I was waiting for some anti-American zealot to point that out. As though it removes the validity of my argument.
Guess what? We were neutral! And that's not neutral as in the Swiss way of staying neutral while helping one side loot an entire race out of it's belongings. Had FDR gone to war in 1939 he likely would have been impeached. It's funny how everybody gets pissed about nations that went to war in Iraq against the popular opinion of their people (generally 60% opposed) but then turns around and points the finger at the US for not doing the same in the early days of WW2 (85% of Americans opposed).
Besides. You tell me which action shows more moral cowardice: Staying neutral in a conflict or making an alliance with someone and then allowing them to be conquered and raped without doing a damn thing to stop it?
I always figured Russia would be the France of the 21st century
The key difference being that people who invade Russia generally don't fare so well. People who invade France..... well, let's just say they have a bit more success:)
Oh, I forgot to shoot down a few of your other points in my last post. Allow me:
with the best weapons in the world when they turned on France
Actually, it's generally accepted that the French had better tanks. They just weren't forward enough thinkers to use them properly.
but they still fought against a vicious adversary until FORCED to surrender
Forced? The bulk of France was never invaded or occupied by the Germans. The Germans never touched their overseas empire. They didn't fight it out until the bitter end. They surrendered with Paris and most of the coast occupied. The interior of France was largely untouched. If Americans fought like that we would have surrendered when the British burned Washington.
To make matters worse after the French rolled over and surrendered a good number of them become active collaborators! The Vichy French Naval Forces stationed overseas (thus untouchable by the Germans) even refused to join their Allies in the fight against the Nazis. The British eventually had no choice but to destroy them to keep them from falling into the hands of the Germans. If that isn't French cowardice then I don't know what is.
Why don't you jizzbags ever call Japan sushi-eating surrender monkeys,
Because the Japanese fought until the bitter end and it took the combined blow of two atomic bombs and the intervention of the Russians to force them to surrender.
or the Germans spaetzle-eating suicide monkeys?
Actually the suicide monkeys part would be more appliable to the Japanese.... *duck* And see previous comment... the Germans fought until the bitter end. Germany was completely devastated. Tell me, was every major French city carpet bombed into oblivion when they surrendered?
Should the Vietnamese call us burger-chomping shrapnel-monkeys
I wouldn't blame them if they did;)
It's even like this is unique to France. I've heard my fair share of jokes made at the expense of Italy because of their horrible performance during WW2. In fact, I recall reading somewhere that when the German ambassador told Churchill that the Axis had the Italians on their side, Churchill said "Good for you. We had them during the last war."
then spent a few weeks polishing up their war machine on Poland
And while they were "polishing up their war machine" on Poland, the French (and British) basically sat on their ass behind their fortified Magiot Line and did nothing to help their allies. Even though in 1939 the German military was not ready for war and the overwhelming majority of German forces were in Poland leaving the Western front completely exposed if the Allies had bothered to take the initiative to attack.
In fact for all the hooplah made about how quickly Poland was defeated, the Poles actually put up a pretty decent fight. For all the praise that Blitzkrieg gets the front in Poland basically turned into a siege of Warsaw. The Poles were screwed by "Allies" that were too afraid to help them and by the Soviet Union who invaded after the Germans had already engaged the bulk of the Polish Army.
Had the Allies (led by the French at that time) taken some initiative instead of ceding it to Germany then it's quite possible that Poland could have been saved. Think of how different history would have unfolded (no Cold War, no Holocaust, no fall of France) had the French shown the guts to take the offense.
You can make any number of excuses to justify the French behavior. The fact that they lost millions of men in WW1. The fact that most of the Allied military brass still believed in defensive warfare. But that doesn't change the perception that the French sat around and waited to be attacked.
You think Americans hate the French? The Poles have no lost love for them either.
In fact gas stations are some of the only businesses likely to have generated power during mass outages. It may even be a regulated thing around here that gas stations have generators.
Then that must be a regulated thing where you live because around here I have never once known that to be the case. Whenever there is a power outage the gas stations invariably lose power. The only time I can remember the threat of prolonged outages was during that big ice storm a few years back.... when that happened the few gas stations that did have power exhausted their supply in less then a day because of people raiding them to top off their tanks.
In fact, even when there wasn't the threat of a prolonged outage (the 2003 blackout) people still raided the few gas stations that had power -- even though they were all charging highly inflated prices. When will people learn?
If what I said could be construed as "hate speach" then what does it make what you said?
It's not hate speech per say. It's the typical "I hate America so I'm going to run my mouth without any figures to back it up" bullshit that I've come to expect from too many people on the Internet.
What is it with so many Americans and their over-sensitivity and complete inability to take critiscm or tolerate people who think differently? It's almost like insecurity. Pretty pathetic from the most powerful nation on the planet.
And there you go again. Given a chance to defend your arguments about half of the deaths in the 20th century being caused by the United States you resort to bashing us. I have no problem tolerating people who think differently then I do. I do have a serious problem with people who run their mouths about something without anything to back it up.
And it's funny you should accuse Americans of insecurity when the French are so insecure about their culture that they tried to rename "e-mail" because they didn't want an English word in their language. Care to venture a guess as to how many words in American English came from other languages and cultures?
Why didn't you mention the bottom part of the article that you linked? Allow me:
"Angered that Glaser and Love could be listed on the sex offender registry if convicted of lewd acts, state Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) joined the protesters before their arrests to announce that she would introduce legislation to decriminalize the baring of breasts in public. "While it is legal for men to go shirtless in public in California," she said, "women risk being classified as sex offenders for baring the same body parts."
In any case, since you've made the comparison, let me make this one: In certain parts of the United States it is illegal for a woman to go topless. There are currently groups fighting to see this changed. Given the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution they will almost certainly be successful in the long run. Tell me, are there groups in those European countries that ban the Nazi Party advocating to see that ban removed?
So it shows that not even political expression is protected in America
That's a big leap to make when the group was allowed to stage it's protest in the first place. I'd agree that the arrest of those two women is complete bullshit but you can't take that and make the leap that "not even political expression is protected in America". Especially when they will (in all likelihood) be vindicated.
Longer term the correct solution is to deprecate ALL of the top level domains and deny renewals. Force everyone into the country tlds and this problem vanishes. If the French want.xxx.fr or heck, even porn.fr, go for it!
I would have no problem supporting this. I've mentioned it as a solution to the "problem" of ICANNs control at other times. Let France decide what to do with.fr and who will host the root for it. Let the United States decide what to do with.us and who will host the root for it. ICANN would only need to exist to manage the root of all the TLDs. And it would be much harder for the US (regardless of who "controls" ICANN) to unplug a country (that is what all of you are afraid of, isn't it?) because that country would have it's own root as a fallback and ideally the main root servers outside of the United States would not obey an order to purge a country TLD from the root.
Why are you accusing me of being a liar instead of just posting your facts and letting people judge? If you had bothered to read what I wrote you would see that I am just as much opposed to the idea of Gitmo as you are. If I was in charge I would be holding these people as POWs. Nevertheless I really fail to see the comparison. Is somebody being held in Gitmo because they wore an Osama Bin Ladin t-shirt? I highly doubt it.
I don't think you would be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a Hitler motive in Germany
And you would in the United States. Henceforth proving my point that political thoughts are regulated in Europe and not in the United States. Instead of attacking the United States because you don't think this is a true statement, why don't you attack Germany for restricting the speech of her citizens? Or do you agree with those restrictions? I'm tired of every discussion going back to how evil the United States is.
But if you are in America and female, you can be arrested for taking off your t-shirt in public
I've already pointed out in several posts how this is not true in many states of the United States. In New York State a female can take off her shirt anywhere that a male can. The issue is currently being debated in other states and will eventually be resolved in favor of equal protection (if a male can do it then so can a female).
And how the hell is taking off your tshirt remotely related to free speech? Sex being a taboo (which is ashame) doesn't hurt my freedom of political expression in public.
The difference is that in Germany you would at least have a trial, in America you can be thrown in jail without a trial and tortured (not theoretically, this is happening as we speak).
There is no way in hell that you would get held without trial and tortured over wearing an Osama Bin Ladin t-shirt in the United States. This comparison is really getting old. Somebody pointed out how the Nazi Party is illegal in many parts of Europe. Somebody else pointed out that they think advocating for Al Qaida would be equally illegal in the United States. The simple fact of the matter is that merely advocating Al Qaida's goals (American forces out of the Holy Land, defeat of Israel) is not a crime in the United States while advocating the Nazi Party goals is a crime in parts of Europe.
If you are going to split hairs over stuff like not being able to threaten to kill the President or not being able to go topless then I don't think you truly understand what free speech is.
Before I reply to your post, I just want to make one thing clear. Do you believe that Canada is part of America?
Yep. Sure is.
No, that's flamebait;)
I was pointing that fact out because this issue is one that I happen to be a bit familiar with as I have several family members involved in the Topfreedom movement. Also it serves as a good contrast between North America and Europe.
Tell me, can a woman legally walk down the street topless in most of Europe? I honestly don't know.
As for the rest of it: half the problems and deaths in the last century were caused by the US and its meddling in other countries' internal affairs. A large part of the Soviet Union's behaviour was caused through its fear of the US and its aggressive behaviour.
Spare me the American hate speech. Do you want to pull statistics for Stalin's purges and Mao's "Great Leap Forward" and then tell me that the deaths caused by the United States even comes close to equaling them? I left out the Holocost too -- that was executed at the behest of a Government claiming to be socialist.
I would go so far as to say America doesn't really have a problem with Fascism. Never mind that the Nazi ideology, which people seem to believe as being relevant advocated racial supremacy and genocide. After all, they were only killing "inconvenient" people, right?
Then you would be going way too far. If we didn't have a problem with fascism then why didn't we make an attempt to get Nazi Germany to stay neutral after Japan attacked us? If we didn't have a problem with it then why did we devote the overwhelming amount of our resources to the European Theater (that wasn't a direct threat to us) when we were originally attacked in the Pacific Theater (a threat to Hawaii at least -- possibly the West Coast)?
The United States had huge problems with fascism. Why do you think we were sending military advisors to Britain even before we were at war with Germany? Why do you think the United States Navy was engaged in open warfare with German U-Boats months before Pearl Harbor?
Besides the obvious fact that we have much more in common with the British then the Germans have you considered the fact that the United States has (and had) a rather large Jewish population that was opposed to the ideals of the Nazi Government for obvious reasons?
This is why American businesses kept up trade with Nazi Germany, and basically got slapped on the wrist for it (remember Prescott Bush, anyone).
That's because business people are amoral bastards that only care about making a buck. I find it amusing that you mention Prescott Bush but not the Swiss Bankers that turned over Jewish Accounts to Nazi Germany and to this day haven't fully accounted for all of those stolen assets.
This is why Allen Dulles wanted to negotiate with Himmler for a separatist surrender of Germany to America, so that the war could be turned against the allied Soviet Union.
And in hindsight that might have been a good idea. If nothing else we were all fools to trust the Soviets so much. Churchill got it right when he said "I consider it imperative that we shake hands with the Soviets as far East as possible"
This is why Nazis got respected positions in the scientific community in America.
Would you rather we let the Soviets get them? Or perhaps we should have just executed them outright and given up a valuable edge over the Soviets when it came to missile and rocket design?
However, the fact is this: his methods won the war, and it's certainly not up to some armchair strategist to claim, 60 years later, that things could have been done diffirently with the same victorious result.
BULLFUCKING SHIT HIS METHODS WON THE WAR! If it wasn't for Stalin's paranoid purges of the Red Army Command years before the war then the Germans wouldn't even have gotten as far as they did. If it wasn't for his interference with the military (much like Hitler did) then the Soviets would not have lost nearly as many men. Ever read about the Kharkov counter offensive that Stalin ordered (against Zhukov's advice) that resulted in utter defeat and the capture of hundreds of thousands of Red Army troops?
The Soviet Union won the war in spite of Stalin, not because of him. It's pretty telling that even despite his poor leadership and paranoia that the Soviet Union was still successful. Kind of makes Hitler's decision to invade seem even more insane in hindsight.
But then America is not a very free country. In many countries in the world you do have this freedom of expression, for example in France and Sweden. Thus, people in those countries are freer than in America.
I love how you equate the ability to say "fuck" on TV with freedom of expression when political thoughts or ideologies are specifically outlawed in France. Hell, if you go to a public school in France you don't have the freedom to express your religious faith.
Those countries also don't practice torture, another minor benefit.
You mean that they don't practice torture any longer, right? And it's the freedom of expression right that gives you the ability to sit in front of your PC and bitch about the United States all day. Just don't try anything stupid like trying to wear a Jewish skullcap to school:)
The breast thing is a bit silly, but I don't really care all that much about it
He's dead wrong about it anyway. In NYS it's perfectly legal for a woman to walk around topless anywhere that a man can. That's true in not a few other states as well. There are also groups working to change it in the rest of the country.
In places that men can't go topless there is typically an overriding public concern (typically health) that is addressed. Plus private establishments can set whatever rules they want.
You can say anything, except you can't swear. And obscenity (defined by the local community standards) is also illegal
There the fuck did you hear that I can't swear in public? That's fucking bullshit. Complete fucking nonsense.
And with that point;) made, seriously, where did you hear that? I can swear in any public place in the United States. It doesn't mean that people will listen to what I have to say or take me seriously but I can swear all I want. In a private setting (resturant, private home, etc.) the owners could make me leave -- but that's about it.
You could use a picture of a woman in chains being whipped to symbolize the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia and that would be protected under free speech laws. The same picture being used to promote your pornography store probably would not. Political speech is protected.
And you can't expose your breasts in public
Says who? In New York State the Court of Appeals specifically ruled that women are allowed to expose their breasts in any place that a man can (the beach comes to mind). Other states have made similar rulings. It's likewise legal across all of Canada if I recall correctly.
Freedom of speech/expression in the USA is a myth and you know it. So stop lying about it.
Do you hate us so much that you can't even listen to a reasonable argument?
No, your response is bullshit and trolling. The example I responded to was somebody wearing a t-shirt in NYC that said "Osama Bin Ladin Rocks". You are seriously comparing that to somebody captured on the battlefield engaged in hostile actions against American Armed Forces? I am as disgusted as you are about them being held without trial (though arguably if they were classified as POWs we could hold them legally until the end of hostilities) but your comparison is utter nonsense.
The fact remains I could wear that t-shirt in any American city without breaking any laws. Think I could wear a t-shirt against the ruling Government in Saudi Arabia? Think I could wear a t-shirt praising Hitler in France or Germany?
Here's a good career move for anyone in the military: When the Secretary of Defense asks you to do something, inform him that he does not have the authority to do so.
Actually that wouldn't be a good career move. But it doesn't change my point. In the United States the SecDef does not have the authority to do anything without the tacit approval of the President. I made that point in response to people that were comparing the unelected US Cabinet to the unelected European Commission. IMHO that comparison is fool hardy.
In any case, if you are in the military and SecDef (or anybody else above you for that matter) gives you an illegal order (shoot the bound and gagged prisoners in the back) then it is actually your duty to refuse to follow that order. Of course in that type of scenario you are pretty much damned if you do and damned if you don't.
And of course, they are in line for the Presidency.
After the Speaker of the House and the President Pro-Tem of the Senate. Both of whom are elected officials. You could even make a case that the Speaker is elected (indirectly) by all Americans since everybody in Congress gets to vote for him. Kinda the same for the President Pro-Tem of the Senate since the entire Senate gets to decide who that is -- though traditionally it is the oldest serving member of the majority party.
In any case I don't see how being in line for the Presidency means they should all have to be elected officials?
This is basically like dealing with a spoiled fat kid. You let the kid have it's candy on the condition it behaves. If it doesn't, you take away the candy supply. The US only has power as long as the rest of the world "allows" it to in this regard.
I love how comparing the United States to a spoiled fat child doesn't garner any criticism but some of my posts in a decent debate about freedom of speech got modded "overated" because I dared to point out how some European nations have outlawed various political parties.
So don't whine when you get the cold shoulder while travelling.
I've traveled extensively throughout the UK, Italy and Greece. I've never gotten the cold shoulder. In fact most of the people I met in the UK would rather be the 51st state then join the EU. We have much more in common with them (Common Law legal systems, political systems, culture) then the mainland ever will. Most of the people I met in Greece and Italy view the EU as Paris and Berlin's method of imposing their economic order and way of life on the rest of Europe.
In fact the only people that have ever been rude to me while overseas were (*gasp*) French. It was even funnier to hear them bitch about us in French because they just assumed that we were all lazy Americans and that none of us spoke their language. What is it about the mere sight of an American that infuriates you so?
Where was European and Japanese companies when we were developing DOS, CPM, Windows, MacOS, Xerox PARC?
I wouldn't be much of a Slashdotter if I didn't point out that you forgot Unix. Which of course was created by Bell Labs. An American outfit:)
Basically, if these countries had been half as progressive as the US was, they'd *already have* control of the Internet because they would have been there setting up DNS with us in the first place. It just bothers me. If you miss the boat, you can't swim out to catch it.
You don't have much of a reason to be progressive/innovative when you have a 35 hour workweek and can't get fired or laid off.
But if no bodily harm has been committed, why would it be illegal?
So threats made against your person are ok as long as I don't follow up them up with actual bodily harm? If I tell you I'm going to kill your daughter and then send you photographs of her on the playground but never actually go through with it that should be ok? Free speech doesn't extend to threats made against a person. Nor should it.
Outlawing a political movement that advocates eradicating people and other political movements and has a track record to prove they're not kidding seems pretty right to me.
And who gets to decide that they advocate eradicating people? What if they just advocated expelling the Jews? What they just blamed the Jews for all the ills in society? Where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide? Oh, that's right -- the current party that's in power and probably opposed to whatever it is that the illegal party is advocating. That's the problem with restricting political speech and activities.
Did anyone dare to answer that question with "yes" during the McCarthy period? At that time, communists were a perceived threat to the U.S.
Yes, and the Communist Party was never actually outlawed in the U.S. Several States (not the Feds) tried it -- the Courts all threw it out. And McCarthy was eventually brought down because people were able to oppose him. They were able to do that because the United States values freedom of speech and the press. To this day if I want to join the Communist or National Socialist Party in the United States I can do so. There are even laws in place that protect me from retaliation from certain types of non-Governmental agencies -- my employer for example can't legally ask me what political party I'm in.
Tell that to some of the people in my country, because they don't seem to be aware of this fact.
No, they just don't care. The unwashed masses (this applies to the US as well as Europe) are only too happy to give up their freedoms in the name of "security". How else do you explain Zogby and Gallop polls that show that 65% of Americans and 55% of the British support holding "terrorists" indefinitely without trial? Who gets to decide who is a "terrorist"? Oh, that's right... the Government! Just because people are willing to give up these freedoms doesn't mean they are correct to do so.
That's a loaded question. The same question can be asked about libel.
Libel is a civil matter and doesn't relate to what we are discussing. Even so I'll entertain a brief discussion about it. As far as it relates to the Press the courts have virtually always ruled in favor of the Press. See NY Times v. Sullivan. As far as it relates to individuals you need to have actual malice behind your words in order to lose a libel lawsuit. If I'm saying something about you that I have a good faith reason to believe is true then odds are that I will prevail should you attempt to sue me. If I'm saying "moz25 is a child molester" to discredit you to my advantage when I have no reason to think it's true then I will probably get my ass handed to me in court -- rightfully so.
It's unfortunate that you finished with this line of empty circular rethoric,
It's unfortunate that you think that my passion for freedom and free speech is "empty circular rhetoric". I've defended my values and tried my best to explain them to you.
I had a rather more interesting conversation with it just now....
[12:43] Shakrai: fuck you [12:43] ShoppingBuddy: Welcome. Now you can search for products with AOLShopping. Type main to get started. To read our privacy policy, type privacy anytime.
[12:43] Shakrai: fuck you [12:43] ShoppingBuddy: Hey -- clean up the language and get serious. I'm happy to help but can't deal with that mouth.
[12:43] Shakrai: go fuck yourself [12:43] ShoppingBuddy: Hmm, that's not gonna get you anywhere with me.
[12:44] Shakrai: i fucked your mom [12:44] ShoppingBuddy: OK, I'm searching for matches 4 U. Gimme a sec...
[12:44] ShoppingBuddy: - Search results for fucked mom
- Get Fucked [$6.21 - $9.99]
- Grown Up Fucked Up [$8.99 - $13.98]
- Fucked Up Mess [$8.30 - $13.98]
- Fucked From Birth * [$12.99]
- Not Fucked Enough * [$9.72 - $13.98]
- The Essential Fucked Up Blues! [$10.02 - $13.98]
- For All The Fucked-Up Children Of [$13.29 - $14.90]
- For All The Fucked-Up Children Of [$33.99]
- New [$9.18 - $12.99]
Here are some related categories: 1. Hardcore & Punk Music, 2. Rock & Pop Music, 3. Miscellaneous Music, 4. Miscellaneous Books, 5. Miscellaneous Non-Fiction Books, etc. Type in the number to use the related category.
How if the hell could having a seperate TLD make it "easier to find porn"
Perhaps I shouldn't have said "exists only to make it easier to find porn". Perhaps I should have said "exists only to make money for ICANN and the various registries", because, WTF is the point of.xxx if porn sites are allowed to keep operating in.com/.net/.org? My selling point for.xxx would be the ease of filtering pornography -- but that gets into the whole slippery slope of "What is pornography?" as I said above. It also overlooks porn sites in other country code TLDs -- so it would be useless unless you also enforced them to move to.xxx or.xxx.uk,.xxx.fr, etc. That's probably quite unenforceable.
I don't see a valid reason to deploy a.xxx TLD. Neither does other people. That's why ICANN is reviewing it instead of instantly deploying it. In any case, is the.xxx dispute reason to go to war (figuratively) over the internet? Europeans have rioting in Paris and they are pissed because of the impression (an ill-founded one at that) that the US Congress vetoed a porn based TLD?
Interestingly, it doesn't seem to bother you that you cannot freely advocate assassinating the president or vice-president, but it does bother you if you cannot freely advocate assassinating Jews?
Because advocating the assassination of one man is a direct threat of bodily harm. That would probably be illegal under many state laws in addition to the Federal law making it illegal to threaten the President himself. By definition advocating the death of the Jews is not advocating assassination -- it would be advocating genocide. If I advocated the death of all white men from Texas then that would not be a crime.
I have trouble understanding why outlawing the Nazi party is a bad thing. You're not a Nazi, right?
Because the minute you outlaw a political movement just because you don't agree with its goals you have entered a very slippery, very dangerous slope. If we can outlaw the Nazi Party then surely we can outlaw the Communist Party. You're not a Commie, right?
Maybe you can give a better example of how my free speech is supposedly limited in Europe, because my complete lack of sympathy for racists is in the way of understanding your point.
Your speech is limited because you can't announce racist viewpoints or ideologies. It does not matter that you disagree with them. Do you outlaw all viewpoints that you disagree with or just those that offend you? The KKK and Neo-Nazis may disgust me but I would defend their right to spew their nonsense with my life.
If you can't understand the logic of my position then you don't understand freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
1914-1918 was hardly some kind of success.
It wasn't a success for either side. The French basically won by drowning the Germans in French blood. I'd hardly call that a victory.
How was it that America entered the war again?
I was waiting for some anti-American zealot to point that out. As though it removes the validity of my argument.
Guess what? We were neutral! And that's not neutral as in the Swiss way of staying neutral while helping one side loot an entire race out of it's belongings. Had FDR gone to war in 1939 he likely would have been impeached. It's funny how everybody gets pissed about nations that went to war in Iraq against the popular opinion of their people (generally 60% opposed) but then turns around and points the finger at the US for not doing the same in the early days of WW2 (85% of Americans opposed).
Besides. You tell me which action shows more moral cowardice: Staying neutral in a conflict or making an alliance with someone and then allowing them to be conquered and raped without doing a damn thing to stop it?
I always figured Russia would be the France of the 21st century
The key difference being that people who invade Russia generally don't fare so well. People who invade France..... well, let's just say they have a bit more success :)
Oh, I forgot to shoot down a few of your other points in my last post. Allow me:
with the best weapons in the world when they turned on France
Actually, it's generally accepted that the French had better tanks. They just weren't forward enough thinkers to use them properly.
but they still fought against a vicious adversary until FORCED to surrender
Forced? The bulk of France was never invaded or occupied by the Germans. The Germans never touched their overseas empire. They didn't fight it out until the bitter end. They surrendered with Paris and most of the coast occupied. The interior of France was largely untouched. If Americans fought like that we would have surrendered when the British burned Washington.
To make matters worse after the French rolled over and surrendered a good number of them become active collaborators! The Vichy French Naval Forces stationed overseas (thus untouchable by the Germans) even refused to join their Allies in the fight against the Nazis. The British eventually had no choice but to destroy them to keep them from falling into the hands of the Germans. If that isn't French cowardice then I don't know what is.
Why don't you jizzbags ever call Japan sushi-eating surrender monkeys,
Because the Japanese fought until the bitter end and it took the combined blow of two atomic bombs and the intervention of the Russians to force them to surrender.
or the Germans spaetzle-eating suicide monkeys?
Actually the suicide monkeys part would be more appliable to the Japanese.... *duck* And see previous comment... the Germans fought until the bitter end. Germany was completely devastated. Tell me, was every major French city carpet bombed into oblivion when they surrendered?
Should the Vietnamese call us burger-chomping shrapnel-monkeys
I wouldn't blame them if they did ;)
It's even like this is unique to France. I've heard my fair share of jokes made at the expense of Italy because of their horrible performance during WW2. In fact, I recall reading somewhere that when the German ambassador told Churchill that the Axis had the Italians on their side, Churchill said "Good for you. We had them during the last war."
then spent a few weeks polishing up their war machine on Poland
And while they were "polishing up their war machine" on Poland, the French (and British) basically sat on their ass behind their fortified Magiot Line and did nothing to help their allies. Even though in 1939 the German military was not ready for war and the overwhelming majority of German forces were in Poland leaving the Western front completely exposed if the Allies had bothered to take the initiative to attack.
In fact for all the hooplah made about how quickly Poland was defeated, the Poles actually put up a pretty decent fight. For all the praise that Blitzkrieg gets the front in Poland basically turned into a siege of Warsaw. The Poles were screwed by "Allies" that were too afraid to help them and by the Soviet Union who invaded after the Germans had already engaged the bulk of the Polish Army.
Had the Allies (led by the French at that time) taken some initiative instead of ceding it to Germany then it's quite possible that Poland could have been saved. Think of how different history would have unfolded (no Cold War, no Holocaust, no fall of France) had the French shown the guts to take the offense.
You can make any number of excuses to justify the French behavior. The fact that they lost millions of men in WW1. The fact that most of the Allied military brass still believed in defensive warfare. But that doesn't change the perception that the French sat around and waited to be attacked.
You think Americans hate the French? The Poles have no lost love for them either.
In fact gas stations are some of the only businesses likely to have generated power during mass outages. It may even be a regulated thing around here that gas stations have generators.
Then that must be a regulated thing where you live because around here I have never once known that to be the case. Whenever there is a power outage the gas stations invariably lose power. The only time I can remember the threat of prolonged outages was during that big ice storm a few years back.... when that happened the few gas stations that did have power exhausted their supply in less then a day because of people raiding them to top off their tanks.
In fact, even when there wasn't the threat of a prolonged outage (the 2003 blackout) people still raided the few gas stations that had power -- even though they were all charging highly inflated prices. When will people learn?
If what I said could be construed as "hate speach" then what does it make what you said?
It's not hate speech per say. It's the typical "I hate America so I'm going to run my mouth without any figures to back it up" bullshit that I've come to expect from too many people on the Internet.
What is it with so many Americans and their over-sensitivity and complete inability to take critiscm or tolerate people who think differently? It's almost like insecurity. Pretty pathetic from the most powerful nation on the planet.
And there you go again. Given a chance to defend your arguments about half of the deaths in the 20th century being caused by the United States you resort to bashing us. I have no problem tolerating people who think differently then I do. I do have a serious problem with people who run their mouths about something without anything to back it up.
And it's funny you should accuse Americans of insecurity when the French are so insecure about their culture that they tried to rename "e-mail" because they didn't want an English word in their language. Care to venture a guess as to how many words in American English came from other languages and cultures?
Why didn't you mention the bottom part of the article that you linked? Allow me:
In any case, since you've made the comparison, let me make this one: In certain parts of the United States it is illegal for a woman to go topless. There are currently groups fighting to see this changed. Given the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution they will almost certainly be successful in the long run. Tell me, are there groups in those European countries that ban the Nazi Party advocating to see that ban removed?
So it shows that not even political expression is protected in America
That's a big leap to make when the group was allowed to stage it's protest in the first place. I'd agree that the arrest of those two women is complete bullshit but you can't take that and make the leap that "not even political expression is protected in America". Especially when they will (in all likelihood) be vindicated.
Longer term the correct solution is to deprecate ALL of the top level domains and deny renewals. Force everyone into the country tlds and this problem vanishes. If the French want .xxx.fr or heck, even porn.fr, go for it!
I would have no problem supporting this. I've mentioned it as a solution to the "problem" of ICANNs control at other times. Let France decide what to do with .fr and who will host the root for it. Let the United States decide what to do with .us and who will host the root for it. ICANN would only need to exist to manage the root of all the TLDs. And it would be much harder for the US (regardless of who "controls" ICANN) to unplug a country (that is what all of you are afraid of, isn't it?) because that country would have it's own root as a fallback and ideally the main root servers outside of the United States would not obey an order to purge a country TLD from the root.
Why are you posting lies?
Why are you accusing me of being a liar instead of just posting your facts and letting people judge? If you had bothered to read what I wrote you would see that I am just as much opposed to the idea of Gitmo as you are. If I was in charge I would be holding these people as POWs. Nevertheless I really fail to see the comparison. Is somebody being held in Gitmo because they wore an Osama Bin Ladin t-shirt? I highly doubt it.
I don't think you would be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a Hitler motive in Germany
And you would in the United States. Henceforth proving my point that political thoughts are regulated in Europe and not in the United States. Instead of attacking the United States because you don't think this is a true statement, why don't you attack Germany for restricting the speech of her citizens? Or do you agree with those restrictions? I'm tired of every discussion going back to how evil the United States is.
But if you are in America and female, you can be arrested for taking off your t-shirt in public
I've already pointed out in several posts how this is not true in many states of the United States. In New York State a female can take off her shirt anywhere that a male can. The issue is currently being debated in other states and will eventually be resolved in favor of equal protection (if a male can do it then so can a female).
And how the hell is taking off your tshirt remotely related to free speech? Sex being a taboo (which is ashame) doesn't hurt my freedom of political expression in public.
The difference is that in Germany you would at least have a trial, in America you can be thrown in jail without a trial and tortured (not theoretically, this is happening as we speak).
There is no way in hell that you would get held without trial and tortured over wearing an Osama Bin Ladin t-shirt in the United States. This comparison is really getting old. Somebody pointed out how the Nazi Party is illegal in many parts of Europe. Somebody else pointed out that they think advocating for Al Qaida would be equally illegal in the United States. The simple fact of the matter is that merely advocating Al Qaida's goals (American forces out of the Holy Land, defeat of Israel) is not a crime in the United States while advocating the Nazi Party goals is a crime in parts of Europe.
If you are going to split hairs over stuff like not being able to threaten to kill the President or not being able to go topless then I don't think you truly understand what free speech is.
Before I reply to your post, I just want to make one thing clear. Do you believe that Canada is part of America?
Yep. Sure is.
No, that's flamebait ;)
I was pointing that fact out because this issue is one that I happen to be a bit familiar with as I have several family members involved in the Topfreedom movement. Also it serves as a good contrast between North America and Europe.
Tell me, can a woman legally walk down the street topless in most of Europe? I honestly don't know.
As for the rest of it: half the problems and deaths in the last century were caused by the US and its meddling in other countries' internal affairs. A large part of the Soviet Union's behaviour was caused through its fear of the US and its aggressive behaviour.
Spare me the American hate speech. Do you want to pull statistics for Stalin's purges and Mao's "Great Leap Forward" and then tell me that the deaths caused by the United States even comes close to equaling them? I left out the Holocost too -- that was executed at the behest of a Government claiming to be socialist.
I would go so far as to say America doesn't really have a problem with Fascism. Never mind that the Nazi ideology, which people seem to believe as being relevant advocated racial supremacy and genocide. After all, they were only killing "inconvenient" people, right?
Then you would be going way too far. If we didn't have a problem with fascism then why didn't we make an attempt to get Nazi Germany to stay neutral after Japan attacked us? If we didn't have a problem with it then why did we devote the overwhelming amount of our resources to the European Theater (that wasn't a direct threat to us) when we were originally attacked in the Pacific Theater (a threat to Hawaii at least -- possibly the West Coast)?
The United States had huge problems with fascism. Why do you think we were sending military advisors to Britain even before we were at war with Germany? Why do you think the United States Navy was engaged in open warfare with German U-Boats months before Pearl Harbor?
Besides the obvious fact that we have much more in common with the British then the Germans have you considered the fact that the United States has (and had) a rather large Jewish population that was opposed to the ideals of the Nazi Government for obvious reasons?
This is why American businesses kept up trade with Nazi Germany, and basically got slapped on the wrist for it (remember Prescott Bush, anyone).
That's because business people are amoral bastards that only care about making a buck. I find it amusing that you mention Prescott Bush but not the Swiss Bankers that turned over Jewish Accounts to Nazi Germany and to this day haven't fully accounted for all of those stolen assets.
This is why Allen Dulles wanted to negotiate with Himmler for a separatist surrender of Germany to America, so that the war could be turned against the allied Soviet Union.
And in hindsight that might have been a good idea. If nothing else we were all fools to trust the Soviets so much. Churchill got it right when he said "I consider it imperative that we shake hands with the Soviets as far East as possible"
This is why Nazis got respected positions in the scientific community in America.
Would you rather we let the Soviets get them? Or perhaps we should have just executed them outright and given up a valuable edge over the Soviets when it came to missile and rocket design?
However, the fact is this: his methods won the war, and it's certainly not up to some armchair strategist to claim, 60 years later, that things could have been done diffirently with the same victorious result.
BULLFUCKING SHIT HIS METHODS WON THE WAR! If it wasn't for Stalin's paranoid purges of the Red Army Command years before the war then the Germans wouldn't even have gotten as far as they did. If it wasn't for his interference with the military (much like Hitler did) then the Soviets would not have lost nearly as many men. Ever read about the Kharkov counter offensive that Stalin ordered (against Zhukov's advice) that resulted in utter defeat and the capture of hundreds of thousands of Red Army troops?
The Soviet Union won the war in spite of Stalin, not because of him. It's pretty telling that even despite his poor leadership and paranoia that the Soviet Union was still successful. Kind of makes Hitler's decision to invade seem even more insane in hindsight.
But then America is not a very free country. In many countries in the world you do have this freedom of expression, for example in France and Sweden. Thus, people in those countries are freer than in America.
I love how you equate the ability to say "fuck" on TV with freedom of expression when political thoughts or ideologies are specifically outlawed in France. Hell, if you go to a public school in France you don't have the freedom to express your religious faith.
Those countries also don't practice torture, another minor benefit.
You mean that they don't practice torture any longer, right? And it's the freedom of expression right that gives you the ability to sit in front of your PC and bitch about the United States all day. Just don't try anything stupid like trying to wear a Jewish skullcap to school :)
The breast thing is a bit silly, but I don't really care all that much about it
He's dead wrong about it anyway. In NYS it's perfectly legal for a woman to walk around topless anywhere that a man can. That's true in not a few other states as well. There are also groups working to change it in the rest of the country.
In places that men can't go topless there is typically an overriding public concern (typically health) that is addressed. Plus private establishments can set whatever rules they want.
You can say anything, except you can't swear. And obscenity (defined by the local community standards) is also illegal
There the fuck did you hear that I can't swear in public? That's fucking bullshit. Complete fucking nonsense.
And with that point ;) made, seriously, where did you hear that? I can swear in any public place in the United States. It doesn't mean that people will listen to what I have to say or take me seriously but I can swear all I want. In a private setting (resturant, private home, etc.) the owners could make me leave -- but that's about it.
You could use a picture of a woman in chains being whipped to symbolize the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia and that would be protected under free speech laws. The same picture being used to promote your pornography store probably would not. Political speech is protected.
And you can't expose your breasts in public
Says who? In New York State the Court of Appeals specifically ruled that women are allowed to expose their breasts in any place that a man can (the beach comes to mind). Other states have made similar rulings. It's likewise legal across all of Canada if I recall correctly.
Freedom of speech/expression in the USA is a myth and you know it. So stop lying about it.
Do you hate us so much that you can't even listen to a reasonable argument?
So your talk about free speech is just bullshit.
No, your response is bullshit and trolling. The example I responded to was somebody wearing a t-shirt in NYC that said "Osama Bin Ladin Rocks". You are seriously comparing that to somebody captured on the battlefield engaged in hostile actions against American Armed Forces? I am as disgusted as you are about them being held without trial (though arguably if they were classified as POWs we could hold them legally until the end of hostilities) but your comparison is utter nonsense.
The fact remains I could wear that t-shirt in any American city without breaking any laws. Think I could wear a t-shirt against the ruling Government in Saudi Arabia? Think I could wear a t-shirt praising Hitler in France or Germany?
Here's a good career move for anyone in the military: When the Secretary of Defense asks you to do something, inform him that he does not have the authority to do so.
Actually that wouldn't be a good career move. But it doesn't change my point. In the United States the SecDef does not have the authority to do anything without the tacit approval of the President. I made that point in response to people that were comparing the unelected US Cabinet to the unelected European Commission. IMHO that comparison is fool hardy.
In any case, if you are in the military and SecDef (or anybody else above you for that matter) gives you an illegal order (shoot the bound and gagged prisoners in the back) then it is actually your duty to refuse to follow that order. Of course in that type of scenario you are pretty much damned if you do and damned if you don't.
And of course, they are in line for the Presidency.
After the Speaker of the House and the President Pro-Tem of the Senate. Both of whom are elected officials. You could even make a case that the Speaker is elected (indirectly) by all Americans since everybody in Congress gets to vote for him. Kinda the same for the President Pro-Tem of the Senate since the entire Senate gets to decide who that is -- though traditionally it is the oldest serving member of the majority party.
In any case I don't see how being in line for the Presidency means they should all have to be elected officials?
This is basically like dealing with a spoiled fat kid. You let the kid have it's candy on the condition it behaves. If it doesn't, you take away the candy supply. The US only has power as long as the rest of the world "allows" it to in this regard.
I love how comparing the United States to a spoiled fat child doesn't garner any criticism but some of my posts in a decent debate about freedom of speech got modded "overated" because I dared to point out how some European nations have outlawed various political parties.
So don't whine when you get the cold shoulder while travelling.
I've traveled extensively throughout the UK, Italy and Greece. I've never gotten the cold shoulder. In fact most of the people I met in the UK would rather be the 51st state then join the EU. We have much more in common with them (Common Law legal systems, political systems, culture) then the mainland ever will. Most of the people I met in Greece and Italy view the EU as Paris and Berlin's method of imposing their economic order and way of life on the rest of Europe.
In fact the only people that have ever been rude to me while overseas were (*gasp*) French. It was even funnier to hear them bitch about us in French because they just assumed that we were all lazy Americans and that none of us spoke their language. What is it about the mere sight of an American that infuriates you so?
Where was European and Japanese companies when we were developing DOS, CPM, Windows, MacOS, Xerox PARC?
I wouldn't be much of a Slashdotter if I didn't point out that you forgot Unix. Which of course was created by Bell Labs. An American outfit :)
Basically, if these countries had been half as progressive as the US was, they'd *already have* control of the Internet because they would have been there setting up DNS with us in the first place. It just bothers me. If you miss the boat, you can't swim out to catch it.
You don't have much of a reason to be progressive/innovative when you have a 35 hour workweek and can't get fired or laid off.
But if no bodily harm has been committed, why would it be illegal?
So threats made against your person are ok as long as I don't follow up them up with actual bodily harm? If I tell you I'm going to kill your daughter and then send you photographs of her on the playground but never actually go through with it that should be ok? Free speech doesn't extend to threats made against a person. Nor should it.
Outlawing a political movement that advocates eradicating people and other political movements and has a track record to prove they're not kidding seems pretty right to me.
And who gets to decide that they advocate eradicating people? What if they just advocated expelling the Jews? What they just blamed the Jews for all the ills in society? Where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide? Oh, that's right -- the current party that's in power and probably opposed to whatever it is that the illegal party is advocating. That's the problem with restricting political speech and activities.
Did anyone dare to answer that question with "yes" during the McCarthy period? At that time, communists were a perceived threat to the U.S.
Yes, and the Communist Party was never actually outlawed in the U.S. Several States (not the Feds) tried it -- the Courts all threw it out. And McCarthy was eventually brought down because people were able to oppose him. They were able to do that because the United States values freedom of speech and the press. To this day if I want to join the Communist or National Socialist Party in the United States I can do so. There are even laws in place that protect me from retaliation from certain types of non-Governmental agencies -- my employer for example can't legally ask me what political party I'm in.
Tell that to some of the people in my country, because they don't seem to be aware of this fact.
No, they just don't care. The unwashed masses (this applies to the US as well as Europe) are only too happy to give up their freedoms in the name of "security". How else do you explain Zogby and Gallop polls that show that 65% of Americans and 55% of the British support holding "terrorists" indefinitely without trial? Who gets to decide who is a "terrorist"? Oh, that's right... the Government! Just because people are willing to give up these freedoms doesn't mean they are correct to do so.
That's a loaded question. The same question can be asked about libel.
Libel is a civil matter and doesn't relate to what we are discussing. Even so I'll entertain a brief discussion about it. As far as it relates to the Press the courts have virtually always ruled in favor of the Press. See NY Times v. Sullivan. As far as it relates to individuals you need to have actual malice behind your words in order to lose a libel lawsuit. If I'm saying something about you that I have a good faith reason to believe is true then odds are that I will prevail should you attempt to sue me. If I'm saying "moz25 is a child molester" to discredit you to my advantage when I have no reason to think it's true then I will probably get my ass handed to me in court -- rightfully so.
It's unfortunate that you finished with this line of empty circular rethoric,
It's unfortunate that you think that my passion for freedom and free speech is "empty circular rhetoric". I've defended my values and tried my best to explain them to you.
I had a rather more interesting conversation with it just now....
[12:43] Shakrai: fuck you
[12:43] ShoppingBuddy: Welcome. Now you can search for products with AOLShopping. Type main to get started. To read our privacy policy, type privacy anytime.
[12:43] Shakrai: fuck you
[12:43] ShoppingBuddy: Hey -- clean up the language and get serious. I'm happy to help but can't deal with that mouth.
[12:43] Shakrai: go fuck yourself
[12:43] ShoppingBuddy: Hmm, that's not gonna get you anywhere with me.
[12:44] Shakrai: i fucked your mom
[12:44] ShoppingBuddy: OK, I'm searching for matches 4 U. Gimme a sec...
[12:44] ShoppingBuddy:
- Search results for fucked mom
- Get Fucked [$6.21 - $9.99]
- Grown Up Fucked Up [$8.99 - $13.98]
- Fucked Up Mess [$8.30 - $13.98]
- Fucked From Birth * [$12.99]
- Not Fucked Enough * [$9.72 - $13.98]
- The Essential Fucked Up Blues! [$10.02 - $13.98]
- For All The Fucked-Up Children Of [$13.29 - $14.90]
- For All The Fucked-Up Children Of [$33.99]
- New [$9.18 - $12.99]
Here are some related categories: 1. Hardcore & Punk Music, 2. Rock & Pop Music, 3. Miscellaneous Music, 4. Miscellaneous Books, 5. Miscellaneous Non-Fiction Books, etc. Type in the number to use the related category.
How if the hell could having a seperate TLD make it "easier to find porn"
Perhaps I shouldn't have said "exists only to make it easier to find porn". Perhaps I should have said "exists only to make money for ICANN and the various registries", because, WTF is the point of .xxx if porn sites are allowed to keep operating in .com/.net/.org? My selling point for .xxx would be the ease of filtering pornography -- but that gets into the whole slippery slope of "What is pornography?" as I said above. It also overlooks porn sites in other country code TLDs -- so it would be useless unless you also enforced them to move to .xxx or .xxx.uk, .xxx.fr, etc. That's probably quite unenforceable.
I don't see a valid reason to deploy a .xxx TLD. Neither does other people. That's why ICANN is reviewing it instead of instantly deploying it. In any case, is the .xxx dispute reason to go to war (figuratively) over the internet? Europeans have rioting in Paris and they are pissed because of the impression (an ill-founded one at that) that the US Congress vetoed a porn based TLD?
Interestingly, it doesn't seem to bother you that you cannot freely advocate assassinating the president or vice-president, but it does bother you if you cannot freely advocate assassinating Jews?
Because advocating the assassination of one man is a direct threat of bodily harm. That would probably be illegal under many state laws in addition to the Federal law making it illegal to threaten the President himself. By definition advocating the death of the Jews is not advocating assassination -- it would be advocating genocide. If I advocated the death of all white men from Texas then that would not be a crime.
I have trouble understanding why outlawing the Nazi party is a bad thing. You're not a Nazi, right?
Because the minute you outlaw a political movement just because you don't agree with its goals you have entered a very slippery, very dangerous slope. If we can outlaw the Nazi Party then surely we can outlaw the Communist Party. You're not a Commie, right?
Maybe you can give a better example of how my free speech is supposedly limited in Europe, because my complete lack of sympathy for racists is in the way of understanding your point.
Your speech is limited because you can't announce racist viewpoints or ideologies. It does not matter that you disagree with them. Do you outlaw all viewpoints that you disagree with or just those that offend you? The KKK and Neo-Nazis may disgust me but I would defend their right to spew their nonsense with my life.
If you can't understand the logic of my position then you don't understand freedom.