a more ignoble way to spend the afterlife than being constantly invocated (sic) by the living to justify their actions. If a seance ever works, these guys are going to be pissed.
To each their own I guess. I'll have you know that my will specifically mentions that my death shall be constantly invoked by the living to justify their actions and that my corpse shall be "waved around loudly on fascist poles" (and I expect my explicit wishes to be followed!).:P
This is not fearmongering for money. This is fearmongering for POWER-and the power they're going to shoot for is the power to control the Internet.
I just had a thought: why is it that comments such as this never come up whenever someone mentions global warming, especially since most (all?) of the solutions offered involve considerably extending the governments influence and control over the economy and private individuals ("This is fear-mongering for POWER-and the power they're going to shoot for is the power to control the Economy (and Private Individuals.)")
the term is being used to justify basically anything the american government wants to loegalize to suppress its peoples rights. the reason? who knows..
the term [FUD]is being used to quickly dismiss anything "the american government" has to say without providing supporting arguments. the reason? who knows..
P.S. On 9/10/01, the gov't claiming that bin Laden was poised to strike within the US by hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings would have been considered FUD (no?).
How much economic damage was caused by those car accidents? And by 9/11? The stock market could have crashed due to the 9/11 attacks (if I remember correctly, they had to close quite a few stock exchanges right after 9/11).
Also remember that most car accidents are Darwinism at work. A good driver can prevent being involved in car accidents (100% of those caused by him, and most of those caused by other drivers through defensive driving, etc.).
Making a bomb is quick, easy way to kill a lot of people, and it gets a lot more media attention. It's also much closer to Al-Quaeda's traditional area of expertise.
Making a bomb would have also been a lot easier than hijacking and flying (took a lot of time to learn how to pilot a plane) them into various buildings. Your point being?
From TFA: Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research.
Are you (though your trollish post) trying to insinuate that humans are responsible for converting the North Pole into an ice filled zone without tropical temperatures?
If its the latter, then we still get the benefits of a cleaner environment. So why not take the steps?
CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are not particularly toxic. If we're only concerned about pollution, we should probably focus on things which are a bit more toxic e.g. mercury in the water which enters the human body through tuna, etc. And remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you do impose heavy restrictions on companies in the "developed world," they'll simply move whatever tiny amount of manufacturing is still left to China or any other country which is business friendly and does not limit CO2 production of companies.
Can someone explain price gouging to me? If someone offers to sell you something at a price that you consider too high (gouging), you don't buy it. If someone offers to sell you something at a (high) price, and you agree to pay the person the money, that means that whatever you are buying is worth more to you than the money that you are offering in return (therefore not price gouging). Since (almost) all transactions are voluntary, and people engage voluntarily in transactions only if they think it is to their advantage, how can price gouging exist? Can someone clear this up for me?
I wouldn't consider Enlightenment DR17 one of "today's alternatives" as it is still in pre-alpha (or somewhere around there); I'd stick with DR16.8. You're also missing a few other alternatives:
XFCE
ROX Desktop
Equinox Desktop
XPde
Ion
Ratpoison
IceWM
FVWM
Waimea
PekWM
wmii
Fluxbox
Blackbox
Openbox
Matchbox
P.S. Out of curiosity, how many people use Plan 9 nowadays?
I prefer DesktopBSD to PC-BSD as DesktopBSD uses ports, whereas PC-BSD seems rather fond of these PBI things, which seem to emulate the worst Windows has to offer (a solution such as this would have been a bit more bearable if they wanted to get away from the orthodox package management system.) That being said, I do with DesktopBSD would move on to FreeBSD 6 instead of 5.5.
Your summary of the thread is more or less accurate; however, a summary cannot convey the nuance of the conversation, and much of the context is lost. Allow me to illustrate my point through a parallel: imagine a group of people with a well known dislike of Jews (parallel to the well-known dislike for "The Administration" present amongst most slashdot posters). Now imagine if these people were having a "civil" discussion as to the merits of the Holocaust as a solution to "The Jewish Question," and whether such a solution was still relevant and efficient in addressing "the contemporary Jewish Question." Certainly none of them needs to come out and bluntly decry "let's burn the Jews" for us to understand the purpose and undertone of the conversation. Allow me to continue in a similar direction: let us now consider "Mein Kampf" (which granted I have never read). Assuming "Mein Kampf" (which I believe is banned as "hate speech" in a lot of places) says more than: "let's kill the Jews" (which is a valid assumption in my mind, as otherwise it would be a rather short book), "Mein Kampf" would be considered (as you would put it) "much more of a discussion of [genocide] than an incitement to [genocide]." In a similar vein, I think you'll find most "hate speech" to be "much more of a discussion of x than an incitement to y."
It has been a pleasure conversing with you. I only wish our topic was a bit less morbid.
I didn't see that discussion. It's probably not as you described, Here you go. I suggest that you read it at -1 for full effect (as I do due to not wanting others to censor my information for me). If you read slowly, you can start here. Please come back and tell me how it is not as I described.
discussing the violent overthrow of the government is not the same as inciting.
Personally, I felt quite incited. Perhaps in the future, you could support your assertions with arguments (and no, saying "no it isn't" is not a good supporting argument.
I didn't outlaw verbal support for socialism, communism or even capitalism (which is the most violent of all). I merely stated that actually inciting violence may not be protected.
There you go again, supporting your assertions with such well thought out and strong arguments (you: No it isn't!; me: Well, ok. Your strong rebuttal has convinced me).
P.S. Aside to crafting an actual rebuttal, you still have to attempt to address the points I made in response to your other post.
While we're at it, make the Administrative branch responsible for pushing these laws and appointing the Legislative gatekeepers who determine if it's constitutional.
Let me introduce you to the British-inspired parliamentary system in the liberal utopia of Canada (similar to other Commonwealth countries, but Canada is the Commonwealth country idealized most by a lot of Americans so I shall focus upon it), where the cabinet (Executive branch) is made up of the party which won the largest number of votes (even if that is 5% due to there being a lot of parties) in the Legislative chamber (House of Commons). The Prime Minister (leader of the largest party) gets to appoint the Supreme Court judges and Senators (second Legislative chamber) with no oversight. If you have a majority government (50% of members in House of Commons), the Prime Minister has complete control over the legislature (especially through The Whip and "party-loyalty," complete executive power, and he/she/it appoints the Supreme Court justices and the members of the Senate.
Slashdot Mirror
Moreover, unlike India-Bangladesh relations are not benign as the US-Mexico relations currently seem to be, with a number of alleged fundamentalist religious organizations from Pakistan using the porous border to carry out terrorist activities on Indian soil.
But 99.9% of both Pakistan and Bangladesh (East Pakistan) are Religion of Peace members. Don't Indians know that Islam means peace. Why do they have to be so racist in their immigration policy?
Americans are in some heavy denial about how dependent the economy is on illegal, cheap immigrant labor. The Texas economy in particular would fall over, die, and burst into flame if all the illegal immigrants vanished.
If that is true, the US/Texas economy deserves to "fall over, die, and burst into flames." How can the Western European (especially pre-EU enlargement), Japanese, South Korean, and Taiwanese economies function decently without illegal, external labour, but the mighty US's cannot? The only country that depends on cheap, external labour as much as the US is advertised to be is Saudi Arabia; glad to see you have such high aspirations.
Hey, look at that: after I bitched about the tags, they added a few more. Now the tags are: "xenophobia, politics, immigration, surveillance, stupid" It seems that bitching about sometimes actually accomplishes something, sometimes. Too bad they left the original, subjective, and useless "xenophobia" and "stupid" tags. I guess my work here isn't done yet. :)
If your parents are the aristocracy of England should you be entitled to a better life than the average working slob due to your lineage? If your parents are the aristocracy of North America ("Native Americans") should you be entitled to a better life than the average working slob due to your lineage? I (and Marxist-Leninist theory) reject heredity and lineage as a proper claim on capital (land).
P.S. The claim to "Native American" lineage is simply at attempt to claim a patent on "the Americas." We discovered it *first*, therefore we should have an *infinite monopoly* on it; I'm sorry, but patents expire, and theirs expired a long time ago.
Oh, please. Immigrants have always been labeled as lazy drains on society. Mexicans are no different. Reality is that they are just as hard working as anyone else. Quite often they do the work that no other Americans would want to do... for less than minimum wage. The problem is that getting "documented" is not easy.
I wouldn't consider first-generation illegal Mexican migrants to be lazy at all: in fact, they almost certainly have far better work ethic than the average American, who feels quite entitled, on account of the illegal Mexican migrants having very little, but realizing that they can get quite a bit through hard work (whereas the average entitled American prefers to whine to the government).
Quite often they do the work that no other Americans would want to do... for less than minimum wage.
If you hold the minimum wage in such contempt, I suggest you abolish it, especially as a simple supply and demand graph will indicate that putting a lower barrier on the price of the supply of labour will lead to a surplus of labour (unemployment) if that lower barrier is above the equilibrium point (as equilibrium can now no longer be established). That being said, there will always be people outside of your borders willing to work for less than an American fat cat; should your government let them all in?
The problem is that getting "documented" is not easy.
If you broke into someone else's country, I suppose it wouldn't be (if someone broke into my house and started doing chores I definitely wouldn't "document" them). If they had waited in line like legal immigrants (from every country in the world) are doing, it might have been a bit easier, although that moron Bush seems to be doing everything in his power to "document" (grant amnesty) to illegal migrants (and with the full support of the Democratic party - a match made in hell - it looks like he will succeed; we shall see how long your House of Representatives holds up).
Clue: If you want to be considered a good guest, don't slaughter your hosts and steal their land.
Marxist principles justify it: the "Native Americans" (people who had immigrated to the US a bit earlier than the pilgrims, as all humans originated somewhere in Africa) were the "bourgeoisie": they controlled an immensely disproportionate amount of capital (land) given their tiny population. The Pilgrims on the other hand were the "proletarians," controlling very little capital (including land). Marxist principles dictate that the proletarians rise up and strip the bourgeoisie of their property, and then redistribute it amongst themselves (potentially killing or otherwise punishing the bourgeoisie in the process).
PS: No Mexicans
How about "PS: No People whose first act in this country is violating its laws and sovereignty" instead.
What about all those people in the world who aren't lucky enough to live in a country along your southern border (like me). Are they doomed to never be allowed into your country legally because Mexicans are illegally flooding into your country, illegally filling whatever "immigrant" quota exists (unofficially, of course)? Or do we have to enter your country illegally as well now? If you believe that every person who wants to should be allowed to enter and live in the US, I suggest you find some place to put 3 billion people at least (the pop of the world - Western Europe - Canada - Australia - New Zealand - Japan - South Korea - Very Rich of China & India - Hong Kong - Singapore - Taiwan >> 3 billion). Or is entering your country at will a privilege only available to Mexicans?
The tags for this article: xenophobia, stupid (tagging beta)
It seems that the sole use of the tagging system is to allow the "editors" to further "editorialize" the articles.
P.S. If protecting your border is xenophobic and stupid, the US is in a lot of good "xenophobic and stupid" company (i.e. almost every other country in the world).
Am I the only one who is thinking? Why the hell are these things connected to the Internet then?
No, but American incompetence and complacency should come as no surprise.
the Bush Administration has been crying "Wolf Wolf" since they started running for office
Admittedly I didn't pay much attention to the 2000 election as both the major candidates were morons and it wasn't even my country, but I don't remember Bush mentioning terrorism all that much (at all?) before 9/11.
Cindy Sheehan was really effective against Bush for a while because she's a strong family-protection figure who made it clear that Bush had endangered her family rather than protecting it.
I'm glad you're so concerned with propaganda (and yes, Sheehan was propaganda, she didn't add anything resembling intellectual discourse).
And Katrina was even more effective, because it demonstrated that Bush wasn't decisive, or strong, or competent,
I'm glad you enjoyed the suffering and misfortune of all those people in NOLA (as long as it hurts Bush, its worth it!).
Osama bin Laden was just fine - if you're crying Wolf Wolf and a real Wolf shows up on occasion, that demonstrates that your strong leadership is needed just like you said.
See first point.
Why has America not gone after Saudi Arabia, where 9 of the hijackers were from? Why are our borders still porous?
Beats me, especially as Saudi Arabia has more oil than Iraq as does Iran (and Canada). Bush is so incompetent he can't even wage a war for oil properly. I was promised that Americans would be stealing "Iraqi" oil (no idea what exactly makes it "Iraqi" oil, as "property is theft"), and to this day, I haven't seen that happen to my satisfaction. I am also dissatisfied by the misuse of the American military, which is wasting most of its time in the cities (where there is no oil!) instead of securing the oil fields (out in the desert). They should have just secured the "Iraqi/Mesopotamian" oil fields; immediately afterwards, the American forces should have been split into three groups: 1) guard the "Iraqi" oil, 2) Go south, get the "Saudi" oil, 3) Go east, get the "Iranian/Persian" oil.
According to Marxist principles: "from each according to [oil capacity], to each according to [oil need]." Frankly, I don't recognize Muslim property rights to oil especially as they conquered almost all of the land they now hold, and then proceeded to ethnically cleanse their newly conquered land. How do you think Mesopotamia ("Iraq", the cradle of civilization) ended up 99.9% Muslim and Persia (Iran, strong Zoroastrian country) ended up 99.9% Muslim? And that doesn't even take into account that oil only has value because the West invented technology to make use of it, and that all oil is extracted using Western tech, and that before being nationalized, all those Middle Eastern oil fields were being operated by Westerners (since they were the only ones who had the tech and the need for oil).
Ahhh! The corpses of the Twin Towers victims. Being waved around loudly on facist poles since Sep-2001. I certainly can't think of a more ignoble way to spend the afterlife than being constantly invocated (sic) by the living to justify their actions. If a seance ever works, these guys are going to be pissed.
To each their own I guess. I'll have you know that my will specifically mentions that my death shall be constantly invoked by the living to justify their actions and that my corpse shall be "waved around loudly on fascist poles" (and I expect my explicit wishes to be followed!).:P
This is not fearmongering for money. This is fearmongering for POWER-and the power they're going to shoot for is the power to control the Internet.
I just had a thought: why is it that comments such as this never come up whenever someone mentions global warming, especially since most (all?) of the solutions offered involve considerably extending the governments influence and control over the economy and private individuals ("This is fear-mongering for POWER-and the power they're going to shoot for is the power to control the Economy (and Private Individuals.)")
the term is being used to justify basically anything the american government wants to loegalize to suppress its peoples rights. the reason? who knows..
the term [FUD]is being used to quickly dismiss anything "the american government" has to say without providing supporting arguments. the reason? who knows..
P.S. On 9/10/01, the gov't claiming that bin Laden was poised to strike within the US by hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings would have been considered FUD (no?).
This is fearmongering for POWER-and the power they're going to shoot for is the power to control the Internet.
Aren't the people claiming that this is fear-mongering for nefarious purposes also fear-mongering to a certain extent (*head blows up*)?
How much economic damage was caused by those car accidents? And by 9/11? The stock market could have crashed due to the 9/11 attacks (if I remember correctly, they had to close quite a few stock exchanges right after 9/11).
Also remember that most car accidents are Darwinism at work. A good driver can prevent being involved in car accidents (100% of those caused by him, and most of those caused by other drivers through defensive driving, etc.).
Making a bomb is quick, easy way to kill a lot of people, and it gets a lot more media attention. It's also much closer to Al-Quaeda's traditional area of expertise.
Making a bomb would have also been a lot easier than hijacking and flying (took a lot of time to learn how to pilot a plane) them into various buildings. Your point being?
From TFA: Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research.
Are you (though your trollish post) trying to insinuate that humans are responsible for converting the North Pole into an ice filled zone without tropical temperatures?
If its the latter, then we still get the benefits of a cleaner environment. So why not take the steps?
CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are not particularly toxic. If we're only concerned about pollution, we should probably focus on things which are a bit more toxic e.g. mercury in the water which enters the human body through tuna, etc. And remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you do impose heavy restrictions on companies in the "developed world," they'll simply move whatever tiny amount of manufacturing is still left to China or any other country which is business friendly and does not limit CO2 production of companies.
Can someone explain price gouging to me? If someone offers to sell you something at a price that you consider too high (gouging), you don't buy it. If someone offers to sell you something at a (high) price, and you agree to pay the person the money, that means that whatever you are buying is worth more to you than the money that you are offering in return (therefore not price gouging). Since (almost) all transactions are voluntary, and people engage voluntarily in transactions only if they think it is to their advantage, how can price gouging exist? Can someone clear this up for me?
I wouldn't consider Enlightenment DR17 one of "today's alternatives" as it is still in pre-alpha (or somewhere around there); I'd stick with DR16.8. You're also missing a few other alternatives:
XFCE
ROX Desktop
Equinox Desktop
XPde
Ion
Ratpoison
IceWM
FVWM
Waimea
PekWM
wmii
Fluxbox
Blackbox
Openbox
Matchbox
P.S. Out of curiosity, how many people use Plan 9 nowadays?
I prefer DesktopBSD to PC-BSD as DesktopBSD uses ports, whereas PC-BSD seems rather fond of these PBI things, which seem to emulate the worst Windows has to offer (a solution such as this would have been a bit more bearable if they wanted to get away from the orthodox package management system.) That being said, I do with DesktopBSD would move on to FreeBSD 6 instead of 5.5.
Finally someone coherent with whom I can argue. :)
Your summary of the thread is more or less accurate; however, a summary cannot convey the nuance of the conversation, and much of the context is lost. Allow me to illustrate my point through a parallel: imagine a group of people with a well known dislike of Jews (parallel to the well-known dislike for "The Administration" present amongst most slashdot posters). Now imagine if these people were having a "civil" discussion as to the merits of the Holocaust as a solution to "The Jewish Question," and whether such a solution was still relevant and efficient in addressing "the contemporary Jewish Question." Certainly none of them needs to come out and bluntly decry "let's burn the Jews" for us to understand the purpose and undertone of the conversation. Allow me to continue in a similar direction: let us now consider "Mein Kampf" (which granted I have never read). Assuming "Mein Kampf" (which I believe is banned as "hate speech" in a lot of places) says more than: "let's kill the Jews" (which is a valid assumption in my mind, as otherwise it would be a rather short book), "Mein Kampf" would be considered (as you would put it) "much more of a discussion of [genocide] than an incitement to [genocide]." In a similar vein, I think you'll find most "hate speech" to be "much more of a discussion of x than an incitement to y."
It has been a pleasure conversing with you. I only wish our topic was a bit less morbid.
I didn't see that discussion. It's probably not as you described,
Here you go. I suggest that you read it at -1 for full effect (as I do due to not wanting others to censor my information for me). If you read slowly, you can start here. Please come back and tell me how it is not as I described.
discussing the violent overthrow of the government is not the same as inciting.
Personally, I felt quite incited. Perhaps in the future, you could support your assertions with arguments (and no, saying "no it isn't" is not a good supporting argument.
I didn't outlaw verbal support for socialism, communism or even capitalism (which is the most violent of all). I merely stated that actually inciting violence may not be protected.
There you go again, supporting your assertions with such well thought out and strong arguments (you: No it isn't!; me: Well, ok. Your strong rebuttal has convinced me).
P.S. Aside to crafting an actual rebuttal, you still have to attempt to address the points I made in response to your other post.
While we're at it, make the Administrative branch responsible for pushing these laws and appointing the Legislative gatekeepers who determine if it's constitutional.
Let me introduce you to the British-inspired parliamentary system in the liberal utopia of Canada (similar to other Commonwealth countries, but Canada is the Commonwealth country idealized most by a lot of Americans so I shall focus upon it), where the cabinet (Executive branch) is made up of the party which won the largest number of votes (even if that is 5% due to there being a lot of parties) in the Legislative chamber (House of Commons). The Prime Minister (leader of the largest party) gets to appoint the Supreme Court judges and Senators (second Legislative chamber) with no oversight. If you have a majority government (50% of members in House of Commons), the Prime Minister has complete control over the legislature (especially through The Whip and "party-loyalty," complete executive power, and he/she/it appoints the Supreme Court justices and the members of the Senate.