Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 8:56:46 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Bama, would you consider a person who says that the second amendment only applied to muskets would also believe that the first amendment only applied to pamphlets made on ol timey printing presses that were operated by hand. So, that person would believe TV, radio, the Internet, large newspapers, modern magazines, fax machines, office printers and cell phones were not subject to the first amendment because the framers never envisioned them?


An argument used and torpedo'd easily in most courts.

The first amendment's first three sections are intangible rights. They are an expression. Again, an intangible idea. That I can pass an idea to another person freely without government interference (given limits and exceptions to the law). Be it by vocalization, written word, artwork, music, electronic, or sign language. Oh yes, there have been 'conservative' types whom tried to limit things; and they lost in court time and again. This age's 'test' is whether or not the Internet should be free from corporate and government regulations (i.e. Net Neutrality).

The Founding Fathers did explain one concept about the US Constitution, that you are conveniently (for political reasons) leaving out. The document is not set in stone. That can be easily proven by the additional seventeen amendments that come after the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers believed that future generations would know how best to handle situations. Which brings up the second peice of evidence:

Compare the written wording of the 1st to the 25th. That they talk on different concepts is not relevant here. The 1st has 'X' number of characters, and the 25th, 'y' number of characters. The 27th is much further defined. Why is that?

The courts, historians, and even educated folks have observed that as the nation grew, all parts of it become more sophisticated. Technology, language, culture; why not how we view an amendment?

But that's not the full understanding. A law in modern day has three concepts, one of which was absent or not well established in the Bill of Rights: The spirit of the law. Both amendments have a written understanding of the law. Both have notes from the author(s) about the amendment. But the 27th has a 'spirit of the law'. Meaning, the author admits they can not for see each and every possible way the amendment could be used. So they give a narrative in as clear and understandable terms as possible as to the nature of how the amendment would work.

The amendments found in the Bill of Rights does not have that. Which logically speaking, might explain why we have so many 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and even 10th amendment battles in the courts. Or is CNN or FOX 'news' reporting on the latest 13th, 19th, or 26th amendment fights?

That people learned from mistakes. An it found its way into the legal code as well. Look at the bills going through Congress right now. There is a set of reasons why the format and style of each bill (regardless of content) is handled the same way. And in ways, different from bills from the late 18th century.

Really, cite one court.

You're making things up again.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 9:36:53 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There is no doubt the rightist 'conservatives' and 'republicans' are more dangerous than Hitler, and make ISIL look like girl scouts.



Considering the amount of damage caused by certain ideas proposed by certain countries, and I include England in this, you have a point that is far too unpalatable for some to consider.

The notion that certain ideals must be preserved has led certain countries to feel a sense of superiority and duty.

The British Empire, although it began out of commerce, did become a beast to control the ideas of the world. Those ideas being liberal. The obvious contradiction being that anyone imbued with a sense of liberty should surely apply this in dealings with other countries, as opposed to the view that for the good of the world we must make them like us.

In terms of longevity, the British Empire and the current United States version, have certainly been more destructive than anything the Germans could ever hope to aspire to.

The moral compass of certain nations, of course, mediates against looking at the dark, uncomfortable truth. That moral compass being: "look at how great we are, we have absolutely no intention of killing people because that's just not in our peaceful nature, but they're making us kill them because if we don't they'll kill us, and so we have no option to kill them until they submit and become like us: they'll thank us for it later."

None of this, what the British Empire did, or what the current United States version is doing, is any different to what the Nazis did in principle.

I'm sure the Nazis believed they were absolutely right, that the world would be a better place in the event they killed people for what was in their eyes a worthy cause.

Of course, people will be reading this thinking: "who?! us?! we're kind and peaceful". But it's the great contradiction with Liberalism that people can see themselves as peaceful while killing people abroad at the same time - that sense of superiority and duty.

The reason these people, such as Tony Blair and associates, are much more dangerous than the like of the Nazis; is because the Nazis are widely viewed as idiots and thugs, whereas the perceived wisdom of the people who run our country and your country is generally seen as reasonable.

Which, of course it's anything but, it's just another version of: "we must force the people to be free, at the end of a gun if need be, they'll thank us for it later". Only difference being it's being done abroad.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 9:39:25 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Gott mit Uns.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 9:41:13 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

NG has rather nailed it on the nature of anarchism.

As for Leftists Anarchists being more dangerous than ISIS....... What planet did that fucking idea come from, the notion is absurd in the extreme. While it may have held some merit after the French or Russian revolutions, and what happened there was a power grab by certain individuals, it didnt happen after the American Revolution.



cloudboy and his favorite propaganda organ, the New York Slimes came up with that gem

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 9:45:42 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Gott mit Uns.



Well, yeah, when German soldiers wore that slogan on their belts during WW1, they believed they were saving European civilisation from the commercial outlook of the English.

The English, on the other hand, believed we were saving the world from autocracy and Militarism.

Except both countries decided the best idea was to save the world by killing people.

And, this is what social anarchists would argue, a few powerful people are making absolutely no sense and distorting human nature.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 9:49:18 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Well, yeah, when German soldiers wore that slogan on their belts during WW1, they believed they were saving European civilisation from the commercial outlook of the English.

The English, on the other hand, believed we were saving the world from autocracy and Militarism.

Except both countries decided the best idea was to save the world by killing people.

And, this is what social anarchists would argue, a few powerful people are making absolutely no sense and distorting human nature.



And communists, socialists, "liberals" and progressives believe in helping the poor

They believe in it so much in fact, that they want to make as many of them as possible


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 9:54:21 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Well, yeah, when German soldiers wore that slogan on their belts during WW1, they believed they were saving European civilisation from the commercial outlook of the English.

The English, on the other hand, believed we were saving the world from autocracy and Militarism.

Except both countries decided the best idea was to save the world by killing people.

And, this is what social anarchists would argue, a few powerful people are making absolutely no sense and distorting human nature.



And communists, socialists, "liberals" and progressives believe in helping the poor

They believe in it so much in fact, that they want to make as many of them as possible



Just more of the same regurgitating as much of the party line as possible.

I think this discussion has passed you by, Sanity.

You probably intended it to be a load of people just repeating cheap sound-bites.

The discussion has moved on, and until you move on you are and always will be out of your depth.






_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 9:57:24 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Just more of the same regurgitating as much of the party line as possible.

I think this discussion has passed you by, Sanity.

You probably intended it to be a load of people just repeating cheap sound-bites.

The discussion has moved on, and until you move on you are and always will be out of your depth.


Back to your old trollish self again



_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 10:15:17 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Well, yeah, when German soldiers wore that slogan on their belts during WW1, they believed they were saving European civilisation from the commercial outlook of the English.

The English, on the other hand, believed we were saving the world from autocracy and Militarism.

Except both countries decided the best idea was to save the world by killing people.

And, this is what social anarchists would argue, a few powerful people are making absolutely no sense and distorting human nature.



And communists, socialists, "liberals" and progressives believe in helping the poor

They believe in it so much in fact, that they want to make as many of them as possible


Well, that or kill off a few hundred million more of them

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 10:19:29 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Well, yeah, when German soldiers wore that slogan on their belts during WW1, they believed they were saving European civilisation from the commercial outlook of the English.

The English, on the other hand, believed we were saving the world from autocracy and Militarism.

Except both countries decided the best idea was to save the world by killing people.

And, this is what social anarchists would argue, a few powerful people are making absolutely no sense and distorting human nature.



And communists, socialists, "liberals" and progressives believe in helping the poor

They believe in it so much in fact, that they want to make as many of them as possible



Just more of the same regurgitating as much of the party line as possible.

I think this discussion has passed you by, Sanity.

You probably intended it to be a load of people just repeating cheap sound-bites.

The discussion has moved on, and until you move on you are and always will be out of your depth.






Actually, NG, historically, what Sanity is saying is no less accurate than what you are agreeing with jester on. So, whatever you've directed toward Sanity you should probably take to heart as well.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 10:24:38 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Well, yeah, when German soldiers wore that slogan on their belts during WW1, they believed they were saving European civilisation from the commercial outlook of the English.

The English, on the other hand, believed we were saving the world from autocracy and Militarism.

Except both countries decided the best idea was to save the world by killing people.

And, this is what social anarchists would argue, a few powerful people are making absolutely no sense and distorting human nature.



And communists, socialists, "liberals" and progressives believe in helping the poor

They believe in it so much in fact, that they want to make as many of them as possible



Just more of the same regurgitating as much of the party line as possible.

I think this discussion has passed you by, Sanity.

You probably intended it to be a load of people just repeating cheap sound-bites.

The discussion has moved on, and until you move on you are and always will be out of your depth.






Actually, NG, historically, what Sanity is saying is no less accurate than what you are agreeing with jester on. So, whatever you've directed toward Sanity you should probably take to heart as well.


You'd have to put some meat on the bones? What Sanity is saying is a monumental load of bollocks and he may as well jump in the nearest zoo and scratch his arse with the apes. But, happy to clarify in terms of why what I'm saying bears no relation to what Sanity is saying. You'd have to add details to your point, though.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 10:27:10 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Well, yeah, when German soldiers wore that slogan on their belts during WW1, they believed they were saving European civilisation from the commercial outlook of the English.

The English, on the other hand, believed we were saving the world from autocracy and Militarism.

Except both countries decided the best idea was to save the world by killing people.

And, this is what social anarchists would argue, a few powerful people are making absolutely no sense and distorting human nature.



And communists, socialists, "liberals" and progressives believe in helping the poor

They believe in it so much in fact, that they want to make as many of them as possible



Just more of the same regurgitating as much of the party line as possible.

I think this discussion has passed you by, Sanity.

You probably intended it to be a load of people just repeating cheap sound-bites.

The discussion has moved on, and until you move on you are and always will be out of your depth.






Actually, NG, historically, what Sanity is saying is no less accurate than what you are agreeing with jester on. So, whatever you've directed toward Sanity you should probably take to heart as well.


You'd have to put some meat on the bones? What Sanity is saying is a monumental load of bollocks and he may as well jump in the nearest zoo and scratch his arse with the apes. But, happy to clarify in terms of why what I'm saying bears no relation to what Sanity is saying. You'd have to add details to your point, though.



Its right there in the quote boxes NG

Playing stoopid again, as well as assuming your troll mantle I see

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 10:31:27 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Well, yeah, when German soldiers wore that slogan on their belts during WW1, they believed they were saving European civilisation from the commercial outlook of the English.

The English, on the other hand, believed we were saving the world from autocracy and Militarism.

Except both countries decided the best idea was to save the world by killing people.

And, this is what social anarchists would argue, a few powerful people are making absolutely no sense and distorting human nature.



And communists, socialists, "liberals" and progressives believe in helping the poor

They believe in it so much in fact, that they want to make as many of them as possible



Just more of the same regurgitating as much of the party line as possible.

I think this discussion has passed you by, Sanity.

You probably intended it to be a load of people just repeating cheap sound-bites.

The discussion has moved on, and until you move on you are and always will be out of your depth.






Actually, NG, historically, what Sanity is saying is no less accurate than what you are agreeing with jester on. So, whatever you've directed toward Sanity you should probably take to heart as well.


You'd have to put some meat on the bones? What Sanity is saying is a monumental load of bollocks and he may as well jump in the nearest zoo and scratch his arse with the apes. But, happy to clarify in terms of why what I'm saying bears no relation to what Sanity is saying. You'd have to add details to your point, though.



Its right there in the quote boxes NG

Playing stoopid again, as well as assuming your troll mantle I see

Concur. And it would seem to be beneath you NG.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/20/2015 10:37:21 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Concur. And it would seem to be beneath you NG.


Nothing is beneath him, he is just a troll.

Plays gentleman for a time, but soon resumes full troll mode

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/21/2015 1:46:39 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Bama, would you consider a person who says that the second amendment only applied to muskets would also believe that the first amendment only applied to pamphlets made on ol timey printing presses that were operated by hand. So, that person would believe TV, radio, the Internet, large newspapers, modern magazines, fax machines, office printers and cell phones were not subject to the first amendment because the framers never envisioned them?


An argument used and torpedo'd easily in most courts.

The first amendment's first three sections are intangible rights. They are an expression. Again, an intangible idea. That I can pass an idea to another person freely without government interference (given limits and exceptions to the law). Be it by vocalization, written word, artwork, music, electronic, or sign language. Oh yes, there have been 'conservative' types whom tried to limit things; and they lost in court time and again. This age's 'test' is whether or not the Internet should be free from corporate and government regulations (i.e. Net Neutrality).

The Founding Fathers did explain one concept about the US Constitution, that you are conveniently (for political reasons) leaving out. The document is not set in stone. That can be easily proven by the additional seventeen amendments that come after the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers believed that future generations would know how best to handle situations. Which brings up the second peice of evidence:

Compare the written wording of the 1st to the 25th. That they talk on different concepts is not relevant here. The 1st has 'X' number of characters, and the 25th, 'y' number of characters. The 27th is much further defined. Why is that?

The courts, historians, and even educated folks have observed that as the nation grew, all parts of it become more sophisticated. Technology, language, culture; why not how we view an amendment?

But that's not the full understanding. A law in modern day has three concepts, one of which was absent or not well established in the Bill of Rights: The spirit of the law. Both amendments have a written understanding of the law. Both have notes from the author(s) about the amendment. But the 27th has a 'spirit of the law'. Meaning, the author admits they can not for see each and every possible way the amendment could be used. So they give a narrative in as clear and understandable terms as possible as to the nature of how the amendment would work.

The amendments found in the Bill of Rights does not have that. Which logically speaking, might explain why we have so many 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and even 10th amendment battles in the courts. Or is CNN or FOX 'news' reporting on the latest 13th, 19th, or 26th amendment fights?

That people learned from mistakes. An it found its way into the legal code as well. Look at the bills going through Congress right now. There is a set of reasons why the format and style of each bill (regardless of content) is handled the same way. And in ways, different from bills from the late 18th century.

Really, cite one court.

You're making things up again.


I did, it was called the 25th amendment....

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/21/2015 1:54:03 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Just saying "your making shit up" without giving EVIDENCE and FACT, is not enough of an argument.

You're making shit up again


Your problem is very simple Kirata. You got OWNED each time, in each argument you linked. You failed to give even an average response or rebuttal. When you knew that I KICKED YOUR ASS, you would say, and I quote "You dont know shit". That is your subconscious stating to me, that you dont have anything more to stay. The argument was good and solid. I did my homework. I even stated how things will play out in the near future. I stated very fairly the two directions things will go and neither of them are good; so why go down either path? Is your ego bigger than your objective viewpoint?

"Your making shiut up again" is not a good answer. Its someone a 2nd grader states to the teacher whom asked a very simplistic question. Unfortunately for you, I have the college degree. Either up your game play, or shut the fuck up!

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/21/2015 2:18:35 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The nearest thing we have to anarchists on these boards are those from the US libertarian Far Right, who believe in reducing Govt to its absolute minimum. That's a little short of the anarchist ideal of having no Govt at all, but still pretty close.

It is an obvious contradiction in terms to simultaneously accuse 'Leftists" of being anarchists and pro-Big Govt. It is impossible to reconcile these positions, except perhaps in the more lurid parts of looney Right minds, where all kinds of strange and miraculous fantasies are believed to be real.

Social anarchists, or left leaning anarchists, do conform to the idea of a government. The departure with the current system is that they believe that power should not be concentrated in the hands of the state, nor in the hands of a select group of private interests.

They believe that power should be concentrated in the hands of the people, who by nature are benevolent and empathetic towards fellow human beings and therefore, and by extension will be self-governing.

Assuming the aim of government is peace, prosperity and harmony, then according to social anarchists there is absolutely no need for a state because humans beings will naturally co-operate in the interests of peace and prosperity etc.

It follows that they believe the state and private interests are a barrier to the stated goals of society, and only serve to corrupt the essence of human beings by using their unjustified authority to serve their own interests first and foremost.

What is probably unknown to some is that John Locke proposed certain ideas around ownership of property that have been consumed by social anarchists.

One of the cornerstones of Social Anarchism is the principle of free association, rather than servitude to the state and corporate interests. That is the whole point for them really. They don't subscribe to chaos and a lack of organisation: they simply believe that the best form of government is self-government because human beings are naturally benevolent and protective of the fellow man/woman.

When you boil it down to its bare bones, it's not really anything out of the ordinary. People, all sorts of people, have been arguing that the state and corporate interests are corrupt; and all sorts of people have argued that the natural state of human beings is one of benevolence.


'Social Anarchy' is a contradiction of ideas. A society is built upon rules, however simplistic they maybe in final form. Be it a tribal nomadic structure, or a captian of a pirate vessel during the 'golden years' of the Caribbean. As more complex terms of individuals to be social to one another in a non-primative/non-barbaric way, required ways to exist together within a set of rules. These rules did not become active over night. Humans are not computers in which we change one thing and get a mental 'blue screen of death'. It takes time for concepts to take hold and form. In the modern world, we demand change of social views on a wide level of things. Unfortunately our brains are still using software from 100,000+ years ago (if you understand the neuroscience).

Anarchy, is the is the freedom of government or social structure. A true anarchy has never really lasted long, before another form of government took over the area. Just as there has never been a true form of Democracy, The Republic, Communism, or dare I say it, Fascism. Since the true form would also be the perfect form of that government type. Since the true form of each government would be one in which the people that make up that area, were totally at peace with each other. Every culture, every history book has countless conflicts big and small.

A true social anarchy would imply order, which is the exact opposite of a term. A government, would be an example of order. So social anarchy is really not anarchy, is it, if there exists a government in some form. Its like how the words, there, their, they're all sound the same but are applied in different ways. Which one of them is the true form of the word?

Corruption is simply a perception of wrong. That of course depends on what we consider 'wrong'. Which would means we would have to consider what is 'right'. We can't really have right, until we have a framework by which we determine right from wrong, and subsequently, wrong from right. Could someone that is left handed, write the word 'right', or is that wrong? That any entity could become corrupted is not limited to just governments and corporations. Individuals, groups, organizations, unions, etc; each and more can become corrupted.

The founding fathers once believed that only government could become corrupted to the point of being tyrannical onto the good citizens of the nation. Hence how the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights was drafted. Interestingly enough, the last part of four in the 2nd amendment, is a protection of the militia from being forced to surrender their arms, if ordered by a corrupted government. In the time since then to now, most Americans wouldn't even know that. Yet, as I see things, the government becoming corrupted and behaving tyrannical' is not the only entity to gain this status. That very wealthy individuals, groups of very wealthy individuals, corporations, religious groups, and the government could become corrupted and behave in a tyrannical manner. Or any combination of each of them.

An those whom are corrupted, will not allow anarchy in any form to exist. They would have everything to lose by such a situation. They'd lose money, influence, power, prestige, ability to lord over others, etc. An yet, in anarchy, one can be completely corrupted, since anarchy has no mechanism for removing such behavioral viewpoints or operations.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/21/2015 4:00:21 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

An those whom are corrupted, will not allow anarchy in any form to exist. They would have everything to lose by such a situation. They'd lose money, influence, power, prestige, ability to lord over others, etc. An yet, in anarchy, one can be completely corrupted, since anarchy has no mechanism for removing such behavioral viewpoints or operations.



Agreed in that no way, shape or form will a change to the established order be allowed.

Take two examples from my country:

Around the late 1800s, there was a lot of migration into England from places such as Russia, Poland, Germany, as well as Jews from all over Europe; and they brought with them a different way of thinking.

They were largely socialists and anarchists. They were watched like a proverbial hawk by the secret services, meetings broken up etc: under no circumstances were the ideas to gain a foothold.

Fast forward to 1984/85 and the miners' strike. The government decide that the power of the miners' unions had to be smashed. Initially the people of the country were sympathetic to the miners. But, working in tandem with the media and a general spread of lies, the government turned public opinion which was enough for the government to be able to send the police in from all parts of the country to crack a few skulls and generally make it very difficult for the miners and their families to protest and put their point across.

When push comes to shove, under no circumstances will left-wing ideas ever be allowed to gain a foothold and in the event the government/establishment have to misinform the public to achieve this then to them all's fair in love and war.

In terms of Social Anarchism, though, I think the point to them is that the current system is the problem, not the inherent nature of human beings; and given the opportunity within a system with no unjustified authority, people will revert to their innate disposition, that being benevolence. In other words, take away the authority of the state and corporate interests and you would not have corruption in society.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/21/2015 8:07:57 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

Anarchists dont seem so bad

Lets compare to ISIS then. From the AP:


quote:


State of fear: Survivors tell of life under IS rule

ESKI MOSUL, Iraq (AP) — Inside the Islamic State's realm, the paper testifying that you have "repented" from your heretical past must be carried at all times. Many people laminate it just to be safe. It can mean the difference between life and death.

Bilal Abdullah learned that not long after the extremists took over his Iraqi village, Eski Mosul, a year ago. As he walked down the street, an Islamic State fighter in a pickup truck asked directions to a local mosque. When Abdullah didn't recognize the mosque's name, the fighter became suspicious.

"He told me my faith is weak and asked, 'Do you pray?'" Abdullah recalled. Then the fighter asked to see his "repentance card." Abdullah had been a policeman until the IS takeover, and policemen and soldiers are required to have one. So are many other former government loyalists or employees — even former English teachers, since they once taught a "forbidden" language and tailors of women's clothes because they once designed styles deemed un-Islamic.

Abdullah had left his card at home. Terrified, he sent his son running to get it.

"They are brutal people," he told The Associated Press. "They can consider you an infidel for the simplest thing."

...

The Islamic State's domain is a place where men douse themselves with cologne to hide the odor of forbidden cigarettes; where taxi drivers or motorists usually play the IS radio station, since music can get a driver 10 lashes; where women must be entirely covered, in black, and in flat-soled shoes; where people are thrown to their deaths off buildings on suspicion of homosexuality; where shops must close during Muslim prayers, and everyone found outdoors must attend.

There is no safe way out. People vanish— their disappearance explained by a video of their beheading, an uninformative death certificate, or nothing at all.

"People hate them, but they've despaired, and they don't see anyone supporting them if they rise up," said a 28-year-old Syrian who asked to be identified only by the nickname he uses in political activism, Adnan, in order to protect his family still living under IS rule. "People feel that nobody is with them."

...

THE TAKEOVER

In January 2014, when the Islamic State group took over the Syrian city of Raqqa, Adnan fled, fearing his work as a political activist would make him a target. But after a few months of missing his family, he returned to see whether he could endure life under the extremists.

Adnan found Raqqa transformed from a once-colorful cosmopolitan city into the Islamic State's de facto capital. Women covered head to toe in black scurried quickly to markets before rushing home, young men avoided the cafes they once frequented. IS fighters turned the city soccer stadium into a prison and interrogation center, known as "Point 11." One of the city's central plazas was now referred to by residents as "Jaheem" Square — Hell Square.

He soon learned why. He heard celebratory gunshots one day and saw the bodies of three men dangling from poles in Hell Square. The corpses were left there for three days, he told AP as he chain-smoked in a cafe in Gaziantep, a town on the Turkish border filled with Syrians living in exile.

The reign of terror he had fled had gotten only worse, he said.

Each time the Islamic State group overruns a community, the pattern has been roughly similar, AP found — as methodical as it is bloody.

First comes an initial wave of killings of police and troops. Then the fighters often seek to garner support by quickly repairing electricity and water lines. They call on bureaucrats to return to work. Government employees and any former troops or policemen sign their "repentance" papers and must hand over their weapons or pay fines sometimes amounting to several thousand dollars.

In loudspeaker announcements, mosque sermons and leaflets, new regulations are laid out: No smoking, no alcohol, and no women working except as nurses or in women's clothing shops, where even mannequins in store windows are covered. Residents said they were required to build walls outside their homes so women would never be seen.

In each district, an "emir" — often a local militant — is appointed to govern. Schools close, then reopen with IS-written curricula. Taxes are imposed on businesses. Pharmacies are given Shariah courses and banned from selling contraceptives....

...Adnan's one-time activism in support of Syrian rebels caught up with him. In January, a patrol raided his family home, confiscated his laptop and arrested him for publishing online articles they said encouraged secularism. "Such a pretty house," a patrol member said before smashing two glass water pipes. "This pollutes the environment," he told Adnan.

For the next 55 days, Adnan was held in Point 11, the soccer stadium.

He was interrogated three times in the initial days, beaten with a green plastic pipe. Then he was moved out of isolation into wards with other prisoners.

Soon after came another gruesome moment. One of the top Islamic State judges in the area, a local man known by the pseudonym Abu Ali al-Sharei, dropped by in early February to teach another lesson in Islamic law to the prisoners. He made small talk with a roomful of them. Then he grinned and said, "Listen, I haven't told you yet, but today we made al-Kaseasbeh crispy."

He took a flash drive out of his pocket, Adnan said, and, to the prisoners' horror, played them footage of captured Jordanian Air Force pilot Muath al-Kaseasbeh being burned alive in a cage by his IS captors.

Adnan's account is just one example of how IS uses the execution videos that it broadcasts to the world online to also intimidate people under its rule.

...

Adnan met Palestinian prisoner Mohammed Musallam, whom IS accused of being a spy for Israel. Musallam told Adnan his captors were repeatedly filming him in his own execution video. Each time, he said, they would video a child shooting him in the head — but each time the gun would be empty.

"Then one day, they executed him for real," Adnan said.

In March, the Islamic State group released a video showing Musallam's death. Kneeling in a field, he is shot in the head by a young boy wearing military camouflage.

Adnan said he believes that is why many victims in the execution videos appear so calm. "They repeat the thing with them like 20 times. So when the real one comes, the prisoner will think it's just another mock execution," he said.

...

SURVIVING THE CALIPHATE — OR NOT

In Eski Mosul, a village on a bend in Iraq's Tigris River, Sheikh Abdullah Ibrahim lives in one of the larger houses, behind high walls with a garden. He looked exhausted as he showed AP journalists one IS vestige he's keeping: the death certificate for his wife, the group's black logo on top.

It's all he has left of her.

IS swept into the village of some 3,000 families in June last year, established its reign over a grim seven-month period, then fled in January when Kurdish fighters ran them out. IS forces remain dug in only a few miles away, so close that smoke can be seen from fighting on the front lines.

Ibrahim's wife, Buthaina, had been an outspoken human rights advocate and had run for the provincial council in Mosul. So when IS took over, fighters demanded she apply for a repentance card. "She said she'd never stoop so low," her husband said.

He knew the danger. He had seen the bodies of a dozen policemen in the street, shot in the head. He'd seen others thrown off buildings. He had heard talk of the dreaded "Khasfa," a deep natural sinkhole in the desert south of Mosul where the extremists boast of throwing bodies — or sometimes living victims.

Ibrahim sent his wife away to safety for a few days, but she soon returned, missing their three daughters and two sons, he said. Her youngest was 2.

A few nights later, in early October, the militants came for her, he said.

Ibrahim and his wife were asleep, but their daughters were watching TV. "Wake up, dad, Daesh is in the front yard," they called out, using the group's Arabic acronym. Ibrahim saw the house was surrounded.

They demanded to see Buthaina. Ibrahim tried to protect her, he said, but she came out and confronted the IS extremists, demanding an explanation. An argument ensued, and one militant handcuffed the sheikh and knocked him across the head with a pistol. The men pushed Buthaina into their car, and took Ibrahim's as well.

A member of the powerful al-Jabour tribe, Ibrahim hoped his connections — and money — could win Buthaina's freedom.

He and fellow tribesmen went to the nearby town of Tal Afar, an IS stronghold from which many of the fighters who took Eski Mosul had come. There, he said, he met in a mosque with Abu Alaa al-Afari, a local IS commander who some Iraqi officials now believe has risen to become the No. 2 figure in the "caliphate."

Ibrahim begged for his wife's release, pointing out that she was still breastfeeding their youngest son, Arkam.

"It doesn't matter. Your children will become orphans," al-Afari replied, according to Ibrahim.

...

Another Eski Mosul resident, 31-year-old Fadi Mohammed, wishes that all he had gotten from IS was his brother's death certificate.

He and his brother, Mohammed Mohammed, were both former policemen who had given up their weapons and signed repentance papers. But his brother was arrested after informants claimed he was part of an elite intelligence unit. Mohammed Mohammed was sent to Mosul. In January, 13 days before the Kurds took back Eski Mosul, Mohammed said IS militants "brought us discs that showed his beheading."

Now, he said, "I want to blow myself up among Daesh. Even that won't satisfy me. If I chop them up, drink their blood and eat their hearts, it won't take away my pain."

Laying low was often key to survival in the "caliphate," several of those interviewed said. Best to stay home as much as possible, avoiding checkpoints of IS fighters and the "Hisba" committees, the dreaded enforcers of IS' innumerable regulations.

...

Punishments for smoking, for wearing Western clothes or for playing the wrong radio station can vary from a fine to imprisonment for a few hours or days — often depending on the Hisba's mood. For more serious or repeat offenses, the fighters might bind the perpetrator to a pole in a town square for several days with his crime written on a sign around his neck.

Women try not to go out at all, most of those interviewed by AP said. If they do go to market, they sometimes avoid taking their husbands, sons or brothers with them: If they're harassed by the Hisba, their male relative might defend them and bring the Hisba's wrath.

It's not an unreasonable fear. Abu Zein, a 31-year-old who recently fled the eastern Syrian town of Muhassan, recounted how a Hisba member one day berated a woman for being improperly covered as she swept her porch. Her brother came out and argued, the fight escalated, the militant shot the brother, and the brother's relatives promptly killed the militant. Soon after, a larger contingent of Islamic State fighters descended on the house and killed eight members of the family, Abu Zein said.

Abu Zein said he was detained multiple times for various minor offenses, including visiting his uncle's grave.

During Islamic holidays late last year, he said, militants announced in mosques that it was forbidden to visit the graves of relatives, a holiday tradition that IS sees as encouraging polytheism. Abu Zein's uncle had died of cancer the year before, so he, his cousin and another relative decided to defy the ban.

As they approached the graveyard, IS fighters opened fire over their heads, shouting "Grave worshippers!" and "This is forbidden!" Abu Zein said he and his friends tried to reason with them. "You cannot stop me from visiting my father," cried Abu Zein's 20-year-old cousin — prompting one militant to slap him across the face. The three were arrested and detained for several hours before being released with a warning.

Sheikh Abdullah Ibrahim's wife, Buthaina, never reappeared after being taken by the militants.

Shortly after her husband appealed for her release, he received the death certificate. A simple sheet of paper from an "Islamic court" with a judge's signature, it said only that Buthaina's death was verified, nothing more.

It is a horrifying document, but he's keeping it, he said, "because it has her name on it."

...

ESCAPING THE CALIPHATE

Escape is not easy. Residents are banned from leaving their cities without first applying for permission, filling out a long form with all their personal details and setting property as a guarantee that IS will seize if they don't return. Women must apply to the Hisba to travel and are often refused permission, out of concern that they will not follow IS dress codes once they are out.

When Adnan's aunt needed cancer treatment, she applied to leave IS territory to get care. The IS refused but sent her to Mosul, paying for transport and some of the medical costs, though not her chemotherapy.

...

Adnan decided it was time for him to go. He paid a smuggler to drive him along dirt roads about 25 kilometers to the Tal Abyad border crossing, which at the time was in IS hands and was shut from the Turkish side, then paid another smuggler to get him into Turkey. "It was an adventure," he said, smiling.

Escape was much more harrowing for Ali, a 63-year-old appliance store owner from the Iraqi town of al-Zaab, near Mosul, who asked that his full name not be used to protect relatives still under IS rule. He told AP that when he decided to flee, he managed to convince local authorities he was only going on a three-day work trip. They gave him a permission slip without a guarantee of property, so he set out in his car with his wife, son and daughter-in-law.

Between them and freedom were three different checkpoints. At the first, fighters wrote down the model and license number of his car. At the second, they searched his car, then ordered him to return to the first checkpoint. There, the fighters told him his car registration was improper and he had no property guarantee.

"Your fate will be execution," he said they told him.

But in a show of how capricious life can be under the Islamic State, a commander at the checkpoint made a phone call and got approval to let Ali and his family pass. "God give him long life," Ali said of the commander. He said he'd rather have been killed right there at the checkpoint than be forced to drive back into IS-held al-Zaab.

...


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 6/21/2015 9:54:22 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Bama, would you consider a person who says that the second amendment only applied to muskets would also believe that the first amendment only applied to pamphlets made on ol timey printing presses that were operated by hand. So, that person would believe TV, radio, the Internet, large newspapers, modern magazines, fax machines, office printers and cell phones were not subject to the first amendment because the framers never envisioned them?


An argument used and torpedo'd easily in most courts.

The first amendment's first three sections are intangible rights. They are an expression. Again, an intangible idea. That I can pass an idea to another person freely without government interference (given limits and exceptions to the law). Be it by vocalization, written word, artwork, music, electronic, or sign language. Oh yes, there have been 'conservative' types whom tried to limit things; and they lost in court time and again. This age's 'test' is whether or not the Internet should be free from corporate and government regulations (i.e. Net Neutrality).

The Founding Fathers did explain one concept about the US Constitution, that you are conveniently (for political reasons) leaving out. The document is not set in stone. That can be easily proven by the additional seventeen amendments that come after the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers believed that future generations would know how best to handle situations. Which brings up the second peice of evidence:

Compare the written wording of the 1st to the 25th. That they talk on different concepts is not relevant here. The 1st has 'X' number of characters, and the 25th, 'y' number of characters. The 27th is much further defined. Why is that?

The courts, historians, and even educated folks have observed that as the nation grew, all parts of it become more sophisticated. Technology, language, culture; why not how we view an amendment?

But that's not the full understanding. A law in modern day has three concepts, one of which was absent or not well established in the Bill of Rights: The spirit of the law. Both amendments have a written understanding of the law. Both have notes from the author(s) about the amendment. But the 27th has a 'spirit of the law'. Meaning, the author admits they can not for see each and every possible way the amendment could be used. So they give a narrative in as clear and understandable terms as possible as to the nature of how the amendment would work.

The amendments found in the Bill of Rights does not have that. Which logically speaking, might explain why we have so many 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and even 10th amendment battles in the courts. Or is CNN or FOX 'news' reporting on the latest 13th, 19th, or 26th amendment fights?

That people learned from mistakes. An it found its way into the legal code as well. Look at the bills going through Congress right now. There is a set of reasons why the format and style of each bill (regardless of content) is handled the same way. And in ways, different from bills from the late 18th century.

Really, cite one court.

You're making things up again.


I did, it was called the 25th amendment....

Really, the succession of the president refutes my discussion of first amendment rights compared to your sick interpretation of second amendment rights. I'd almost...almost...be interested, for entertainment value, be interested in you making up and postin your logic on this. But....please...don't. I said "almost".

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.113