JUST TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS..
By David Vance On June 11th, 2012Obama never ceases to amaze;
The United States blocked Israel’s participation in the Global Counterterrorism Forum’s (GCTF) first meeting in Istanbul on Friday, despite Israel’s having one of the most extensive counterterrorism experiences in the world. Imagine: the world’s number one target of Islamic terror is blocked from attending an Islamic terror conference. Meanwhile Turkey continues its irrevocable slide to becoming an Islamic theocracy with the sanction and support of Barack Hussein.
Banning Israel from the GCTF is such a nasty and spiteful act that Obama should be ashamed but I am sure he will be rather pleased with himself. Turkey has been appeased, the Muslim world is a little but happier through this insult to Israel, and counter-terrorism is denied the voice of one of the MOST experienced Nations.
//blocked from attending an Islamic terror conference//
An Islamic terror conference?
Keynote speakers being from Al Quaeda, Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade presumably.
Israel is on both the giving and receiving end of terror, and would probably have a crisis of identity if it were to attend.
This is another wise choice by Obama.
So the gang of ‘bully-boys’ countries, gather in a corner of the playground to plot and scheme a way to futher intimidate the one country that refuses to be intimidated by the group of cowards.
Rather than use such a conference to build, or at least try to build bridges, they huddle in a corner with the most stupid and devious ‘prefect’ of all time.
The schoolyard analogy is so that those yet to mature, might better understand.
Surely obvious to even the most thick-headed of observers, is Obama’s pathetic attempts to curry favour with the large Muslim faction that will attend this conference, – a conference that is ostensibly gathering to discuss counterterrorism in an effort to solve the global terrorism problem – while all he is doing, in reality, is pandering to the group, who at this point in history, are the single worst, and most fervently barbaric perpetrators of terror, within living memory.
Without doubt Obama sees being POTUS as but a step towards a very different role to that which the electorate imagined when casting their votes, and it is most certainly not in their interest,,,
Israel is on both the giving and receiving end of terror
And is far more sinning than sinned against, as the figures show.
Petr,
Absolute rubbish! They certainly aren’t global, as is the Muslim variety, and rarely, attack for reasons other than defence, – which, while still unpleasant, is a more valid reason than terrorism for purely religious reasons.
Even in the early days, back pre-war, – when there was zionist terrorism, they were rather more selective in their targets than either muslim or catholic fanatics. – as history records!
Personally im disapointed at this. Israel should have been at the conference then when on turkish soil the israeli delegation could have been arrested and put on trial for war crimes.
//and rarely, attack for reasons other than defence//
Anybody attacking, whether as terrorist or conventional, will always be able to claim defence. There is always something that can be construed as a need for defence in every war and military escapade, whether people accept it as a justifiable grounds for attack depends on their political point of view with regard to the belligerants.
Hitler claimed armies massing on his borders to launch several of his “defence” offensives – nobody believed him.
Israel did the same when starting the 1967 war – the inevitable masses believed.
The IRA claimed that the shooting of Irish people by the Army justified their killing soliders in defence.
If a makeshift rocket lands in a field, Israel will take this as a reason for an invasion and their killing of literally hundreds of innocent people “in defence”.
And so it goes on.
Ernest,
Absolute rubbish.
They certainly aren’t global, as is the Muslim variety
So Hezbollah, Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs etc. are global? Do enlighten us!
attack for reasons other than defence
Don’t make me laugh. White phosphorous attacks on schools and hospitals. Well, it makes sense in a way since Zionist racists consider Palestinian babies a “demographic threat.”
terrorism for purely religious reasons
Oh dear. That particular shibboleth was blown to bits long ago. Try Robert Pape’s Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism for the empirical evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terrorism
Sub,
Hear hear.
Noel,
Israel did the same when starting the 1967 war – the inevitable masses believed.
Remember Ernest told us that the Arab armies struck first in that war? To be fair, he backed down when you presented him with the evidence, but it was a funny climb-down to watch given that he had boasted about the fact that he was alive back then and remembered it. Hah!
Noel – double standard alert!
If a makeshift rocket lands in a field, Israel will take this as a reason for an invasion and their killing of literally hundreds of innocent people “in defence”.
and what would you say woul dbe the reaction to an Israeli tank shell landing in an Palestinian olive grove? You’d be all over it for a start wouldn’t you.
Indiscriminate shelling is a war crime..but only if the Izzies do it. The Palli’s get a free pass from you on that one right?
Dog,
If someone stole your house, you’d probably do all you could to get it back and most people would probably ‘give you a pass’!
“If someone stole your house, you’d probably do all you could to get it back ..”
The commie’s suddenly in favour of private property rights!
//what would you say woul dbe the reaction to an Israeli tank shell landing in an Palestinian olive grove? You’d be all over it for a start wouldn’t you.//
An Israeli shell landing in an olive grove where nobody is killed, are you serious? Israeli shells and raids Palestinian areas practically every week and they are hardly even reported. Just in the past week, it raised Gaza again and killed 2 people and nobody on here – including myself – even commented.
Tell you what, let some Arab faction invade Israel and kill several hundred women and children – you know, the kind of thing Israel does on occasion – and then we’ll compare reactions, if you are looking for double standards.
//Indiscriminate shelling is a war crime..but only if the Izzies do it. The Palli’s get a free pass from you on that one right?//
I would definitely support a neutral international tribunal to try all those who kill civilians in that conflict. Would you?
= it raided
The commie’s suddenly in favour of private property rights!
What gave you that idea?
Petr Tarasov -
“What gave you that idea?”
That a way out, Maoist Leninist Trotskyite Collectivist like you suddenly talks of “Palestinian homes” as if anyone has a right to private property.
Let’s put in ways you might understand: Israel collectivised and redistributed those homes …
They did it along entho-religious lines which any socialist would find repellent. Only racists would approve of it.
I made no mention of “Palestinian homes” by the way.
Actual real neutrals Noel or the UN version ie Cuba, Syria, Iran etc.
//Actual real neutrals //
Real neutrals of course, DIG.
Well, would you be pleased to see Israeli commanders finally in the dock beside Palestinian terrorists?
what a load of crap.
Israel other than at its formation has committed no acts of terror. It has responded to attacks on it’s civilians.
Please put up a link where an Israeli has strapped explosives to himself and walked into a pally school or a pally shopping center, or bus and blew him or herself up.
I can put up 100s where pallies have done it.
Your a pack of people aligned more with the beliefs of the Nazis and Islamic terrorists than those of supposedly civilized countries.
Looking at the names associated with the above comments are no surprise.
It’s quite amazing how lefties denounce nationalism and private property….. until Palestine is mentioned. Then up pops Palestinian people’s rights for land, culture etc, the sort of things on which I as a white Briton am refused discussion by these same lefties.
Btw there is indeed an ethno-religious determination to Israel and this is the only time that I have ever seen Jews admit to being ‘the white man’.
//Please put up a link where an Israeli has strapped explosives to himself and walked into a pally school or a pally shopping center, or bus and blew him or herself up//
Is that what it takes to be a terrorist, do you think?
yeah Noel Attacks targeted at CIVILIANS not incidents where civilians have been killed because the terrorists were hiding amongst them.
Yeah that’s what a Terrorist is.
The purposeful targeting of civilians, I can put up 100s of links where the Islamists have done it and dozens where the Irish have done it.
Put up other than the founding of Israel when the Israelis have done it. Anytime, Anywhere over the past 20 years.
Israel’s participation would likely have ment that Turkey would not and perhaps others. If the goal is to reach out to those with whom we need to reach out, the Israelis can sit this one out so as not to become the issue (rightly or wrongly) themselves.
the goal is to fight terrorism, half the countries attending shouldn’t be there. their the ones where the terrorist come from
Troll,
According to the UN investigation into the last Gaza war, Israeli forces “carried out direct intentional strikes against civilians” in at least around a dozen cases.
Also, the so-called “Dahiye Doctrine” involves the deliberate killing of civilians to deter attacks on Israeli forces. It was admitted to be such by Israeli officers, and was used as such during the last Lebanon war.
But your whole argument is bogus for two reasons:
First, the killing of civilians is always wrong; if you use certain tactics and you know that those tactics inevitably kill civilians, you are as guilty as if you killed them deliberately. That was, you might like to know, also a favourite argument of the IRA. They almost never deliberately targeted civilians with their bombs, yet civilians kept being killed in the explositions, so out they came with exactly the same line you are now trying.
Didn’t convince then, and yours doesn’t convince now.
I’d much rather have a terrorist foe that manages to kill two or three civilians each year than an only-democracy-in-the-region enemy that kills several hundred civilians “by mistake” in a few weeks.
Second, your human shields argumnet is also total bullshit because you use it to cover every incident of civilians being killed when they were near armed men, e.g. every time there is a gunfight in towns or densely populated centres.
This is even worse than the last, as it justifies mass killings of civilians in every urban war situation, such as in WW2 the liberation of Paris, the battle of Stalingrad; it could have been used by the Russians to justify the mass killings of German civilians and by the Germans to justify the total destruction of Warsaw.
The British only had to have an army barracks in London to justify Hitler’s total blitz of the city, in your opinion.
So, IRA, Nazi, the Red Army – you’re in good company.
//dozens where the Irish have done it//
By the way, I bet you can’t. But you can try.
do you really want a list of all the IRA and affiliated groups put up?
Ah appropriate words there are “Gaza War” post the list of accusations, and that’s what they were accusations. I’ll go through them with you one by one, I won’t even object that the UN is not a credible source.
In War civilians die, when terrorists hide amongst civilians and get killed civilians die. These are the casualties of war.
According to the ROI government the IRA did not represent them, and a state of war does not and has not existed between the ROI and GB or NI so they are terrorists
You have no ground to stand on
do you really want a list of all the IRA and affiliated groups ATTACKS put up?
YOUR STANCE THAT YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE TERRORISM THAN WAR SHOWS YOU ARE MORE AKIN TO A BARBARIAN THAN A CIVILIZED MAN
War is meant to be horrible it helps in it’s restraints but your ok with a couple of woman and children being blown up walking down the street to make a political point.
Do you know how sick that is? Obviously not.
Troll -
“In War civilians die, when terrorists hide amongst civilians and get killed civilians die.”
You sound like someone for whom war has always been a distant thing, viewed only through network news TV or youtube.
The rules of war are very clear. If there’s any chance of civilians being killed then a combatant must not fire. This is a black and white rule which American, British, Israeli and most other state forces are bound by.
‘They almost never deliberately targeted civilians with their bombs’
Noel,the word ‘ALMOST’ is very significant for families left broken after the scum of the ira carried out their well planned attacks.
I am sure they will take great comfort in your feeble and insipid excuse for their wanton mass murder.
Sick individual.
Is it really so difficult to discern the difference between “friend” and “sworn enemy of Western Judeo Christian civilization?”
btw, Obama is losing the American Jewish vote — Obama’s foolishness is not all bad.
The Jewish vote is small beer, except maybe in a swing state like FL.
Many Jewish people are in brain dead lib states like NY and CA, so their votes don’t mean much.
What’s interesting about Obama’s loss of the Jewish vote is that the Jewish voting bloc tends to vote Democrat, first; Jewish, second. I don’t think the Dems have a more loyal constituency than the Jews – unless you want to count Hollyweird as a voting bloc.
So, the fact that even the Jews are jumping out of Obama’s car – to use his favorite metaphor – is not small.
Pete
first off BULL
did the British and the Americans only target military installations in Germany? and I can sit 100s of instances where every nation right now recent history where when the enemy goes into a populated area it is still targeted.
You say I speak like a person that has no concept of war, look to the fantasy world your statement comes from.
Grow up.
Troll -
Far more numerous are the unreported instances of our troops not firing when civilians would be in danger.
Now do you deny that the rules of war specifically protect civilians?
//the Jewish voting bloc tends to vote Democrat,//
Patty, there is no “Jewish voting bloc”, the notion is as absurd as it is ugly.
LU
//insipid excuse for their wanton mass murder.//
Glad you hate it, fellahs like you can’t stand the truth, can you?
Troll
//do you really want a list of all the IRA and affiliated groups ATTACKS put up?//
No, I’d like you to put up a list of the “dozens” of instances where the Irish deliberately targeted civilians, as you said you could. One dozen will be enough.
//YOUR STANCE THAT YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE TERRORISM THAN WAR SHOWS YOU ARE MORE AKIN TO A BARBARIAN THAN A CIVILIZED MAN//
The fact that you understood it as that shows that, far from being civilized, you can’t even read.
//In War civilians die, when terrorists hide amongst civilians and get killed civilians die.//
Whatever about Hezbollah’ other actions, in that war they were defending their homes against and invader, and are as such entitled to choose their weapons and tactics as they wish. They were certainly not terrorists.
What’s more, they soon sent the real murderers packing, so they did a good job all round.
//Ah appropriate words there are “Gaza War” post the list of accusations//
I’d probably be able to reply to that if it wasn’t the heap of your mental garbage that nobody should be asked to unravel.
Noel,
like most people I object to mass murder, and wish the perpetrators to be punished, and not rewarded.
If that makes me contrary to your position, then I am proud to stand my ground and would do so eye to eye with you or anyone else any day of the week.
//like most people I object to mass murder//
Well, it was clear from my comment that I do too, and you can play the victim as much as you like.
Maybe if you try to read it again, you’ll manage it the second time.
Noel: “…there is no “Jewish voting bloc”, the notion is as absurd as it is ugly”
The Israel National News does not agree with this and neither do I.
^
Nothing in that article suggests there is a ‘Jewish voting bloc’. There isn’t, by the way, there are simply Jewish people who vote.
The huge majority of American Jews generally vote Democrat and that’s that, and it has been that way for a very long time.
True, Phantom. But they don’t vote as a bloc.
On a related note, I enjoyed this thought-provoking and provocative article:
Excuse Me, But Israel Has No Right To Exist
http://mideastshuffle.com/2012/05/19/excuse-me-but-israel-has-no-right-to-exist/
Yes
I know some -very- conservative Jews here.
Who want no part of the Al Sharpton influenced NYC Democrat Party, etc
The ultraconsevative Hasidim -do- vote as a bloc
Politicians seek the top rabbi’s endorsement, and the rabbi tells the flock who to vote for, and that is what they do. You can get some very lopsided votes in those precincts
Once again, this particular conference is more of a diplomatic overture. Israel isn’t harmed by sitting out, and the conference permits exchanges that are critical in establishing cooperation with other nations.
Petr/Noel: here is a nice discussion of voting blocs if you’re interested…of course, Jews are considered one of the 12 voting blocs discussed – this isn’t rocket science. why wouldn’t they be included?
and what about a description of voting blocs can possibly be construed as “ugly?” perhaps your anti-semitism is showing?
It comea down to definitions
Jews and blacks will nearly always vote Democrat, as southern whites ( esp males )will nearly always vote Replublican
Its OK to say this. Otherwise, what is a bloc?
///Noel: here is a nice discussion of voting blocs if you’re interested…of course, Jews are considered one of the 12 voting blocs discussed//
Patty, you misunderstand the article. It is not a discussion of “voting blocks”, but of the different ethnic/identity groups in the US and their various voting patterns. You link shows, if anything, precisely that Jews are not a voting block; they vote for different parties and their voting patterns change.
Petr is right; Jews vote as individuals and do not take a lead from anyone. Their voting patterns can change. That most of them currently vote Democrat is simply because most of them currently use their heads.
Noel,
Shame on you for that vile anti-semitic rant!
Jewish people, as a demographic, have tended to be more Democratic than Republican but they don’t vote as one group. Even in 2008 1 in 4 Jews didn’t vote the same way as the remaining 3 did. That isn’t a bloc.
The Jews aren’t a bloc, but I think Patty might be a bot!
Seamus 927
Then what percentage do you need before its called a blioc?
100%?
A question that came up elsewhere recently was whether or not there is an “Irish vote”. Your thoughts on that, Phantom?
In Ireland, there’s the Corkmen block, no doubt about that. Dem lads would vote for anything swinging a camán, bai!
Your anti-Corkism is showing.
Petr
In the US, I don’t think that there has been an Irish vote for a long time. There was such a thing in the days of major immigration, when the Irish / Irish Americans were heavily represented in various unions, etc but it has itself tapered off, greatly, as immigration from Ireland has tapered off, greatly.
A lot of Irish Americans would basically see themselves as Americans only, esp outside of the East.
And – this is key – the Irish Americans, like the Italian Americans – are as divided politically as all other Americans are. Many are conservative, many are liberal, many are divided as per the individual issue may present itself.
As respects Irish issues, they’d not be very visible here anymore. Folks are aware that the IRA, UDA, the cops and the British Army are not running amok anymore, that there is supposed to be a peace deal, and there is a general satisfaction with this fact.
But the Irish vote is gone. It won’t return. Those who speak of it are engaging in a polite fiction.
Noted.
That was my more or less my hunch. I spoke to an American diplomat in Dublin recently who was adamant there was still an Irish vote. I doubted it, but not knowing much about it, didn’t challenge him on it.
I’d like to know where it is supposed to exist.
It sure doesn’t exist in New York or Boston anymore. The people in these places and elsewhere cast their votes local, statewide or national office based on bread and butter issues, and on the other issues as do the rest of the population.
A hundred years ago, the Irish were discriminated against in places like Boston. Those days are long gone. The ” American dream ” has worked very well for most.
On the other hand, Phantom, there must be some reason why every US president and candidate tries to make it to Ireland or somehow show his Irishness.
That’s what the diplomat said. “Why would Obama come to Ireland?”
It’s an interesting questions.
I wonder how long that stuff will continue.
Perhaps Barack can make a trip to the ould sod of Kenya, so that Trump and Allan can really freak out.
I don’t believe there is bloc voting. I think it is simplistic to the point of stupid to say there is a bloc. People vote for a variety of different reasons and the complexity of those reasons can’t be limited to what demographic that person comes from.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=41551
Sure about that?
It will be a factor but not the only one. A person may be Jewish but they are also be a woman/man, middle class/working class, conservative/liberal, come from a Democratic/Republican family etc. They may be eligible for certain benefits and are afraid that a Romney Presidency will cut them, or are taxed too much and want someone who will cut taxes. They may have strong beliefs over the State of Israel and have one opinion or another over how the Obama Presidency is handling the situation.
And yes local movements will have impact. If someone you know and trust says that a person is bad then it may change your vote.
But to turn round and say nothing else matters and all that matters is that they are Jewish and will take orders from their religious and community elders is nothing short of both stupid and insulting to those people.
Seamus
In some of these local communities – I speak of Kiryas Joel in upstate NY, and in Williamsburg and Borough Park in Brooklyn, they vote as the rabbi tells ‘em to vote.
A rule understood by all political actors here. Call it what you wish.
And undoubtedly the same could be said for some Catholic groups but there isn’t a Catholic bloc in the US.
What may be relevant at the local level isn’t so at national elections.
After all, those sites state that 1. for Jews the principal issue is foreign policy, and in particular the situation as regards Israel and 2. that a large majority of Jews voted for Obama.!
If Jews are so fixed on foreign policy/Israel (which I rather doubt), they would hardly vote for by far the least Israel-right-or-wrong candidate the last time out.
Seamus
You are being very thick. The Catholic community does not constitute a monolithic bloc in any part of America. They never vote in a guided way the way the ultraconservative Jews do. Very many Catholics vote for Democrats who love abortion and all the things that the Church is against.
These Jewish communities are small, but that is how they do it.
Noel
You’re right. There is not an equivalent on a national level.
Phantom, there are 6.5 Million Jews in the United States. They don’t all live in small communities nor are the majority of them ultraconservative.
Which is my point.
So how is there a Jewish bloc?
There are undeniable voting blocs within the Jewish community – as stated.
And the Jewish vote in general is so generally and overwhelmingly a Democrat one that it can be said to be a bloc, though one can be pedantic and pretend that it doesn’t exist.
The black vote is even more a monolithic bloc. You could have the Grand Wizard of the KKK and he’d carry the Harlem vote if he was a Democrat.
But their individual demographic is only part of it. The majority of Jewish people vote Democrat (78% in 2008). The majority of gun owners vote Republican (62% in 2008). But what if you are both a gun owner and a Jew? 53% of Rural voters voted Republican. What if you are a rural Jewish gun owner?
It can be said to be a bloc but that doesn’t mean it is. They don’t think as one. They have many of the same pressures and influences on their lives so it isn’t surprising that they reach similar decisions at the ballot box but it is those pressures and influences that shape that vote not just one of those influences.
“They have many of the same pressures and influences on their lives so it isn’t surprising that they reach similar decisions at the ballot box but it is those pressures and influences that shape that vote not just one of those influences.”
Exactly, that’s it in a nutshell.
Otherwise there would be talk of the office-worker bloc and the fashion-designer bloc and other nonsense.
Generally – a large generalisation – Jews tend to be well-educated, thoughtful, more sophisticated and better travelled than the average American and could find Europe on a map.
People like that tend to vote Democrat for, well, for obvious reasons.
How about the “intelligent bloc”?
“People like that tend to vote Democrat for, well, for obvious reasons.”
They love war even more than Republicans?
I would say a voting bloc exists where membership of the group in question significantly changes the likelihood of how someone will vote when other variables are controlled.
For example well off black voters whose profile otherwise matches that of a typical Republican- male, employed, evangelical christian etc, is far more likely to be a Democrat therefore it makes sense to talk of the black vote.
On the other hands a Latino whose demographic profile largely matches that of a typical Republican is not much more likely to be a Democrat, therefore talk of a Latino bloc is probably nonsense.
In the case of Jewish people, I find that many agree quite strongly with the idea of social justice and strong safety nets.
Those who I know personally – who all make a decent living – would generally be very supportive of the idea of things like health care for all. Even if it meant that their taxes went up. I bet that most American Jewish voters would tend to feel this way.
It’s not the worst trait in the world.
A bloc is basically a group of people that share common interests. I find it ironic on this comment thread that I brought up “voting blocs” – otherwise known as “identity politics” – and the Left on this comment thread denys the existence of such.
Are we part of a group, first? individual, second? or, vice-versa.
Dems. normally stress the group part – they call it community, common good, and the like. more often than not, Progressive Dems emphasize sublimating the individual in preference for the needs of the “group.” This is the basis for Socialism, Communism, Marxism -
To some extent it’s long been part of American life
The payment of taxes to support all kinds of things that are deemed to be the public good, the existence of zoning laws, etc. Everyone defers to the public good in lots of ways in every day, and most are very comfortable with that fact.
And compulsory military service, which was with us for a very long time. You can’t say that that wasn’t sublimating the individual. It wasn’t ” communist ” in any way.
Phantom, the opposite of Socialism/Progressivism/Marxism is not NO government. Our Founding Fathers argued for LIMITED government. The US Constitution sets forth LIMITED government. No one but the very foolish argue for NO government.
In Federalist No. 51, Publius wrote:
I quite agree.
I think it is simplistic to the point of stupid to say there is a bloc.
Well, it was Patty who said it.
“And compulsory military service, which was with us for a very long time. You can’t say that that wasn’t sublimating the individual. It wasn’t ” communist ” in any way.”
Of course it is!
It’s an act of violence against the individual in the name of the collective. There’s little more communistic than a compulsory military draft.
Without conscription during the World Wars, you’d have been dead ducks.
Perhaps one needs a little ” communism ” at certain points in history.
“Without conscription during the World Wars, you’d have been dead ducks.”
Evasion.
Without government conscription on the other side there’d have no wars. Always and everywhere, war is a socialistic act of violence against individuals. Screw your government prescriptions.
The age of wars will end when humanity realises that the State is a gang of thieves writ large.
No.
That’s like saying that if Korea and Israel unilaterally abandoned conscription that the North Koreans and Arabs would learn the ways of peace.
If only.
We may always have war, but it will be greatly reduced when we finally realise how diseased and disgusting capitalism is, and move towards socialism.
There was war and oppression under communism. And there still is, in North Korea, still at a war footing all these years later.
Yes Petr because the pre-Capitalists days in the entire span of human history before 1750 were glorious peace filled days with no human suffering.
Patty, the entire point of Government is that society comes together to deal with those things that are important to society. In order to accept that (even in a limited sense) one must accept that society (ie the group, the collective etc) exists.
Capitalism ( as tamed by law and social provisions ) is the greatest engine of wealth and human growth in the history of the world. Most of the world needs much more of it.
North Korea is not communist! It’s an example of nothing.
Seamus,
I neither said nor suggested that, you fool. Comments like that are the reason I usually ignore you.
The North Korean monarchy thinks it is communist. And they have the support of Red China too.
I don’t see these countries a a blueprint for anything. China is a quite vicious regime.
When you have a dictatorship of the proletariat ( or anything else ), viciousness comes with the territory.
The lost leftist tribe in Cuba restricts emigration, jails people who don’t agree with the regime, and does not allow for those with alternate views to compete for power in any way.
And by restricting business formation, they’ve kept the place poor.
I’m sure you’d agree that they’re also no blueprint for anything.
So there is no Communist model anywhere in our real world.
But you make it seem like the world is awful because of Capitalism when, for the most part, Capitalism has significantly improved the world, with the time before it being awful and there being no viable alternative.
Socialism in its purest form is unworkable which is why it has never been tried. It is why when you try to think of Socialist or Communist countries putting true socialism into action you can’t think of any. It is pie in the sky type ideas and has as much place in modern thinking as laissez faire capitalism.
“…Perhaps one needs a little ” communism ” at certain points in history.”
No, Phantom.
one needs:
- limited government
- a government with checks and balances to protect against governmental overreach
– a government that protects the liberty of the individual against the tyranny of the majority
– a government that protects the individual against the tyranny of a minority.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Who protects the majority from the tyranny of the individual?
for the most part, Capitalism has significantly improved the world, with the time before it being awful and there being no viable alternative
Seamus,
Capitalism greatest success is convincing people of what you opine here. In all seriousness I would highly recommend reading Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth, or Peadar Kirby’s Vulnerability and Violence. Both, in different ways, contest what you say. I’m sure you would find it interesting. Anyone who is genuinely intellectually curious would be.
Socialism in its purest form is unworkable which is why it has never been tried
I’ll leave you to ponder the logic of that sentence!
“Patty, the entire point of Government is that society comes together to deal with those things that are important to society. In order to accept that (even in a limited sense) one must accept that society (ie the group, the collective etc) exists.”
Actually, Seamus, in the case of America, this is not true.
In America, with the Declaration of Independence, men are recognized to have inalienable God-given rights.
The US Constitution was formed to protect and ensure an individual’s God-given rights. The US Constitution provides the structure of the US government and if you read the Federalist Papers you will understand the underpining philosophy and purpose of the US government structure.
The basics are:
- men are not angels so some govt. is necessary. But men are not angels so limits must be placed on govt. through checks and balances.
- the purpose of govt. as formed by the Constitution is to ensure each individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Oh, one more book recommendation on this subject: Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time.
Socialism requires humans to set aside human nature. Which is why it is unworkable and always has had to be tainted by totalitarianism.
I may get round to those books eventually.
If you compare the world as it is now compared to the world of 1750 and think is it better or worse. And if you conclude better ask yourself the reasons why.
Seamus: “Who protects the majority from the tyranny of the individual?”
clever word play.
If you are referring to a dictator or king, than the US Constitution protects the individual citizen from the tyranny of a Tyrant.
however, if you are referring to “tyranny” of an individual citizen, it is based on a false premise.
Seamus,
In all seriousness. It’s just too much to get into here but I’m confident you would find each of those books challenging. The view your expressing is not an objective fact. Many great minds have contested it.
Seamus: “Socialism requires humans to set aside human nature.”
I agree. Utopia does not and will never exist.
Patty
I support limited government.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Nearly everyone supports elements of socialism and everyone who’s smart supports elements of capitalism. We can argue about where the lines should be.
But even the average Tea Party supporter supports socialism ( medicare, social security ) when you scratch the surface by a billionth of a millimeter.
What I’m getting at you are thinking exactly along the lines capitalism wants you to.
You are being ‘practical’ in the way James Connolly described it:
But in order to come together as government one must come together first as society. The bulk of the beliefs of the US founding fathers is based on the works of Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes. Central to their themes is the social contract.
But in order for their to be a social contract there must be a society and a group.
Also considering the principle author of the Federalist Papers (though not the paper you cited above) was Alexander Hamilton, one of the earliest proponents for targeted government interference in the economy for the good the country as a whole.
“however, if you are referring to “tyranny” of an individual citizen, it is based on a false premise.”
Except that it isn’t. Tyranny, by definition, is the exercising of power without legitimate right to. Power doesn’t have to be exercised by a government seal and unregulated, unfettered capitalism grants individuals to much control and power over their fellow man and deprives their fellow man of the pursuit of happiness.
Emotionally and morally socialism is a great idea. It just won’t work. They idea that human nature can set aside greed and the desire to control is not actually a reasonable idea.
There is no point in being unprincipled and completely and strictly pragmatic. But there is also no point in being pie in the sky either.
Phantom: no, nearly everyone does not support Socialism, medicare, social security etc. As usual, you jump to conclusions based on your particular world-view and you do not see the illogic of your position.
Limited government is not a little socialized medicine instead of a lot of socialized medicine. The US Constitution sets forth specific limitations with the sole purpose of protecting an individual’s life, liberty and pursuit of happinessm — not providing happiness through medicare etc.
The US Constitution is based on an entirely different premise than the collective premise of Marxism/Socialism.
Have you ever, ever, ever picked up the US COnstitution and read the actual document? Have you bothered to ever read a Federalist Paper? or to listen to a lecture on our founding????
listen, I’m sorry to lose patience with this but going around in circles with you is a waste of time. imo, you have no business pontificating on what the Tea Party professes to believe or not believe unless you bother to read yourself the US Constitution.
” .. and unregulated, unfettered capitalism grants individuals to much control and power over their fellow man and deprives their fellow man of the pursuit of happiness.”
Cobblers.
“Capitalism” is merely a way of ownership of property and assets. Combined with free(ish) markets, or economic liberty, it has enabled humanity to build health, wealth and happiness for the masses beyond even the dreams of rulers prior to the 18th century.
The average man today is incomparably richer and healthier, because of 300 years of British-style capitalism and trade, than anyone living before.
Reading the US Constitution would take a long time Patty. If you started today you could read every part of the Constitution and still not finish it before you die.
Of course one could argue Pete that non-Anglo Saxon capitalist countries (the Germany’s of the world) have created a huge amount of wealth and happiness for her citizens despite not having the same level of free markets or economic liberty.
You will find that very many of the poor countries in the world restrict capitalism a great deal ( Egypt, Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador ) one way or the other. That’s one of the reasons why they’re poor.
100% of the lands that have climbed up in the world by means of work and intellect( not oil ) – and there are a number of them – have done it my way. Capitalism, as tamed by social protections and safety nets. 100%. That’s a fine batting average.
Patty -
Give it up.
In Phantom’s mind the only possible way to live a life is the one he has known. He cannot imagine anything outside of his personal experience.
Marxism/Socialism/Progressivism seeks to provide – PROVIDE – happiness.
The US Constitution seeks to protect an individual so that the individual can pursue – PURSUE — happiness.
Provide – Pursue – provide -pursue – different premises.
one is passive. the other is active.
Passive Socialist/Marxist States seek to provide for the citizen.
The USA as set forth in the US Constitution seeks to protect so that one can pursue (or not) for oneself.
Except that isn’t true. It seeks to provide the conditions so that individuals can pursue their own happiness. If you have to worry about scrapping together a pittance to feed yourself and get your kids healthcare then you probably have more important things to worry about that pursuing happiness.
Eh, no
I am giving you as examples every country that has become richer in the post WW2 period. I have not personally experienced the growth of Korea, Singapore, the rebuilding from ruins of Japan, Germany, etc etc.
Escape the blinders, son. Life and economics is a little more complex than you think.
Seamus: “Reading the US Constitution would take a long time Patty. If you started today you could read every part of the Constitution and still not finish it before you die.”
I hope you’re joking. You must be confusing the US Constitution with the ObamaCare healthcare Behemoth.
Like all good law, the US Constitution is simple and easy to read, by design accessible to ordinary citizens – not just selected “experts.” It’s a couple of pages long, with an additional Bill of Rights and I believe 27 additional amendments. And yes, I have read it. And I have studied it.
Patty, do you have a constitutional right to wave a Tea Party Banner? If you do where do you get that right?
They idea that human nature can set aside greed…..
Not everybody agrees that humans are greedy by nature. Read Polanyi for example.
Yes but I do agree with the perception. Just because some authors don’t doesn’t mean that I don’t. In my opinion greed is part of human nature.
Seamus: “…It seeks to provide the conditions”
no. you are just making stuff up now. the US Constitution protects the individual from tyrannies of majority and minority but it does not “provide conditions.”
you too can be an expert on the US Constitution – take this free online class here!.
as for your 10:21, I do not understand what you are getting at with your question.
Petr: only in Utopia are men exempt from greed and other negative human traits.
“as for your 10:21, I do not understand what you are getting at with your question.”
Then answer it and you will find out.
Patty,
You are a koolaid drinking numpty.
Ron Paul is God.
Sean Hannity is God.
Rush Limbaugh is God.
Stop worshiping the Golden Calf boys.
“Patty, do you have a constitutional right to wave a Tea Party Banner? If you do where do you get that right?”
Patty lives in a common law jurisdiction, ergo she is at liberty to do anything and everything which isn’t expressly and lawfully forbidden.
I forbid you to argue with me any more today.
Good night.
Pete, I meant did the government have the right to restrict her ability to do it.
Seamus -
That’s a funny way of asking.
No, the government has no right to restrict Patty’s ability to do that, no right at all.
And where is it denied to them?
Seamus -
The federal government may only do those things which are strictly and explicitly identified in the constitution and delegated to it.
It may not do anything else, not a thing.
Yes, if the Constitution were strictly enforced today, the federal government would shrink by 90 per cent overnight. That was rather the point of it.
No, the lawful power to restrict flag-waving is not enumerated, therefore the lawful power to restrict flag-waving does not exist.
I’m not just talking about the Federal Government. What prevents State Governments from doing it?
if I understand your question,Seamus, I would say that the us govt. is denied the right to prevent me from waving in the US Constitution specifically in the Bill of Rights under freedom of speech.
But a flag isn’t speech. It can’t talk.
Freedom of speech
But it isn’t Speech? It is expression not speech.
Actually, I think you’re incorrect, Seamus. flag waving falls under “freedom of speech”
when anti war demonstrators sought the freedom to destroy the flag, they won their case under “freedom of speech”
But where does it say that in the Constitutional document that flag waving is speech?
expression. speech. semantics. Ive got other stuff to do. bye.
It isn’t semantics. It is important to the understanding of what a constitution is.
Stop being a dickhead.
Petr: “You are a koolaid drinking numpty.”
obviously, reasoning is not one of your strengths. not a surprise. emotional rejection of logic and facts seems to rule the day with most Leftists.
I’m not being a dickhead. Americans have some foolish notion that a Constitution is a document. I am asking where in the document does it say that Speech covers all matters of expression?
The simple fact is that it does not. Thus if the Constitution was only a document there would only be a protection for speech and only speech. A Constitution, as you know Pete, is the governing principles and precedents on which the state is set. While the Constitutional document is the source it isn’t the constitution in its entirety and is only one minuscule part. Supreme Court rulings, the Federalist Papers etc are all part of the Constitution and so the US Constitution is not a few pages long but is in fact a collection of documents that would take a life time to read.
Seamus -
Asking what is a constitution is different from nit-picking over whether or how Patty is allowed to wave a flag.
Of course the First Amendment covers forms of expression other than speech. It is a common law maxim that the spirit of a law is superior to its letter. The spirit of both the First Amendment and the Constitution in its entirety is that if Americans want to wave a flag then they are entirely at liberty to do so and there’s not a thing the government can do about it.
Oh! How clever you are, Seamus! you mean there’s actually foundational principles supporting the document! You mean there are Federalist Papers and probably Anti-Federalist Papers as well??
oh, my! what a clever lad you are! you mean that when the Supreme Court reviews the Constitutionality of cases they do more than just look up the appropriate amendments? Maybe they look up prior opinions and stuff?? Gee. Never thought of that. ..
For a moment there, Seamus, I thought you were interested in actually debating the premises that provide the foundation for Socialism versus the premises that support the USA.
My mistake. Mea Culpa.
The point I was making was that the Constitution is more complicated, more in depth and far harder to understand than simply reading the Source documents. It is why if you put 10 people in the room you’ll get 15 opinions on any part of the constitution.
There is more the Constitution than one document. It is far from simple. Those prior opinions are part of the constitution until they are changed as they give deeper meaning to relatively simple phrases. Those papers are part of the constitution because it gives insight into the words of the document.
I often forget how superficial and intellectually lazy some are in this little pub. Forgive me.
How is it intellectually lazy?
Study the damn thing, please Seamus, before you start lecturing on how “complex” it is.
Obviously, the Constitution is not like a phone book. That is obvious to even the silliest grade school student.
But, it’s not the solar system, either. By design… the writers of the COnstitution wrote it to be accessible. Like all good law. it doesn’t take a “lifetime” to understand. Go to this link and take a course and then get back to me.
No. Because one course cannot teach all there is about the US Constitution. It will undoubtedly be slanted in one point of view (yours) otherwise you wouldn’t be advocating it.
To understand the Constitution you need to understand it in its present state not the state it was in at the end of the 18th century. That means understanding how it has changed and evolved.
I also didn’t say it took a lifetime to understand. It takes a lifetime to read it.
So you won’t bother to take a free online course – or seek other instruction – because you assume it is all slanted?
You’d rather just spout-off “truths” based on your uneducated assumptions picked up randomly from various oddball sources. You sound like Phantom.
And you’re going to parrot the “Its evolved” line without any insight into what this means or doesn’t mean and the implication this has both for the Progressives and for those who fly the Tea Party Banner.
This is what I mean by intellectually lazy.
At least you’re honest about your lack of curiosity and your intellectual laziness. That’s something at least.
Or how about actually from learning about things and thinking for myself instead of swallowing some course just because Rush Limbaugh told you to do it?
Looking at some of the topics “The Progressive Rejection of the Founding”, “The Recovery of the Constitution” tells me enough. It isn’t education. It’s politically motivated drivel.
And you call me intellectually lazy? I can actually think for myself.
” I can actually think for myself.”
Actually I’m not so sure. . you parrot Phantom’s mantra that I listen to Rush et al for my opinions – the problem with this is that Phantom has never really listened to Rush so he has no clue how my opinions might interface with his, or Hannity or anybody else. And neither do you. This is just a Phantom talking point designed to shut me up because he – like you – does not want to question his assumptions.
As for rejecting outright “The Progressive Rejection of the Founding” – first, let me say that I am seriously impressed that you actually linked through this far and I am surprised that you weren’t just a tad bit curious to listen to the free video which is well researched – and the reading material which includes all of the original source materials from the Progressive writers and thinkers – who, btw, are not in hiding, nor apologetic and who do not run from the idea that they reject the Founding.
They do reject the Founding. “We have evolved.” That is the Progressive premise. You can accept or reject it. But at least be aware of it in an educated non-random way. It’s not propaganda to read the Progressive movement founding thinkers and to understand where the movement came from and is going.
In Petr’s case, he believes that not all men are “greedy” – he therefore believes in the possibility of Utopia, and he makes a good Progressive. This is an honest posititon to take and an honest premise to argue from.
I don’t agree with the premise but it’s not propaganda to recognize the Progressive position and to argue against it.
It is propaganda however to push it as an education on the Constitution. It is one sided. Properly scholarly work takes the matter from all sides and allows the students to decide for themselves.
Also they haven’t rejected the founding. One of the earliest proponents of the State intervening in the economy, intervening in financial matters, granting loans the companies (the sort of stuff you are all attacking Obama for) was Alexander Hamilton, one of the US Founding Fathers.
Patty
I heard Rush years before you did.
Hevhit it big in NYC before he went national.