We need to see more of this out of Obama

[PortraitOfSanity]

Well, those who claim to have "no political position" are almost inherently of inferior intellect. And those who listen to Carl Rove are almost inherently of inferior intellect as well.

So, by logical deduction...

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by Starke von Oben

It's amazing that people honestly believe in this farce of political theatre being played out by both Democrats and Republicans.

Those that seek genuine change will not find it in the ballot box but through the armed uprising of the masses.

Please allow me to expand upon the simplistic "you're stupid" level of argument.

Throughout history, there has always been a segment of the population that has gone for the quick solution over the effective solution. It is much easier to grab torches and pitchforks than it is to introduce a system of government superior to the one causing so much irritation.

Of course a mass, armed uprising will initiate change. Unfortunately, you miss the obvious: it is very rare that the change produce by such action is a positive one. Sure, you can point to the revolutions of 200+ years ago and use them as proof that your theoretical "armed uprising" is a perfectly workable solution in the modern world. It is too bad that you are looking back hundreds of years to find a solution to issues facing a modern society. Can you produce an example of a modern society which benefited from a recent armed uprising? Iran, maybe? In this day and age, non-violent change has been the most effective in producing positive outcomes. The United States and South Africa (racial equality), Russia and East Germany (changing a system of government), and others prove that non-violent change has become the more effective option.

So please, stop trying to convince people of the antiquated, romantic notion of bullets solving domestic policy issues. It may fire the imagination and get the blood flowing, but it is a worthless pursuit if you truly are concerned with the general welfare of the citizens of this country.


- Heretic

[Random Havoc]

Another point not mentioned by the thought of armed uprising is that the revolutionaries of 200 years ago had very distinct ideas of what changes needed to be made once those who were enforcing the bad policies were no longer an issue. They didn't have every little jot and tickle laid out, but they knew precisely what did not work, and were looking to change those things. The revolution was necessary because those in power were unreasonable and would have responded to the complaints by either ignoring, or sending troops to get rid of the most outspoken amongst their opposition. Revolution became the only practical alternative to ignite change. That is no longer the case, as Heretic has pointed out.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Heretic

Please allow me to expand upon the simplistic "you're stupid" level of argument.

He is stupid, though.

Throughout history, there has always been a segment of the population that has gone for the quick solution over the effective solution. It is much easier to grab torches and pitchforks than it is to introduce a system of government superior to the one causing so much irritation.

That's not the point. What von Oben is saying (or pretends to be saying, he may be a troll) is that politics is merely a show, behind which some esteemed committee of entirely anonymous individuals plans every single event to their own advantage, scripts each utterance every politician will ever make and therefore cannot be permeated by idealists simply because the electoral process is a distraction, and that therefore the people must rise up, tear down the facade, behead the oppressors and then stand around and shrug. There is no room for a better government in his view of what politics entails.

Originally Posted by Heretic

Of course a mass, armed uprising will initiate change. Unfortunately, you miss the obvious: it is very rare that the change produce by such action is a positive one. Sure, you can point to the revolutions of 200+ years ago and use them as proof that your theoretical "armed uprising" is a perfectly workable solution in the modern world. It is too bad that you are looking back hundreds of years to find a solution to issues facing a modern society. Can you produce an example of a modern society which benefited from a recent armed uprising? Iran, maybe? In this day and age, non-violent change has been the most effective in producing positive outcomes. The United States and South Africa (racial equality), Russia and East Germany (changing a system of government), and others prove that non-violent change has become the more effective option.

I'm not sure where you derive the idea that the struggle against apartheid was non-violent. Nelson Mandela, who is pretty much the face of the black struggle of South Africa, was head of the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe, which continued to undertake guerilla activities, bombings, sabotage etc. during his imprisonment. The Pan Africanist Congress had an armed wing with no qualms about killing. Mandela was offered freedom in exchange for renouncing armed struggle and refused the offer, and once he was released, he still supported armed struggle. One of the decisive factors in the end of apartheid being legislated throughout the early 90s was the fact that political violence was widespread through South Africa in the late 80s perhaps moreso than ever. Apartheid may not have been overthrown solely by armed struggle but claiming that the movement against apartheid was non-violent isn't true, certain factions were peaceful and others definitely weren't.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Random Havoc

The revolution was necessary because those in power were unreasonable and would have responded to the complaints by either ignoring, or sending troops to get rid of the most outspoken amongst their opposition. Revolution became the only practical alternative to ignite change..

That wasn't true at all. In fact the revolution for independence was one of the times of upheaval where a revolution was least needed.

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by JCC

He is stupid, though.

I disagree; ignorance does not equal stupidity.

Besides, it is more effective to undermine the argument that it is to personally attack the opposition (see: Ad Hominem argument). This not only affords your opponent and his/her opinion a basic level of respect, it in turn allows those who witness the discussion to maintain respect for your viewpoint, a critical element to winning them over. Even if your are correct, being disrespectful toward an opponent doesn't look nearly as dignified as being respectful toward them, not to mention the fact that unnecessary disrespect has the potential to overshadow even the most dazzling of arguments.

That's not the point. What von Oben is saying (or pretends to be saying, he may be a troll) is that politics is merely a show, behind which some esteemed committee of entirely anonymous individuals plans every single event to their own advantage, scripts each utterance every politician will ever make and therefore cannot be permeated by idealists simply because the electoral process is a distraction, and that therefore the people must rise up, tear down the facade, behead the oppressors and then stand around and shrug. There is no room for a better government in his view of what politics entails.

Starke von Oben specifically refers to the "farce of political theatre being played out by both Democrats and Republicans" and the "current political class". I see his gripe with the current state of American politics as being general and systemic in nature. He never mentions anything about an "esteemed committee of entirely anonymous individuals" controlling everything, so I don't see where you could paint his views as railing against some specific cabal.

I do agree, however, with your opinion of the ignorance behind the "anything is better than this" idea he espoused. The world, past and present, is full of examples of just how nasty "anything else" can get.

I'm not sure where you derive the idea that the struggle against apartheid was non-violent.

It was indeed a "struggle", not an "armed rebellion" similar to the kind mentioned by Starke von Oben. Maybe the use of the phrase "non-violent" was overly broad for this discussion, but my point was that the changes seen in both the United States and South Africa did not require an "armed rebellion", which I equated with violence that has risen to the level of a full-scale civil war. The idea of "non-violence" in my examples was relative to the idea of an ongoing conflict larger than occasional acts of violence and reprisal. For example, the American Civil Rights movement is very often referred to as a "non-violent revolution", yet many of the enduring images from this period of time are of police using dogs, tear gas, and fire hoses on protesters, church bombings, lynchings, and National Guard Troops protecting students during integration.

I suppose it's all in where we draw the line.

Apartheid may not have been overthrown solely by armed struggle but claiming that the movement against apartheid was non-violent isn't true, certain factions were peaceful and others definitely weren't.

Agreed, but I feel that this example still serves to illustrate the line I drew in relation to Starke von Oben's views.


- Heretic

[Random Havoc]

Alan: While the causes of the revolutionary war are many and varied, they basically come down to the American colonists felt they deserved equal representation, and equal rights in government. The British felt that they were simply a colony of their citizenry that were to be used and exploited as cheap labour, or whatever else they needed. The situation slowly began to deteriorate from 1765 to 1774 at which point the American colonists had simply been pushed too far by the British government completely ignoring their appeals. Repeatedly during that 9 year span appeals were sent to the crown seeking repeals of what were viewed as unfair taxes, and a general placement of representatives for the colonies in Parliament. The repeated ignoring of these appeals over this decade long period finally was too much, and as in any other situation throughout history, when negotiations break down, armed violence is pretty much the instrument men use to resolve the issue.

[Heretic]

Ah, I neglected to include the use of violence by African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement. People like Malcolm X and the Deacons for Defense and Justice had no problem with meeting violence with violence as a means of furthering the cause of Civil Rights.


- Heretic

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Random Havoc

Alan: While the causes of the revolutionary war are many and varied, they basically come down to the American colonists felt they deserved equal representation, and equal rights in government.

Yet, under the mantra of "no taxation without representation" they fought for no taxation, rather than better representation. Before the 'revolution' (although we don't tend to call revolutions to other secessionist conflicts such as the Algerian War) the colonists appealed to the British King, claiming that the colonies respond directly to the king, not to Parliament. They were attracted to the idea of the monarch having more authority than those supposed to represent the people, and as such had a strong ally, in fact the strongest ally, they could ask for in Great Britain. Up to the point of the Declaration of Independence, the colonists were proud to consider themselves British citizens.
All this is exemplified in Letters From a Farmer in Pennsylvania.

The British felt that they were simply a colony of their citizenry that were to be used and exploited as cheap labour, or whatever else they needed.

The British never had any expectations on their colonies, contrasted with the Spanish colonies.
They had no pretenses on micromanaging them.
The British paid all the brunt of the French-Indian wars because America didn't want to pay taxes even before the War of Independence; and let's remember, we're talking about taxes that were about a fourth of what British citizens themselves paid.
So, honestly, point out where you get the idea that "Americans were exploited as cheap labor"

The situation slowly began to deteriorate from 1765 to 1774 at which point the American colonists had simply been pushed too far by the British government completely ignoring their appeals. Repeatedly during that 9 year span appeals were sent to the crown seeking repeals of what were viewed as unfair taxes, and a general placement of representatives for the colonies in Parliament.

These taxes actually reduced the price of commodities in trade between the colonies and England. The British Crown lost a lot of money to contraband in the colonies. The Tea Act explicitly tells the British East India Company to sell the surplus tea they wanted to sell to the colonies, at a reduced price. The profit comes from the fact that, as the sell of tea is only legitimate if it has been taxed, then only legitimate businesses can sell it and won't lose money against smugglers and privateers.
The idea that taxes were raised to 'unfair' proportions is not even an exaggeration, but an outright bullshit lie.
But then again, John Hancock, the man whose signature is synonymous with the Declaration of Independence made his fortune through smuggling.
It makes sense for the people who wanted Independence to fight for independence, but don't try to claim that it was in the interests of the people as a whole because that's just bullshit. Case in point, Shay's Rebellion.

The repeated ignoring of these appeals over this decade long period finally was too much, and as in any other situation throughout history, when negotiations break down, armed violence is pretty much the instrument men use to resolve the issue.

There were NO negotiations.
The greatest thing Benjamin Franklin did when he was the representative of Pennsylvania in front of the British Parliament was advocating for paper money. How about the arguably wisest forefather had told Great Britain that the colonies were unhappy?



You could have used the example of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, The Mexican Revolution, or even The Brazilian Revolution which was popularly backed even though there was no attempt to pretend Brazil wasn't going to remain a monarchy.
Instead, you choose the only secessionist movement that considers itself too important to have called itself a Revolution; which was backed by roughly only one third of the people; and that implemented much more 'oppressive' policies than those they claimed to fight against - and I'm not even talking simply about taxes, which they raised to levels that left people in poverty (once again, Shay's rebellion), but we must also remember that the Bill of Rights was only a compromise that wasn't even going to be included in the Constitution were it not for the 'Anti-Federalists', such as Thomas Jefferson, who didn't even want a union between the colonies as one centralized hegemony.

[Random Havoc]

I picked the one I was most familiar with, I will not claim to be an expert in the field of politics, especially 18th century politics. The little reading I had done led me to the conclusions I had expressed. Your post has given me pause to re-evaluate those conclusions, and I will do further reading to find out more about the situations at the time. Also, I will not claim I think the taxes were 'unfair' I don't know enough about them to know what was common for the time, or country, I simply put it forward as what is commonly claimed. Those leading the rebellion felt the taxes were unfair. That isn't a statement of fact 'The taxes were unfair' it is a statement of an opinion that is portrayed. There are so many different sources for many of these events it is difficult at times to decipher who is prettying up the history for their own agendas, but I will do more reading on the situations surrounding the time period.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Heretic

Ah, I neglected to include the use of violence by African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement. People like Malcolm X and the Deacons for Defense and Justice had no problem with meeting violence with violence as a means of furthering the cause of Civil Rights.


- Heretic

Now hold on minute: El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz was admittedly violent before his enlightenment and before joining the Nation of Islam, but after his pilgrimage to Mecca and personal experience with Islam he began to rethink violence and "hate" and "reverse racism".

Not to side track this thread, because the subject of Malcolm X could easily consume a thread of its own, but it is sad to think his convicted murderer is free 5 days a week and only spends weekends in jail, and is trying to eliminate even that time.

[Alan]

He didn't renounce violence. He always knew that violence was a necessity where injustice is rife.
He renounced the idea that the white man is the devil. He renounced the idea that white people cannot help the fight for black nationalism. As you said, he renounced the hate.
But hate and violence are hardly the same thing.

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Now hold on minute: El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz was admittedly violent before his enlightenment and before joining the Nation of Islam, but after his pilgrimage to Mecca and personal experience with Islam he began to rethink violence and "hate" and "reverse racism".

Unfortunately, he was dead less than a year after converting from the made-up, cobbled-together bullsh!t they call the Nation of Islam to the Sunni sect of the Islamic faith. It's too bad his legacy is mostly one of violent opposition. His discovery of true Islam, and the path of peace his faith set him on, would have been an effective force in helping to eliminate prejudice and ethnic bias in this country.

Not to side track this thread, because the subject of Malcolm X could easily consume a thread of its own, but it is sad to think his convicted murderer is free 5 days a week and only spends weekends in jail, and is trying to eliminate even that time.

This is the reality with far too many murder cases, whether the victim was famous of not.


- Heretic

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by Heretic

I disagree; ignorance does not equal stupidity.

Besides, it is more effective to undermine the argument that it is to personally attack the opposition (see: Ad Hominem argument). This not only affords your opponent and his/her opinion a basic level of respect, it in turn allows those who witness the discussion to maintain respect for your viewpoint, a critical element to winning them over. Even if your are correct, being disrespectful toward an opponent doesn't look nearly as dignified as being respectful toward them, not to mention the fact that unnecessary disrespect has the potential to overshadow even the most dazzling of arguments.


Starke von Oben specifically refers to the "farce of political theatre being played out by both Democrats and Republicans" and the "current political class". I see his gripe with the current state of American politics as being general and systemic in nature. He never mentions anything about an "esteemed committee of entirely anonymous individuals" controlling everything, so I don't see where you could paint his views as railing against some specific cabal.

I do agree, however, with your opinion of the ignorance behind the "anything is better than this" idea he espoused. The world, past and present, is full of examples of just how nasty "anything else" can get.


It was indeed a "struggle", not an "armed rebellion" similar to the kind mentioned by Starke von Oben. Maybe the use of the phrase "non-violent" was overly broad for this discussion, but my point was that the changes seen in both the United States and South Africa did not require an "armed rebellion", which I equated with violence that has risen to the level of a full-scale civil war. The idea of "non-violence" in my examples was relative to the idea of an ongoing conflict larger than occasional acts of violence and reprisal. For example, the American Civil Rights movement is very often referred to as a "non-violent revolution", yet many of the enduring images from this period of time are of police using dogs, tear gas, and fire hoses on protesters, church bombings, lynchings, and National Guard Troops protecting students during integration.

I suppose it's all in where we draw the line.


Agreed, but I feel that this example still serves to illustrate the line I drew in relation to Starke von Oben's views.


- Heretic

Thanks for saving me a rant. *grin*

[FuckEmoFAGS]

U guys are fuckin stupid you have no idea that this is a republic and not a socialism and that here you have to earn your money and that slittin your wrists doesent cut it

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by FuckEmoFAGS

U guys are fuckin stupid you have no idea that this is a republic and not a socialism and that here you have to earn your money and that slittin your wrists doesent cut it

I know I'm wasting my breath, but you do know that a Republic is a representational government and that socialism is fully compatible with a Republic state, right?

[Ben Lahnger]

That's a good observation, but my brain is boggling over this clearly unintended pun.

Originally Posted by FuckEmoFAGS

... and that slittin your wrists doesent cut it

Stupid AND ignorant in one adorable, little, trollish package. Fail.

So, back to topic ... Obama canceled his overseas trip to shepherd the HC bill through to completion. Think he can crack the whip on his own party and get this done?

[FuckEmoFAGS]

But see in america we have to earn our own things and we cant take money from other people and by the way global warming isnt real

[Despanan]

They see me Trollin'
They Hatin' Patrollin'
tryin' ta catch me postin' boobies
tryin' ta catch me postin' boobies...

[Ben Lahnger]

Obvious troll ...

Originally Posted by FuckEmoFAGS

But see in america we have to earn our own things and we cant take money from other people and by the way global warming isnt real

Chances are good you don't earn everything you enjoy. No way you on your own income could pay for all the civil services and protections you enjoy. So you don't like money being given away, but you don't reject all socialized aspects of our modern society like paved roads, indoor plumbing, emergency services, etc. But you knew that and were just trolling for a reaction. And the global warming thing was just a crackpot stab at trying to raise someone's ire ... you aren't particularly good at being a troll.

I wouldn't have responded at all except you said "we can't take money from other people". I sure would take yours if I saw you in person and figured out what a doofus you are.

[Despanan]

I always hate that: "I made all this money on my own, the goverent has no right to take it and use it to help other people" argument.

Even of you founded, financed, and managed a successful buisiness entirely on your own money and fortune (Without government loans and grants) You still have depended on goverment agencies and programs. Your buisiness is able to thrive because of a stable government-created environment. Government run police forces defend your property, you make use of the postal service, you make use of the roads, and sanitation, and you and/or your work force were educated in government funded schools.

You got yours, and a significant portion of the thanks belongs to society, and therefor you have an obligation to give back.

[Lethe]

On the subject of the original topic and video...
Thanks for posting this video Despanan. I've found that I actually enjoy listening to political debates when one party is actually making sense in a concise way, instead of both parties skirting around their blunders and focusing on irrelevant subjects.
If Obama continues in this manner I might actually hope for a better tomorrow in my country.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by FuckEmoFAGS

But see in america we have to earn our own things and we cant take money from other people and by the way global warming isnt real

Dude, open your eyes: the American IRS already takes money from other people. It even takes money from future generations.

What a tool. And that isn't a compliment.

[the-nihilist]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Your business is able to thrive because of a stable government-created environment. Government run police forces defend your property, you make use of the postal service, you make use of the roads, and sanitation, and you and/or your work force were educated in government funded schools.

You got yours, and a significant portion of the thanks belongs to society, and therefore you have an obligation to give back.

It's amazing how many people seem to miss this point.

[GothicCowboy]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Yes, because mobs of armed revolutionaries are so good at providing affordable, universal health care.

Are you referring to Cuba? If so, you're right