Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 17, 2014, 01:15:10 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82502 Posts in 2249 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 28 Print
Author Topic: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces  (Read 271687 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #550 on: May 16, 2009, 04:41:41 PM »

GM; while I thought/hoped we were moving on...




10. Generally, NO. Privately owned shopping malls are not considered to be public forum areas (like streets, sidewalks and public parks are) for purposes of 1st Amendment activity. People may have the right to protest outside the mall on public property, but you can keep demonstrators out of privately owned parking areas and the mall interior completely, if owners of the mall don't want people protesting there.
[

ERGO -  IF the owners of the mall does not object, people cannot be kept out of the mall and demonstrations are allowed.

In this instance, the owner did not call the police nor did the owner seem to object, therefore again I repeat, NO CRIME...






**The Simon Wiesenthal Center would disagree, it seems.**

2009 News Releases

SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTRE - EUROPE
Tel. +33-147237637 - Fax: +33-147208401
e-mail: csweurope@gmail.com

Wiesenthal Centre-Backed French National Bureau Against Antisemitism Takes Legal Action against Anti-Israel Boycotters


Paris, 23 March 2009

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre-backed National Bureau Against Antisemitism (BNVCA), together with the French Association for Assistance to Israel (SFSI) and the Jewish Communities Council of Seine-Saint Denis (CCJ 93), on 20 March, took legal action against "persons instigating, promoting, or complicit, in the boycott of Israeli manufactured products."

Registering with the Public Prosecutor of the Bobigny district, their complaint noted:

- "Numerous calls from our members and the general public, regarding the invasion of Paris suburban supermarkets by anti-Israel boycotters."

- "The language of this campaign of incitement to hatred against Israel, in the short or mid-term, leads to anti-Jewish acts in the country.
Example: "The Israelis sell baby diapers [here], while they kill Palestinian children."

- "Videos available on EUROPALESTINE.COM, YOUTUBE.COM and DAILYMOTION.COM (see web links below) present these boycott operations in "Carrefour" supermarkets around Paris. We urge the management of these stores not to succumb to delinquent intimidation and to continue offering their clientele products, including from Israel, without discrimination."

- "This boycott campaign should be viewed as a discriminatory and punishable crime, inasmuch as many of the targeted products serve the kosher dietary needs of Jewish citizens [of France]."

- "All persons responsible for provocation to these crimes and delicts are charged under 'Article 23 of the Law of 29 July 1881, Appendix 47 of the Criminal Code', and for delicts against the Public Good under "Article 27 of the same law'."

Flyers, stickers and a list of products to be boycotted were also submitted to the Prosecutor.

"The threatening nature of the boycotters' occupation in each supermarket, and their manipulation of the public, is too reminiscent of the Nazi 'Kristallnacht' ('Night of Broken Glass') of 9 November 1938, under the slogan 'Kauft nicht bei Juden!' (Do Not buy Jewish products)," commented Dr Shimon Samuels, Director for International Relations of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

"We all know where 'Kristallnacht' ended: at Auschwitz and the destruction of Europe", concluded Samuels.

______________________

Web links of boycott actions:

http://www.europalestine.com/article.php3?id_article=3908
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/boycot+israel+/video/x8nocz_action-boycott-israel_news
(Aulnay-sous-Bois, 7 March 2009)

http://www.europalestine.com/article.php3?id_article=3814
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/boycot+israel+/video/x8jj7c_operation-de-boycot-2_news
(Genevilliers, 21 February 2009)

http://www.europalestine.com/article.php3?id_article=3846
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGKifWrNoOk
(Saint Denis, 14 February 2009)

______________________

For further information, please contact Shimon Samuels at +33.609.77.01.58.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #551 on: May 16, 2009, 08:26:18 PM »

**The Simon Wiesenthal Center would disagree, it seems.**

With no offense meant, I think the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is a bit biased.  I suppose they
can take "legal action" and file a civil suit; but then anyone can sue anyone for anything.  Let's see if they win.....

As for criminal action (that is the issue here) all the flyers stickers and list of products were "submitted" to the
prosecutor and a complaint "registered" based upon a law written in 1881.  Want to bet that the prosecutor files that complaint in his circular file under his desk?
And do you really think a Judge in France will support that complaint?  And stop the boycott?  And arrest the "peaceful" protestors?
(as for the ones doing firebombing etc. they should be arrested, but the ones in this video were peaceful)

And remember, there is no complaint from the store owners?  Therefore, I doubt if anyone will be arrested and I doubt if the boycott will be stopped;
wrong or right, you know that too.  Sorry, no criminal crime.  I think you are letting your emotions overwhelm your logic.

Please post again when the protestors in this video have been arrested; in the interim, ... well I think we will all die of old age first.  smiley


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #552 on: May 16, 2009, 11:06:00 PM »

**So, according to JDN, these women who don't call the police weren't victims of a crime. Yes?**

http://www.wjactv.com/news/19142996/detail.html

Sexual Assault Remains Most Unreported Crime
Posted: 8:01 pm EDT April 9, 2009
Updated: 8:36 pm EDT April 9, 2009

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- Sexual assault remains the most under-reported crime, so increasing the knowledge of how to protect against sexual assault is top priority, especially at Penn State University.
"The numbers indicate to us that there is between 800 and 1,000 incidents each year," said Susan DelPonte, Program Assistant with Center for Women Students.
DelPonte said her staff only sees about ten percent of those incidents walk through the door.
"Unfortunately I think there is still a societal stigma and women think it's their fault," she said.
The numbers are even lower for university police.
"If we see one, we're lucky," said Police Service Officer Ellen Aschenbrenner. "I understand why people don't report it, the stigma. The fear that they will be put on trial themselves and be victimized over again. I totally understand that, but I would like to see more justice for these people who are victimized."
DelPonte said, "Our job is really to give them resources that are available, so it's always their choice."
One of those resources is a series of rape aggression defense classes or RAD.
The program is made possible by Penn State University Police and Center for Women Students.
It's four classes totaling 12 hours of the latest self-defense techniques.
"The main goal of this defensive class is to get away and to survive the encounter,” said Aschenbrenner. "So, it doesn't matter what your fitness level is. It doesn't matter how big you are, strong you are, petite you are, these techniques are designed so that any woman can do them."
This semester’s RAD series begins next week for women students only, however, Aschenbrenner said she has trained community groups before and will do it again if there is an interest.
Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 191


« Reply #553 on: May 17, 2009, 07:10:16 AM »

The crime being committed in your video is that most of the people in these videos shouldnt have been allowed into France in the first place.  Please do not portray these people as non violent mis understood youths.  Most of the time they are so violent and un appreciative of being given a chance to live in a civilized country that the police in France have been instructed to stay out of 751+ zones unless they are entering the area in a sizeable force.
If these are the people you want to throw your lot in with it speaks volumes to your character.  Something you freedom of speech at all cost types convieniently forget when foriegners use our own laws against us is that democracy has no defense mechanism to stop muslims from voting in people who will give us sharia and turn us against our allies.  These people deserve only one right, the right to be escorted to the border and set loose into the sea.

The 751 No-Go Zones of France
by Daniel Pipes
November 14, 2006
updated Sun, 16 Mar 2008

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/the-751-no-go-zones-of-france.html

 Print  Send  Comment  RSS Share:       

They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS, and there are 751 of them as of last count. They are convienently listed on one long webpage, complete with street demarcations and map delineations.

What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassone to twelve in the heavily Muslim town of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them.

Comment: A more precise name for these zones would be Dar al-Islam, the place where Muslims rule. (November 14, 2006)

Nov. 28, 2006 update: For an insight into how bad things are, the police in Lyons demonstrated on Nov. 9, denouncing "violence against the forces of order." Things have reached a pretty sad state when the police have to demonstrate in the streets against the criminals.

Jan. 5, 2008 update: In a remarkable statement, Michael Nazir-Ali, the Pakistani-born bishop of Rochester, writes in the Daily Telegraph about the situation in Great Britain:

there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into "no-go" areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability. Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them.

Jan. 16, 2008 update: Paul Belien of Brussels Journal provides an update on the ZUS, connecting them to organized crime in a way that helps explain police reluctance to intervene:

In May [2007], the French voters elected Mr. [Nicolas] Sarkozy as president because he had promised to restore the authority of the Republic over France's 751 no-go areas, the so-called zones urbaines sensibles (ZUS, sensitive urban areas), where 5 million people - 8 percent of the population - live. During his first months in office he has been too busy with other activities, such as selling nuclear plants to Libya and getting divorced. While the French media publish nude pictures of the future (third) Mrs. Sarkozy, the situation in the ZUS has remained as "sensitive" as before.

People get mugged, even murdered, in the ZUS, but the media prefer not to write about it. When large-scale rioting erupts and officers and firemen are attacked, the behavior of the thugs is condoned with references to their "poverty" and to the "racism" of the indigenous French. The French media never devote their attention to the bleak situation of intimidation and lawlessness in which 8 percent of the population, including many poor indigenous French, are forced to live. Muslim racism toward the "infidels" is never mentioned.

Xavier Raufer, a former French intelligence officer who heads the department on organized crime and terrorism at the Institute of Criminology of the University of Paris II, thinks that organized crime has a lot to do with the indifference of the French establishment.

The ZUS are centers of drug trafficking. According to a recent report of the French government's Interdepartmental Commission to Combat Drug Traffic and Addiction (MILDT) 550,000 people in France consume cannabis on a daily basis and 1.2 million on a regular basis. The annual cannabis consumption amounts to 208 tons for a market value of 832 million euros ($1.2 billion in U.S. dollars). MILDT estimates that there are between 6,000 and 13,000 small "entrepreneurs" and between 700 and 1,400 wholesalers who make a living out of dealing cannabis. The wholesalers earn up to 550,000 euros ($820,000) per year. Since they operate from within the ZUS the drug dealers are beyond the reach of the French authorities.

The ZUS exist not only because Muslims wish to live in their own areas according to their own culture and their own Shariah laws, but also because organized crime wants to operate without the judicial and fiscal interference of the French state. In France, Shariah law and mafia rule have become almost identical.

Mar. 8, 2008 update: Britain has "ethnic" no-go areas for military personnel in uniform, the Times (London) reports today at "Military uniforms in public ‘risk offending minorities'."

Certain areas in Britain will still have to remain off-limits for servicemen and women in military gear, despite the Government's desire for a nationwide uniform free-for-all, senior RAF sources acknowledged yesterday. … one senior air force source said that military commanders had to be aware of potential problems of personnel wearing combat and other military clothes in the street. "We're aware of the sensitivities, for example, in some ethnic minority communities which is why we need to have a dialogue with local authorities and police if we don't want to cause a problem."

Mar. 16, 2008 update: John Cornwell, a leading historian and commentator on religion, is generally skeptical of Nazir-Ali's no-go areas but finds that if anyplace fits the profile, it's Bury Park in Luton:

Luton, like other enclaves, has experienced a spate of incidents that look all too like attempts to make Bury Park a no-go area to non-Muslims. Between November of last year and last month there were 18 attacks – all registered by the police – on five non-Muslim homes in the area. One couple, Mr and Mrs Harrop, white residents in their eighties, have had bricks hurled through their windows. The home of Mrs Palmer, a widow of West Indian origin, aged 70, has been attacked four times; on one occasion a metal beer keg crashed through her bay window while she was watching TV.

Such attacks are not typical of the activities of the sort of radicals who preach a global Islamic state, or potential terrorists, who, according to one of my MI5 informants, merge into a background of "innocent normalcy" till the last minute. DCI Ian Middleton of Bedfordshire police says: "It's the perception of the victims that their Muslim neighbours are to blame, and we have to respect that. But we have our doubts." Middleton suspects, as does Margaret Moran, MP for Luton South, that the attacks could be the work of small groups of white or Muslim extremists, stirring up racial and inter-religious hatred for its own sake.

I was to come across comparable "no-go" incidents in other parts of Britain, such as threats against Muslim converts to Christianity, and attacks on visiting social workers and Salvation Army facilities.

July 28, 2008 update: For information on the German case, see Kristian Frigelj, "Unter Feinden," Die Welt. The teaser explains that "In many German urban areas, the police hardly dare enter because they are immediately assaulted." July 29, 2008 update: For a translation of this article, see "In Enemy Territory."

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/the-751-no-go-zones-of-france.html


**The Simon Wiesenthal Center would disagree, it seems.**

With no offense meant, I think the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is a bit biased.  I suppose they
can take "legal action" and file a civil suit; but then anyone can sue anyone for anything.  Let's see if they win.....

As for criminal action (that is the issue here) all the flyers stickers and list of products were "submitted" to the
prosecutor and a complaint "registered" based upon a law written in 1881.  Want to bet that the prosecutor files that complaint in his circular file under his desk?
And do you really think a Judge in France will support that complaint?  And stop the boycott?  And arrest the "peaceful" protestors?
(as for the ones doing firebombing etc. they should be arrested, but the ones in this video were peaceful)

And remember, there is no complaint from the store owners?  Therefore, I doubt if anyone will be arrested and I doubt if the boycott will be stopped;
wrong or right, you know that too.  Sorry, no criminal crime.  I think you are letting your emotions overwhelm your logic.

Please post again when the protestors in this video have been arrested; in the interim, ... well I think we will all die of old age first.  smiley



« Last Edit: May 17, 2009, 07:14:16 AM by HUSS » Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #554 on: May 17, 2009, 09:43:37 AM »

Huss....

I normally agree with most of your posts.  Perhaps my only criticism is that you have a tendency to generalize.
My fault perhaps is that I am myopic and I don't address the big picture.

And your comment "this thread is turning into a train wreck that you know you should pass over but just can't turn away"
seems apropos. 

However, since you did decide to get on this train, I take offense with your comment; rather
"these are NOT the people I want throw my lot in" and therefore it speaks nothing of my character.  Because I defend their
right to peacefully protest and boycott, it does not mean I approve of violence or criminal activity.

I also disagree with your comment, "when foreigners use our own laws against us is that democracy has no defense mechanism to stop
muslims from VOTING in people who will give us sharia and turn us against our allies."

Our country was founded on immigration.  My family is from Norway and Germany.  And I happen to have friends from many
different backgrounds and ethnic groups.  You mentioned that the "crime being committed in "this" video (it is not "my" video"; maybe Doug's video) is that
most of the people in these videos shouldn't have been allowed into France in the first place."  So why were they?
Could it be that France needed workers?  Like we imported Chinese labor?  Immigration policies can often be directly traced to the economy;
no one cares when times are good, there are plenty of jobs, but racism raises its ugly head when the economy turns and there is unemployment.
Or could it be guilt over Algeria?  Like America for many years allowed Vietnamese to easily immigrate here? 
Or could it be France just had a generous heart like America truly does?

In another post you commented,
"the answer is mass deportations and immigration reform.  A country accepting immigrants should look at applicants the same way a business interviews potential employees. Will they assimilate and fit into the culture?  Do they speak the language? do they offer a skill set that is in demand?  Will the country be a better place for having them?
If the answer is not yes to all of those questions they should be barred from entering."

I am against all illegal immigrants and agree that they should all (impossible) be escorted to the border (not sure if I agree they "should be set loose
into the sea").  But legal immigrants?  Many of whom have become citizens here and in France?  "Mass deportation? Why? Because they are of a different faith?
A different color?  They don't speak English well?  They have a brown eye?  No skill in demand; I mean God forbid if they are an auto factory worker.  I mean what is the litmus test? 
You said, "do they speak the language"?  Since when did that become a litmus test?
I doubt if many of our forefathers coming through Ellis Island could speak English.  You fall in love with a beautiful Italian girl while on vacation.  No English (you speak some Italian)
and she has no job skills.  So I guess marriage and bringing her home to America is out of the question?

Actually, it is not the easy to immigrate (legally) to the United States. And my point is, it's complicated.  Where do you draw the line.  Your Italian wife comes home with you.  Her kids from the previous marriage also come with her.  She misses her mom, so she comes too.  And her Dad.  Now they miss their sisters and brothers; they too want to visit and marry an American.  And truly adorable cousins.  Where do you say "No"?  And where is the line?  It is not easy...

But I object to your comment, when foreigners use our own laws against us is that democracy has no defense mechanism to stop
muslims from VOTING in people who will give us sharia and turn us against our allies."

The bedrock of our democracy is the power of the vote.  Are you truly proposing that we deny immigrants who have become citizens the right to vote if you don't agree with their politics? Or religion?  That they should be denied their citizenship for not following YOUR politics and religion?  On this basis Jews too could have been deported in our history.  Be careful what you ask for, it may one day come back to bite you.





« Last Edit: May 17, 2009, 09:48:44 AM by JDN » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #555 on: May 17, 2009, 11:23:27 AM »

TANGENT:

GM:

Your basic point is sound, but I would also point out that many women's rights groups define rape in very Orwellian terms.  A few years back we had a thread here where it was reported that as they define it (working from memory here so the number could be off somewhat) some 80% of women who have been raped don't know they were raped.   huh huh huh

Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 191


« Reply #556 on: May 17, 2009, 02:28:32 PM »


I also disagree with your comment, "when foreigners use our own laws against us is that democracy has no defense mechanism to stop
muslims from VOTING in people who will give us sharia and turn us against our allies."
It does not, and our "democracy is being used against us to curtail traditional norms that the North Americans founded their countries on



Quote
Our country was founded on immigration.  My family is from Norway and Germany.  And I happen to have friends from many
different backgrounds and ethnic groups.  You mentioned that the "crime being committed in "this" video (it is not "my" video"; maybe Doug's video) is that
most of the people in these videos shouldn't have been allowed into France in the first place."  So why were they?
Could it be that France needed workers?  Like we imported Chinese labor?  Immigration policies can often be directly traced to the economy;
no one cares when times are good, there are plenty of jobs, but racism raises its ugly head when the economy turns and there is unemployment.
Or could it be guilt over Algeria?  Like America for many years allowed Vietnamese to easily immigrate here? 
Or could it be France just had a generous heart like America truly does?
Generous?  Have you ever stopped to think that the reason the liberals coddle groups like CAIR and push for mass imigration is because they hate conservatives so much?Huh?? the enemy of my enemy is my friend??? what makes me laugh is that the liberals who coddle groups like CAIR would be the first ones with their throats slit if ever sharia were instituted.  some how i just dont see mohammeed chumming around with anti gun types and gays.


Quote
In another post you commented,
"the answer is mass deportations and immigration reform.  A country accepting immigrants should look at applicants the same way a business interviews potential employees. Will they assimilate and fit into the culture?  Do they speak the language? do they offer a skill set that is in demand?  Will the country be a better place for having them?
If the answer is not yes to all of those questions they should be barred from entering."

I am against all illegal immigrants and agree that they should all (impossible) be escorted to the border (not sure if I agree they "should be set loose
into the sea").  But legal immigrants?  Many of whom have become citizens here and in France?  "Mass deportation? Why? Because they are of a different faith?
A different color?  They don't speak English well?  They have a brown eye?  No skill in demand; I mean God forbid if they are an auto factory worker.  I mean what is the litmus test? 
You said, "do they speak the language"?  Since when did that become a litmus test?
I doubt if many of our forefathers coming through Ellis Island could speak English.  You fall in love with a beautiful Italian girl while on vacation.  No English (you speak some Italian)
and she has no job skills.  So I guess marriage and bringing her home to America is out of the question?
The litmus test is, will the contribute to our take from society.  If they can not pay for themselves why should we let them in?  If you want to import an entire family from itally go ahead.  Just dont ask for tax payers to foot the bill.




Quote
Actually, it is not the easy to immigrate (legally) to the United States. And my point is, it's complicated.  Where do you draw the line.  Your Italian wife comes home with you.  Her kids from the previous marriage also come with her.  She misses her mom, so she comes too.  And her Dad.  Now they miss their sisters and brothers; they too want to visit and marry an American.  And truly adorable cousins.  Where do you say "No"?  And where is the line?  It is not easy...

But I object to your comment, when foreigners use our own laws against us is that democracy has no defense mechanism to stop
muslims from VOTING in people who will give us sharia and turn us against our allies."
Here is why i think you an apologist at best for muslims.  You can object all you want but the fact is it is happening.  When groups like the holy land foundation, CAIR, ISLAMVILLE etc.......... can be given tax payers money, court govt officials, be consulted on laws and operate openly what else can you say but immigrants are using our system against us.  CAIR which claims to be the voice of islam in america has no opposing group of muslims the way a child molester priet is run out of town by Christians. 
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/ - Have a look at this site, concrete proof that these people operate against us with our own laws and money.  After having almost ever foundign member tried and convicted in terror activities CAIR is still operating and recieving tax payer money.  France still has 751 zones that operate outisde of French law but still receive state benifits. so you can objest all you want, you can lobby for these people all they want but it doesnt change their goal.  End democracy and bring in sharia.



Quote
The bedrock of our democracy is the power of the vote.  Are you truly proposing that we deny immigrants who have become citizens the right to vote if you don't agree with their politics? Or religion?  That they should be denied their citizenship for not following YOUR politics and religion?  On this basis Jews too could have been deported in our history.  Be careful what you ask for, it may one day come back to bite you.


By the way, you do not live in a democracy.  You live in a republic.  The republic was founded in the hopes that people would be elected who were intelligent enough to keep the average joe from voting himself entitelements and the average mohammed from voting himself Keith Ellison's ( http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2006/10/015337.php ), men who will work to undermine the republic. I leave you with this...................


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse (generous gifts) from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilization has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence. From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back into bondage."
 

Alexander Tyler circa 1787 re the
fall of the Athenian Republic.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2009, 02:58:09 PM by HUSS » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #557 on: May 17, 2009, 02:41:31 PM »

Or as I put it when I ran for Congress for the Libertarian Party:  "They had a vote.  You're paying."
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #558 on: May 17, 2009, 03:33:52 PM »

A democracy or a republic? 

You are right; we were founded as a republic;
In most states only white men who owned a certain amount of property could vote. So, on the whole, the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only a fig-leaf of democratic representation.

But we have evolved; decade after decade, our republic became a democratic republic.

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment effectively extended the vote to all adult male citizens, including ex-slaves, by penalizing states that did not allow for universal male suffrage. The Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gave the right to vote to former slaves. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not extend suffrage to women, a vigorous campaign for the vote was launched by women, who received the vote through the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

But the main Amendment that tipped the scales from the national government of the United States being a mere republic to being a true representative democracy was the often-overlooked Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913. Since 1913 the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic.

And I think we are better off allowing former slaves to vote, allowing women to vote, and allowing all adult male citizens to vote.  But maybe you don't?


PS  Eloquent quote you left me with, but Alexander Tyler never wrote those words nor did he ever write a book or anything else regarding "The Fall of the Athenian Republic"
« Last Edit: May 17, 2009, 03:47:52 PM by JDN » Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #559 on: May 17, 2009, 03:36:59 PM »

Or as I put it when I ran for Congress for the Libertarian Party:  "They had a vote.  You're paying."

You mean your eloquence at the Gatherings didn't extend to the political area?
 smiley
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #560 on: May 17, 2009, 04:29:58 PM »

TANGENT:

GM:

Your basic point is sound, but I would also point out that many women's rights groups define rape in very Orwellian terms.  A few years back we had a thread here where it was reported that as they define it (working from memory here so the number could be off somewhat) some 80% of women who have been raped don't know they were raped.   huh huh huh



Yeah, i've had those debates with feminists in academia. What they and JDN don't understand is the legal concept of the elements of a crime. For an individual to be charged with a crime, you must have every element of the offense or you won't get the arrest warrant signed, or even worse have a warrantless arrest thrown out, with all the potential civil and criminal liabilities. you as the arresting officer may face.

Without getting into a sexual assault statute of one state or another, the crime generally can be cover by these definitions:

Sexual Battery Law & Legal Definition

 
Sexual battery is an unwanted form of contact with an intimate part of the body that is made for purposes of sexual arousal, sexual gratification or sexual abuse. Sexual battery may occur whether the victim is clothed or not. It is a crime, which varies by state laws, so local laws should be consulted.
The following is an example of a state law defining sexual battery:
"Any person who touches an intimate part of another person while that person is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice, and if the touching is against the will of the person touched and is for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of sexual battery."

Aggravated Sexual Assault Law & Legal Definition

 
Aggravated sexual assault is a felony sexual offense governed by state laws, which vary by state. It is typically defined as a sexual assault that maims, wounds, or disfigures the victim, or involves a victim who is physically or mentally incapacitated. It may also be defined to include a sexual assault that is aided or abetted by another person, occurs during commission of another crime, or involves use of a deadly weapon. Local laws should be consulted for specific requirements and applicable penalties.
The following is an example of a state law dealing with aggravated sexual assault:
An actor is guilty of aggravated sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:
The victim is less than 13 years old.
The victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years old; and a. The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree;or b. the actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim; or c. the actor is a foster parent, a guardian, or stands in loco parentis within the household;
The act is committed during the commission, or attempted commission, whether alone or with one or more other persons, of robbery, kidnapping, homicide, aggravated assault on another, burglary, arson, or criminal escape;
The actor is armed with a weapon or any object fashioned in such a manner as to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a weapon and threatens by word or gesture to use the weapon or object;
The actor is aided or abetted by one or more other persons and the actor uses physical force or coercion;
The actor uses physical force or coercion and severe personal injury is sustained by the victim;
The victim is one whom the actor knew or should have known was physically helpless, mentally defective or mentally incapacitated.


You'll note that nowhere is there the requirement for law enforcement to be notified as an element of the offense. Nowhere is there a provision for "gender feminists" to assert that as we live in a patriarchy, no woman can give truly voluntary consent for sex. Of course, we'll see what effect Obama's judicial appointments have on this.  rolleyes
Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 191


« Reply #561 on: May 17, 2009, 04:30:11 PM »

A democracy or a republic?  

You are right; we were founded as a republic;
In most states only white men who owned a certain amount of property could vote. So, on the whole, the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only a fig-leaf of democratic representation.
You always play the victim card when confronted with facts.  



Quote
The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment effectively extended the vote to all adult male citizens, including ex-slaves, by penalizing states that did not allow for universal male suffrage. The Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gave the right to vote to former slaves. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not extend suffrage to women, a vigorous campaign for the vote was launched by women, who received the vote through the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.
What does this have to do with people voting themselves entitlements and sharia?  nice little bunny trail...............




Quote
And I think we are better off allowing former slaves to vote, allowing women to vote, and allowing all adult male citizens to vote.  But maybe you don't?
your so petty.  After my whole post filled with fact this is all you have?HuhHuh?? your a waste of key strokes.


Quote
PS  Eloquent quote you left me with, but Alexander Tyler never wrote those words nor did he ever write a book or anything else regarding "The Fall of the Athenian Republic"
Thanks, I'll make sure to remember that for the next time i use that quote.  Again, you ignore the point of my mis quoted quote.  Your concept of democracy is what has allowed your CIC to become the CEO of an auto maker, broker a deal on what cars FIAT can build in exchange for their 35% stake in Chrysler and what salaries bank CEO's can have regardless of whether they took tarp money or not........... all to the applause of a cheering populace....... Just wait until he names himself health care czar.  you guys are going broke faster then china can sell off their U.S $ holdings. Enjoy the ride, your one of the few who deserve whats coming, atleast you got to vote for it eh?Huh?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #562 on: May 17, 2009, 05:38:10 PM »

GM said," What they and JDN don't understand is the legal concept of the elements of a crime. For an individual to be charged with a crime, you must have every element of the offense or you won't get the arrest warrant signed, or even worse have a warrantless arrest thrown out, with all the potential civil and criminal liabilities. you as the arresting officer may face."

I really do understand.  That has been my point all along that "you must have every element of the offense"...
I keep arguing this point to no avail.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #563 on: May 17, 2009, 05:53:16 PM »

Huss
 huh
I conceded your point and acknowledged that you are right; we are a republic, not technically a democracy.
Then I "wasted keystrokes" and facts pointing out how we have evolved into a form of democracy
as well as being a republic.  And I commented that overall I think it is for the better.

As for Chrysler, as far as I'm concerned they could/should have gone broke.  On another post I am the guy who supported the bond holders; remember?
Frankly, I think a few banks should have gone broke and into bankruptcy too.  And if you bought a house you can't afford, well why is that my problem?
And I too am concerned about the spending spree.

As a side note, it doesn't matter, your opinions are welcome, but are you an American citizen?  I ask, because you said, you guys are going broke faster than China.....
Or if you are a citizen, maybe you mean WE are going broke .... 

But I don't like the bailouts either...
We might disagree with a particular French video, but please don't paint me "liberal" in all matters.   I agree, WE are going broke and something needs to be done.
Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 191


« Reply #564 on: May 17, 2009, 06:02:39 PM »




Huss
 huh
I conceded your point and acknowledged that you are right; we are a republic, not technically a democracy.
Then I "wasted keystrokes" and facts pointing out how we have evolved into a form of democracy
as well as being a republic.  And I commented that overall I think it is for the better.
Slavery and woman voting aside, do you really think we are better off?  How can you say that?  Western society is on the brink of out right collapse.


Quote
As for Chrysler, as far as I'm concerned they could/should have gone broke.  On another post I am the guy who supported the bond holders; remember?
Frankly, I think a few banks should have gone broke and into bankruptcy too.  And if you bought a house you can't afford, well why is that my problem?
And I too am concerned about the spending spree.
I agree, i dont think there should have been any bail outs at all.  Although i think the govt has no business being in business at all.



Quote
As a side note, it doesn't matter, your opinions are welcome, but are you an American citizen?  I ask, because you said, you guys are going broke faster than China.....
Or if you are a citizen, maybe you mean WE are going broke .... 

I live in Canada.  I as a very pro American Canadian am very frustrated with the way your govt is running things.  Your CIC is going to force us into bed with the Chinese in order to have a buyer for our oil and water.  I never thought i would say this but at this point i no longer care, as long as things pick up.


Quote
But I don't like the bailouts either...
We might disagree with a particular French video, but please don't paint me "liberal" in all matters.   I agree, WE are going broke and something needs to be done.
you may not be a liberal.......... but i think you under estimate the threat of islam and "democracy's" ability to fight off a group who wishes to vote out democracy.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2788


« Reply #565 on: May 17, 2009, 06:47:25 PM »

JDN again equivocating:
Quote
I keep arguing this point to no avail.

No, the circular point you keep warbling on about is that as there were no arrest made hence there was no crime committed. Those of us able to embrace the obvious reply that merchandise was undoubtably damaged and very likely stolen, note further that crimes like torched cars are ubiquitous in France, note further that there are zones in France where the laws aren't enforced, and then there's the fact that the term "surrender monkey" arose to describe French behavior. Ergo we think the crime of criminal damage to property, shoplifting, and likely criminal trespass occurred, though the sundry French government organs opted not to do a damn thing about it. Make a wager with me that would make the research worth my time, and I will go and ferret out the evidence that merchandise was damaged and stolen, though then again the rank sophistry you consistently and arrogantly embrace makes is likely that no level of proof would satisfy you so instead I guess I'll leave you standing in the corner, covering your ears, and yelling "no crime was committed, nonny nony boo boo" yet again.

Let's recap: you've convinced no one, demonstrated damn-foolishness for all to see, and double down up your gross inanity at every opportunity. Keep up the good work as it makes our points for us.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #566 on: May 17, 2009, 06:56:58 PM »

GM said," What they and JDN don't understand is the legal concept of the elements of a crime. For an individual to be charged with a crime, you must have every element of the offense or you won't get the arrest warrant signed, or even worse have a warrantless arrest thrown out, with all the potential civil and criminal liabilities. you as the arresting officer may face."

I really do understand.  That has been my point all along that "you must have every element of the offense"...
I keep arguing this point to no avail.

You keep insisting that because the police were not called means no crime was committed. If the acts in the video were done in the US, I can assure you that multiple criminal charges could be filed. If you think those acts were legal, then as I said before, try doing that at your local supermarket. We'll see how that works out for you.

Step up and walk your talk.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #567 on: May 17, 2009, 07:08:04 PM »

Theft Law & Legal Definition

 
Generally, a person commits the crime of theft of property if he or she:
Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;
Knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property; or
Knowingly obtains or exerts control over property in the custody of a law enforcement agency which was explicitly represented to the person by an agent of the law enforcement agency as being stolen.
Without proof of intent to deprive, no criminal act has occurred. There must be an element of dishonesty which may be revealed from the words or actions of the perpetrator. In California, the Supreme Court has held that proof that a defendant intended to take property only temporarily, but for so extended a period of time as to deprive the owner of a major portion of its value or enjoyment, satisfies the intent element of a theft prosecution in California.
A person commits the crime of theft of services if:
He intentionally obtains services known by him to be available only for compensation by deception, threat, false token or other means to avoid payment for the services; or
Having control over the disposition of services of others to which he is not entitled, he knowingly diverts those services to his own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled to such services.
To be convicted of theft by taking someone must unlawfully take, appropriate or carry away any property of another with intent of depriving him of the property. A person commits the offense of theft by receiving if he or she receives, retains, or disposes of stolen property of another person that he/she knew or should have known was stolen. Theft is often classified into degrees of misdemeanors or felonies carrying varied penalties according to the value of the item stolen. State laws vary, so local laws should be consulted for the specific requirements in your area.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #568 on: May 17, 2009, 07:10:25 PM »

Extortion Law & Legal Definition


 
A person commits the crime of extortion if he knowingly obtains by threat control over the property of another, with intent to deprive him of the property. The property extorted may be an item of personal property or a sum of money. A threat may include impersonating as government official, such as a police officer.
Extortion is a felony in all states, except that a direct threat to harm the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery. Extortion may be classified under different categories of seriousness depending on the degree of wrongful intent. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing, damaging information to family, friends or the public.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #569 on: May 17, 2009, 07:19:56 PM »

Unlawful Assembly Law & Legal Definition

 
At common law, an unlawful assembly is a gathering of at least three persons whose conduct causes observers to reasonably fear that a breach of the peace will result. Although freedom of assembly is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, law enforcement has the right to require disbursement of such an assembly as part of the "police powers" of the state. Determination of the potential dangers of riot or breach of peace are subjective and decided on the spot by police officers or other public officials.
Claims of "unlawful assembly" were often used to break up labor union picket lines until the late 1930s, against peaceful civil rights marches in the 1950s and 1960s, and by the police against anti-Vietnam War demonstrators in the late 1960s.
The following is an example of a local unlawful assembly statute:
"Wherever three or more persons assemble with intent or with means and preparations to do an unlawful act which would be riot if actually committed, but do not act toward the commission thereof, or whenever such persons assemble without authority of law, and in such a manner as is adapted to disturb the public peace, or excite public alarm, such assembly is an unlawful assembly."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #570 on: May 17, 2009, 07:24:09 PM »

Vandalism Law & Legal Definition
Related to Vandalism


 
Vandalism is typically defined as when a person knowingly causes serious physical damage to a structure or its contents. Vandalism is governed by state statutes, which vary by state. Some states have separate statutes that deal specifically with vandalism to certain property, such as autos, cemeteries, or school property. Statutes typically provide for penalties based upon the value of the property damage. Local laws should be consulted for specific requirements in your area.
The following is an example of a state statute dealing with vandalism:
A) No person shall knowingly cause serious physical harm to an occupied structure or any of its contents.
(B) (1) No person shall knowingly cause physical harm to property that is owned or possessed by another, when either of the following applies:
(a) The property is used by its owner or possessor in the owner's or possessor's profession, business, trade, or occupation, and the value of the property or the amount of physical harm involved is five hundred dollars or more;
(b) Regardless of the value of the property or the amount of damage done, the property or its equivalent is necessary in order for its owner or possessor to engage in the owner's or possessor's profession, business, trade, or occupation.
(2) No person shall knowingly cause serious physical harm to property that is owned, leased, or controlled by a governmental entity. A governmental entity includes, but is not limited to, the state or a political subdivision of the state, a school district, the board of trustees of a public library or public university, or any other body corporate and politic responsible for governmental activities only in geographical areas smaller than that of the state.
(C) No person, without privilege to do so, shall knowingly cause serious physical harm to any tomb, monument, gravestone, or other similar structure that is used as a memorial for the dead; to any fence, railing, curb, or other property that is used to protect, enclose, or ornament any cemetery; or to a cemetery.
(D) No person, without privilege to do so, shall knowingly cause physical harm to a place of burial by breaking and entering into a tomb, crypt, casket, or other structure that is used as a memorial for the dead or as an enclosure for the dead.
(E) Whoever violates this section is guilty of vandalism. Except as otherwise provided in this division, vandalism is a felony of the fifth degree that is punishable by a fine of up to two thousand five hundred dollars in addition to the penalties specified for a felony of the fifth degree in sections 2929.11 to 2929.18 of the Revised Code. If the value of the property or the amount of physical harm involved is five thousand dollars or more but less than one hundred thousand dollars, vandalism is a felony of the fourth degree. If the value of the property or the amount of physical harm involved is one hundred thousand dollars or more, vandalism is a felony of the third degree.
(F) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Cemetery" means any place of burial and includes burial sites that contain American Indian burial objects placed with or containing American Indian human remains.
(2) "Serious physical harm" means physical harm to property that results in loss to the value of the property of five hundred dollars or more.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #571 on: May 17, 2009, 08:21:59 PM »

Now you've done it JDN!  cheesy

First rule when you find yourself in a hole.  Stop digging  cheesy cheesy cheesy
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #572 on: May 17, 2009, 08:58:04 PM »

 smiley  It's the weekend and I have time.  And if I dig deep enough won't I see light?  grin
And GM is starting to grow on me...
Maybe it's the beer he suggested I drink instead of wine?

Interesting posts GM; let me give it a try...

"Vandalism is typically defined as when a person knowingly causes serious physical damage to a structure or its contents."
"Serious physical harm" means physical harm to property that results in loss to the value of the property of five hundred dollars or more."

I doubt if many food items cost more than $500.00 and without a complaint, well.......
No Vandalism.
______________
Unlawful Assembly Law & Legal Definition
"such persons assemble without authority of law,..."

But the owner allowed them in, treated them as customers and therefore they were assembled with authority of law.
No unlawful assembly...
______________
Extortion Law & Legal Definition
"A person commits the crime of extortion if he knowingly obtains by threat control over the property of another, with intent to deprive him of the property."

But they never threatened, never gained "control" over the property (it remained in the store) and there was no intent to deprive the store of any of their property.
No extortion...
______________
Theft Law & Legal Definition
"Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property"

They had permission to be in the store so it was not "unauthorized control over the property of another" and there was no intent to deprive the owner
of his or her property - they didn't take anything.
No  theft...

_______________
NO CRIME!!!       evil

And you know better than I know that if there is no complaint, there is no case and therefore all of the above will rarely if ever prosecuted.

As for "stepping up and walking my talk" what am I suppose to do?  Stage a boycott Pepsi rally at my nearby Ralphs? Sorry, I don't do protests or boycotts,
but that doesn't mean others shouldn't if they are passionate about the subject. 

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #573 on: May 17, 2009, 10:10:06 PM »

smiley  It's the weekend and I have time.  And if I dig deep enough won't I see light?  grin
And GM is starting to grow on me...
Maybe it's the beer he suggested I drink instead of wine?

Interesting posts GM; let me give it a try...

"Vandalism is typically defined as when a person knowingly causes serious physical damage to a structure or its contents."
"Serious physical harm" means physical harm to property that results in loss to the value of the property of five hundred dollars or more."

I doubt if many food items cost more than $500.00 and without a complaint, well.......
No Vandalism.

**It's total losses, not the cost per item.**
______________
Unlawful Assembly Law & Legal Definition
"such persons assemble without authority of law,..."

But the owner allowed them in, treated them as customers and therefore they were assembled with authority of law.
No unlawful assembly...

**If you entered Whole Foods and began disrupting business, as was done in the video, you soon would be contacted by the store management and law enforcement in short order. Again, your rights to assembly do not apply to private property of others. Again, try it if you think I'm wrong.**
______________
Extortion Law & Legal Definition
"A person commits the crime of extortion if he knowingly obtains by threat control over the property of another, with intent to deprive him of the property."

But they never threatened, never gained "control" over the property (it remained in the store) and there was no intent to deprive the store of any of their property.
No extortion...

**Wrong. Once the products were removed from the shelves, they were no longer available to legitimate customers. Perishable items were certainly damaged. According to additional media reports observant Jews in the area were deprived of kosher products due to the acts of this group. The video shows that at least one greenshirt exited the store with what appeared to be a shopping cart full of items.Again, try this at Whole Foods.**
______________
Theft Law & Legal Definition
"Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property"

They had permission to be in the store so it was not "unauthorized control over the property of another" and there was no intent to deprive the owner
of his or her property - they didn't take anything.
No  theft...

**See above. RICO statutes have been used against groups that target merchants using similar, if not identical acts to what was seen in the video.**

_______________
NO CRIME!!!       evil

And you know better than I know that if there is no complaint, there is no case and therefore all of the above will rarely if ever prosecuted.

As for "stepping up and walking my talk" what am I suppose to do?  Stage a boycott Pepsi rally at my nearby Ralphs? Sorry, I don't do protests or boycotts,
but that doesn't mean others shouldn't if they are passionate about the subject. 


Pick a subject. Try this as an experiment. You seem so sure that the conduct in the video is legal. Try it and show us you are correct.

**As far as a crime not being a crime if it's not reported.... If a woman is raped and she decides not to report, do you claim that a crime was not committed? Lots of crimes go unreported, doesn't mean the acts were not criminal. Lots of crimes go unprosecuted. It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. If I recall correctly, the Contra Costa DA's Office is no longer prosecuting most any misd. crimes due to budget cuts. This does not mean that there aren't misd. crimes in Co-Co county, just that they aren't prosecuted.**

**Lots of murders of civil rights workers in the south went unprosecuted, so I guess those weren't crimes, by your logic.**
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #574 on: May 17, 2009, 11:21:46 PM »

I am going to read a book and maybe take Crafty's advice.

But....

No damage to items was reported by the store...
Store management had no objection to this assembly; therefore law enforcement has no valid reason to intercede on private property.
No complaint was filed by management regarding perishable goods; no complaint, no case.  And no report of stolen goods,
I guess they went shopping after they finished their protest?
They have RICO statutes in France?  I didn't know that?

Sorry, no chargeable crime, but I give you credit, "if you don't have the facts, dazzle them with your #$%^&*"
You know that if there was no complaint by management police would do nothing - zero.

But I am worn out so I will take Crafty's advice and move on.



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #575 on: May 18, 2009, 12:45:47 AM »

I am going to read a book and maybe take Crafty's advice.

But....

No damage to items was reported by the store...

**Again, just because a victim chooses not to report a crime does not mean a crime was not committed.**


Store management had no objection to this assembly; therefore law enforcement has no valid reason to intercede on private property.

**Not true. Often crimes are reported to law enforcement by a witness that is not being directly impacted by the criminal act. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but usually a law enforcement officer seeing a crime committed, need no complaintant to make an arrest.**

No complaint was filed by management regarding perishable goods; no complaint, no case. 

**Again, just because a victim chooses not to report a crime does not mean a crime was not committed.**

And no report of stolen goods,

**See above.**

I guess they went shopping after they finished their protest?

**Sure. That's why there are no shopping bags, just stacks of items swept off of shelves visible.**

They have RICO statutes in France?  I didn't know that?

**Again, we are using US legal standards as we don't speak French and can't plumb through French statutes or legal process.**

Sorry, no chargeable crime, but I give you credit, "if you don't have the facts, dazzle them with your #$%^&*"
You know that if there was no complaint by management police would do nothing - zero.

**Wrong. Depending on the statutes, it is possible for law enforcement to pursue a case without the cooperation of a victim.**

But I am worn out so I will take Crafty's advice and move on.





You don't have to be French to be a surrender monkey, but it helps.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #576 on: May 18, 2009, 03:59:36 AM »

Rallies at Southern California markets end in arrests
By: Associated Press | Thursday, February 19, 2004 10:17 PM PST ∞

LOS ANGELES -- More than 40 people were arrested Thursday during supermarket rallies in support of grocery clerks idled by a four-month strike and lockout.

The granddaughter of late farmworker union leader Cesar Chavez, state Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, and an 86-year-old member of the Gray Panthers activist group were among those arrested during civil disobedience rallies involving clerks and about two dozen labor unions and community groups, organizers said.

Some protesters linked arms and blocked the entrances at Vons and Pavilions stores.

Twenty people were handcuffed and led away from the two stores in mid-city Los Angeles and the San Pedro area, organizers said. Ten people were taken into custody in Santa Monica and 17 in the Orange County town of Mission Viejo, authorities said.

They were cited for misdemeanors such as trespassing, obstructing an entrance or failure to disperse and were released to face court appearances, authorities said.


**Wow. And they didn't even touch the produce.**
Actress Jamie Lee Curtis attended one rally.

"I'm here as a mommy trying to explain to her little boy why we honk, why we put our thumbs up and why we don't go into those markets," she told KABC-TV. She was not among those arrested.

More civil disobedience rallies could occur as community groups from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. prepare to support the clerks, said Shannon Donato, one of the protest organizers.

"Today was the beginning of what you will continuously see across the nation," she said.

Meanwhile, federally mediated negotiations between the union and store chains continued for a ninth day without resolution.

The strike that began Oct. 11 put 70,000 clerks from San Diego to San Luis Obispo on picket lines in front of stores owned by Albertsons Inc., Kroger Co. and Safeway Inc.. Both sides have been deadlocked for months over the cost and scope of health benefits and a proposed two-tier wage system for future employees.

After clerks went on strike at Safeway-owned Vons and Pavilions stores, Albertsons and Ralphs, owned by Kroger Co., locked out their workers. The chains have lost tens of millions of dollars in sales since then but have been able to keep stores open with replacement workers.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #577 on: May 18, 2009, 09:47:23 AM »

GM; I don't think you have a life...
How many posts in the last 24 hours on this subject?
Quantity versus quality; but you are known to do that.  You are wrong on the facts so you just keep adding irrelevant posts...

My wish for you is that I hope one day your Captain or Chief of Police is Islamic; that should make it interesting.

The store in France did not report a crime because they thought NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.  You can speculate all you want about what "might" have happened, but it didn't
appear on the tape.  Based on the tape, i.e. based upon the facts, no crime was committed.

No trespass (never asked to leave and they were customers), no vandalism (no noted damage to any product; just speculation on your part) no unlawful assembly
(they were customers admitted by and approved by management) ergo no crime.  The boycotters are now home, drinking french wine, planning
their next peaceful boycott without a worry in the world.  Only you seem to worry. I assure you that your Captain would not worry about this particular boycott.  Nor the local DA.
They both have better things to do. And real crimes to solve.

In contrast to the above peaceful demonstration, you posted a 2004 (5 years ago is the best you can do?)rally in LA where the entrance was physically "blocked".
Misdemeanor charges were brought for "trespassing" (I guess the store complained huh?)
and "failing to disperse"; well I guess that doesn't apply in France either since management did not ask the boycotters to disperse?  Frankly,
the store in France didn't seem to mind at all.  Nor did the other customers in the video.  And so the police are going to enter the store and arrest the boycotters without a complaint?
It will NEVER happen here or in France. 

Do you really think the police in LA on their on volition arrested a CA State Assembly woman on private property without a complaint from the store?  You know better than that...

Lets just wait and see if there are going to be any arrests in France for this particular boycott.  I will take the time to follow up.  Heck, I will even follow up on the Simon Wiesenthal Center's
complaint.  I bet that too will die in the trash can.   grin  But maybe the DA will call out the police and arrest these particular protestors.   rolleyes
If not, I guess you are wrong - it's simple.  As to whether you believe the boycott itself is fair is irrelevant. 

Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2788


« Reply #578 on: May 18, 2009, 10:38:54 AM »

JDN pouts:
Quote
No crime was committed, nonny nonny boo boo.


Hey JDN, you're not one of these folks who pays "aspiring actresseses" to smack you around, are you? If so, could GM and I get on that gravy train, as we're providing a similar service?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2009, 12:44:47 PM by Body-by-Guinness » Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #579 on: May 18, 2009, 10:48:56 AM »

No, I'll pass on you and GM.   I just like the girls doing it.   grin

But then maybe you and GM can smack each other around?
Now that you might like?   evil
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2788


« Reply #580 on: May 18, 2009, 11:05:36 AM »

At least I'd expect there'd be some sport involved if GM and I went at it. Indeed, we have in the past with the results nowhere near as insipid.

Hey, I found a web site that said the Holocaust didn't occur. Like the URL so you can endlessly reiterate that "fact" too?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #581 on: May 18, 2009, 12:06:17 PM »

I differentiate between a "Boycott Israel" i.e. people who oppose Israel's politics (valid or invalid depending upon your viewpoint)
versus a "Boycott Jews" which I would find repugnant. 

Here in America, I have heard/seen boycott this, that, and everything else it seems under the sun.  In and of itself, why can't a person/group
oppose another group's/country's products or politics?  Free speech?

And I am a little unclear as to the video (I don't speak French) but it seems that the group simply bought up all Israel products on the shelf.
Heck, if I was manager, I would be grateful, not apologetic.

**Get mad if you want, but it looks like you've learned a lot since you posted the above.**
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #582 on: May 18, 2009, 12:26:27 PM »

I continue to learn on this forum.  I don't always agree, but I definitely learn.

Often, I find I learn more from a debate or disagreement than a love-in of
like minds always agreeing.  Give me the dissenting opinion anytime.

As for you, while we do not always agree, (I think we do more often than you appreciate)
I do admire the effort and passion.  And the honesty; you make no bones about your
opinions and beliefs, and are willing to follow them blindly  smiley  I mean that as a compliment,
don't take offense.


Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 191


« Reply #583 on: May 18, 2009, 12:34:06 PM »



Often, I find I learn more from a debate or disagreement than a love-in of
like minds always agreeing.  Give me the dissenting opinion anytime.



+1 It also helps to have an atmosphere where the development of new ideas is welcome.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #584 on: May 18, 2009, 10:16:07 PM »

I continue to learn on this forum.  I don't always agree, but I definitely learn.

Often, I find I learn more from a debate or disagreement than a love-in of
like minds always agreeing.  Give me the dissenting opinion anytime.

As for you, while we do not always agree, (I think we do more often than you appreciate)
I do admire the effort and passion.  And the honesty; you make no bones about your
opinions and beliefs, and are willing to follow them blindly  smiley  I mean that as a compliment,
don't take offense.



I would say that I have a core set of values shaped by my life's experiences that I strive to adhere to.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #585 on: May 19, 2009, 12:13:35 AM »

I don't know your life experiences, but I admire your core set of values.

Remember that while we may continue to disagree on some subjects
I will continue to learn.
 smiley
« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 08:18:15 AM by JDN » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #586 on: May 19, 2009, 11:38:04 AM »

And on that gracious note, may I suggest we move on from this particular little discussion.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5943


« Reply #587 on: May 19, 2009, 12:13:49 PM »

"And on that gracious note, may I suggest we move on from this particular little discussion."

Like the best NHL hockey referees, they wait unitl the fighters are exhausted and then they break it up.
Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 191


« Reply #588 on: May 19, 2009, 12:30:43 PM »

"And on that gracious note, may I suggest we move on from this particular little discussion."

Like the best NHL hockey referees, they wait unitl the fighters are exhausted and then they break it up.

Anyone else bothered by the prospect of Carolina winning another Cup this year?HuhHuh??  Even worse, not one Canadian team is in the running.  They are all american teams using Canadian mercenaries.............. oh well, atleast i have the Olympics to look forward to.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #589 on: May 19, 2009, 12:34:34 PM »

Doug:

That was very funny.

Marc
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2788


« Reply #590 on: May 20, 2009, 12:31:15 PM »

Hardly a rant:

April 2009
Mark Steyn

 
Live Free or Die
 
MARK STEYN'S column appears in several newspapers, including the Washington Times, Philadelphia's Evening Bulletin, and the Orange County Register. In addition, he writes for The New Criterion, Maclean's in Canada, the Jerusalem Post, The Australian, and Hawke's Bay Today in New Zealand. The author of National Review's Happy Warrior column, he also blogs on National Review Online. He is the author of several books, including the best-selling America Alone: The End of The World as We Know It. Mr. Steyn teaches a two-week course in journalism at Hillsdale College during each spring semester.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on March 9, 2009.

 

MY REMARKS are titled tonight after the words of General Stark, New Hampshire's great hero of the Revolutionary War: "Live free or die!" When I first moved to New Hampshire, where this appears on our license plates, I assumed General Stark had said it before some battle or other—a bit of red meat to rally the boys for the charge; a touch of the old Henry V-at-Agincourt routine. But I soon discovered that the general had made his famous statement decades after the war, in a letter regretting that he would be unable to attend a dinner. And in a curious way I found that even more impressive. In extreme circumstances, many people can rouse themselves to rediscover the primal impulses: The brave men on Flight 93 did. They took off on what they thought was a routine business trip, and, when they realized it wasn't, they went into General Stark mode and cried "Let's roll!" But it's harder to maintain the "Live free or die!" spirit when you're facing not an immediate crisis but just a slow, remorseless, incremental, unceasing ratchet effect. "Live free or die!" sounds like a battle cry: We'll win this thing or die trying, die an honorable death. But in fact it's something far less dramatic: It's a bald statement of the reality of our lives in the prosperous West. You can live as free men, but, if you choose not to, your society will die.

My book America Alone is often assumed to be about radical Islam, firebreathing imams, the excitable young men jumping up and down in the street doing the old "Death to the Great Satan" dance. It's not. It's about us. It's about a possibly terminal manifestation of an old civilizational temptation: Indolence, as Machiavelli understood, is the greatest enemy of a republic. When I ran into trouble with the so-called "human rights" commissions up in Canada, it seemed bizarre to find the progressive left making common cause with radical Islam. One half of the alliance profess to be pro-gay, pro-feminist secularists; the other half are homophobic, misogynist theocrats. Even as the cheap bus 'n' truck road-tour version of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, it made no sense. But in fact what they have in common overrides their superficially more obvious incompatibilities: Both the secular Big Government progressives and political Islam recoil from the concept of the citizen, of the free individual entrusted to operate within his own societal space, assume his responsibilities, and exploit his potential.

In most of the developed world, the state has gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood—health care, child care, care of the elderly—to the point where it's effectively severed its citizens from humanity's primal instincts, not least the survival instinct. Hillary Rodham Clinton said it takes a village to raise a child. It's supposedly an African proverb—there is no record of anyone in Africa ever using this proverb, but let that pass. P.J. O'Rourke summed up that book superbly: It takes a village to raise a child. The government is the village, and you're the child. Oh, and by the way, even if it did take a village to raise a child, I wouldn't want it to be an African village. If you fly over West Africa at night, the lights form one giant coastal megalopolis: Not even Africans regard the African village as a useful societal model. But nor is the European village. Europe's addiction to big government, unaffordable entitlements, cradle-to-grave welfare, and a dependence on mass immigration needed to sustain it has become an existential threat to some of the oldest nation-states in the world.

And now the last holdout, the United States, is embarking on the same grim path: After the President unveiled his budget, I heard Americans complain, oh, it's another Jimmy Carter, or LBJ's Great Society, or the new New Deal. You should be so lucky. Those nickel-and-dime comparisons barely begin to encompass the wholesale Europeanization that's underway. The 44th president's multi-trillion-dollar budget, the first of many, adds more to the national debt than all the previous 43 presidents combined, from George Washington to George Dubya. The President wants Europeanized health care, Europeanized daycare, Europeanized education, and, as the Europeans have discovered, even with Europeanized tax rates you can't make that math add up. In Sweden, state spending accounts for 54% of GDP. In America, it was 34%—ten years ago. Today, it's about 40%. In four years' time, that number will be trending very Swede-like.

But forget the money, the deficit, the debt, the big numbers with the 12 zeroes on the end of them. So-called fiscal conservatives often miss the point. The problem isn't the cost. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month. They're wrong because they deform the relationship between the citizen and the state. Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal. That's the stage where Europe is.

America is just beginning this process. I looked at the rankings in Freedom in the 50 States published by George Mason University last month. New Hampshire came in Number One, the Freest State in the Nation, which all but certainly makes it the freest jurisdiction in the Western world. Which kind of depressed me. Because the Granite State feels less free to me than it did when I moved there, and you always hope there's somewhere else out there just in case things go belly up and you have to hit the road. And way down at the bottom in the last five places were Maryland, California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and the least free state in the Union by some distance, New York.

New York! How does the song go? "If you can make it there, you'll make it anywhere!" If you can make it there, you're some kind of genius. "This is the worst fiscal downturn since the Great Depression," announced Governor Paterson a few weeks ago. So what's he doing? He's bringing in the biggest tax hike in New York history. If you can make it there, he can take it there—via state tax, sales tax, municipal tax, a doubled beer tax, a tax on clothing, a tax on cab rides, an "iTunes tax," a tax on haircuts, 137 new tax hikes in all. Call 1-800-I-HEART-NEW-YORK today and order your new package of state tax forms, for just $199.99, plus the 12% tax on tax forms and the 4% tax form application fee partially refundable upon payment of the 7.5% tax filing tax. If you can make it there, you'll certainly have no difficulty making it in Tajikistan.

New York, California... These are the great iconic American states, the ones we foreigners have heard of. To a penniless immigrant called Arnold Schwarzenegger, California was a land of plenty. Now Arnold is an immigrant of plenty in a penniless land: That's not an improvement. One of his predecessors as governor of California, Ronald Reagan, famously said, "We are a nation that has a government, not the other way around." In California, it's now the other way around: California is increasingly a government that has a state. And it is still in the early stages of the process. California has thirtysomething million people. The Province of Quebec has seven million people. Yet California and Quebec have roughly the same number of government workers. "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation," said Adam Smith, and America still has a long way to go. But it's better to jump off the train as you're leaving the station and it's still picking up speed than when it's roaring down the track and you realize you've got a one-way ticket on the Oblivion Express.

"Indolence," in Machiavelli's word: There are stages to the enervation of free peoples. America, which held out against the trend, is now at Stage One: The benign paternalist state promises to make all those worries about mortgages, debt, and health care disappear. Every night of the week, you can switch on the TV and see one of these ersatz "town meetings" in which freeborn citizens of the republic (I use the term loosely) petition the Sovereign to make all the bad stuff go away. "I have an urgent need," a lady in Fort Myers beseeched the President. "We need a home, our own kitchen, our own bathroom." He took her name and ordered his staff to meet with her. Hopefully, he didn't insult her by dispatching some no-name deputy assistant associate secretary of whatever instead of flying in one of the bigtime tax-avoiding cabinet honchos to nationalize a Florida bank and convert one of its branches into a desirable family residence, with a swing set hanging where the drive-thru ATM used to be.

As all of you know, Hillsdale College takes no federal or state monies. That used to make it an anomaly in American education. It's in danger of becoming an anomaly in America, period. Maybe it's time for Hillsdale College to launch the Hillsdale Insurance Agency, the Hillsdale Motor Company and the First National Bank of Hillsdale. The executive supremo at Bank of America is now saying, oh, if only he'd known what he knows now, he wouldn't have taken the government money. Apparently it comes with strings attached. Who knew? Sure, Hillsdale College did, but nobody else.

If you're a business, when government gives you 2% of your income, it has a veto on 100% of what you do. If you're an individual, the impact is even starker. Once you have government health care, it can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom: After all, if the state has to cure you, it surely has an interest in preventing you needing treatment in the first place. That's the argument behind, for example, mandatory motorcycle helmets, or the creepy teams of government nutritionists currently going door to door in Britain and conducting a "health audit" of the contents of your refrigerator. They're not yet confiscating your Twinkies; they just want to take a census of how many you have. So you do all this for the "free" health care—and in the end you may not get the "free" health care anyway. Under Britain's National Health Service, for example, smokers in Manchester have been denied treatment for heart disease, and the obese in Suffolk are refused hip and knee replacements. Patricia Hewitt, the British Health Secretary, says that it's appropriate to decline treatment on the basis of "lifestyle choices." Smokers and the obese may look at their gay neighbor having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and wonder why his "lifestyle choices" get a pass while theirs don't. But that's the point: Tyranny is always whimsical.

And if they can't get you on grounds of your personal health, they'll do it on grounds of planetary health. Not so long ago in Britain it was proposed that each citizen should have a government-approved travel allowance. If you take one flight a year, you'll pay just the standard amount of tax on the journey. But, if you travel more frequently, if you take a second or third flight, you'll be subject to additional levies—in the interest of saving the planet for Al Gore's polar bear documentaries and that carbon-offset palace he lives in in Tennessee.

Isn't this the very definition of totalitarianism-lite? The Soviets restricted the movement of people through the bureaucratic apparatus of "exit visas." The British are proposing to do it through the bureaucratic apparatus of exit taxes—indeed, the bluntest form of regressive taxation. As with the Communists, the nomenklatura—the Prince of Wales, Al Gore, Madonna—will still be able to jet about hither and yon. What's a 20% surcharge to them? Especially as those for whom vast amounts of air travel are deemed essential—government officials, heads of NGOs, environmental activists—will no doubt be exempted from having to pay the extra amount. But the ghastly masses will have to stay home.

"Freedom of movement" used to be regarded as a bedrock freedom. The movement is still free, but there's now a government processing fee of $389.95. And the interesting thing about this proposal was that it came not from the Labour Party but the Conservative Party.

Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2788


« Reply #591 on: May 20, 2009, 12:31:35 PM »

That's Stage Two of societal enervation—when the state as guarantor of all your basic needs becomes increasingly comfortable with regulating your behavior. Free peoples who were once willing to give their lives for liberty can be persuaded very quickly to relinquish their liberties for a quiet life. When President Bush talked about promoting democracy in the Middle East, there was a phrase he liked to use: "Freedom is the desire of every human heart." Really? It's unclear whether that's really the case in Gaza and the Pakistani tribal lands. But it's absolutely certain that it's not the case in Berlin and Paris, Stockholm and London, New Orleans and Buffalo. The story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government "security," large numbers of people vote to dump freedom every time—the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, and a ton of other stuff. It's ridiculous for grown men and women to say: I want to be able to choose from hundreds of cereals at the supermarket, thousands of movies from Netflix, millions of songs to play on my iPod—but I want the government to choose for me when it comes to my health care. A nation that demands the government take care of all the grown-up stuff is a nation turning into the world's wrinkliest adolescent, free only to choose its record collection.

And don't be too sure you'll get to choose your record collection in the end. That's Stage Three: When the populace has agreed to become wards of the state, it's a mere difference of degree to start regulating their thoughts. When my anglophone friends in the Province of Quebec used to complain about the lack of English signs in Quebec hospitals, my response was that, if you allow the government to be the sole provider of health care, why be surprised that they're allowed to decide the language they'll give it in? But, as I've learned during my year in the hellhole of Canadian "human rights" law, that's true in a broader sense. In the interests of "cultural protection," the Canadian state keeps foreign newspaper owners, foreign TV operators, and foreign bookstore owners out of Canada. Why shouldn't it, in return, assume the right to police the ideas disseminated through those newspapers, bookstores and TV networks it graciously agrees to permit?

When Maclean's magazine and I were hauled up in 2007 for the crime of "flagrant Islamophobia," it quickly became very clear that, for members of a profession that brags about its "courage" incessantly (far more than, say, firemen do), an awful lot of journalists are quite content to be the eunuchs in the politically correct harem. A distressing number of Western journalists see no conflict between attending lunches for World Press Freedom Day every month and agreeing to be micro-regulated by the state. The big problem for those of us arguing for classical liberalism is that in modern Canada there's hardly anything left that isn't on the state dripfeed to one degree or another: Too many of the institutions healthy societies traditionally look to as outposts of independent thought—churches, private schools, literature, the arts, the media—either have an ambiguous relationship with government or are downright dependent on it. Up north, "intellectual freedom" means the relevant film-funding agency—Cinedole Canada or whatever it's called—gives you a check to enable you to continue making so-called "bold, brave, transgressive" films that discombobulate state power not a whit.

And then comes Stage Four, in which dissenting ideas and even words are labeled as "hatred." In effect, the language itself becomes a means of control. Despite the smiley-face banalities, the tyranny becomes more naked: In Britain, a land with rampant property crime, undercover constables nevertheless find time to dine at curry restaurants on Friday nights to monitor adjoining tables lest someone in private conversation should make a racist remark. An author interviewed on BBC Radio expressed, very mildly and politely, some concerns about gay adoption and was investigated by Scotland Yard's Community Safety Unit for Homophobic, Racist and Domestic Incidents. A Daily Telegraph columnist is arrested and detained in a jail cell over a joke in a speech. A Dutch legislator is invited to speak at the Palace of Westminster by a member of the House of Lords, but is banned by the government, arrested on arrival at Heathrow and deported.

America, Britain, and even Canada are not peripheral nations: They're the three anglophone members of the G7. They're three of a handful of countries that were on the right side of all the great conflicts of the last century. But individual liberty flickers dimmer in each of them. The massive expansion of government under the laughable euphemism of "stimulus" (Stage One) comes with a quid pro quo down the line (Stage Two): Once you accept you're a child in the government nursery, why shouldn't Nanny tell you what to do? And then—Stage Three—what to think? And—Stage Four—what you're forbidden to think . . . .

Which brings us to the final stage: As I said at the beginning, Big Government isn't about the money. It's more profound than that. A couple of years back Paul Krugman wrote a column in The New York Times asserting that, while parochial American conservatives drone on about "family values," the Europeans live it, enacting policies that are more "family friendly." On the Continent, claims the professor, "government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff-to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family."

As befits a distinguished economist, Professor Krugman failed to notice that for a continent of "family friendly" policies, Europe is remarkably short of families. While America's fertility rate is more or less at replacement level—2.1—seventeen European nations are at what demographers call "lowest-low" fertility—1.3 or less—a rate from which no society in human history has ever recovered. Germans, Spaniards, Italians and Greeks have upside-down family trees: four grandparents have two children and one grandchild. How can an economist analyze "family friendly" policies without noticing that the upshot of these policies is that nobody has any families?

As for all that extra time, what happened? Europeans work fewer hours than Americans, they don't have to pay for their own health care, they're post-Christian so they don't go to church, they don't marry and they don't have kids to take to school and basketball and the 4-H stand at the county fair. So what do they do with all the time?

Forget for the moment Europe's lack of world-beating companies: They regard capitalism as an Anglo-American fetish, and they mostly despise it. But what about the things Europeans supposedly value? With so much free time, where is the great European art? Where are Europe's men of science? At American universities. Meanwhile, Continental governments pour fortunes into prestigious white elephants of Euro-identity, like the Airbus A380, capable of carrying 500, 800, a thousand passengers at a time, if only somebody somewhere would order the darn thing, which they might consider doing once all the airports have built new runways to handle it.

"Give people plenty and security, and they will fall into spiritual torpor," wrote Charles Murray in In Our Hands. "When life becomes an extended picnic, with nothing of importance to do, ideas of greatness become an irritant. Such is the nature of the Europe syndrome."

The key word here is "give." When the state "gives" you plenty—when it takes care of your health, takes cares of your kids, takes care of your elderly parents, takes care of every primary responsibility of adulthood—it's not surprising that the citizenry cease to function as adults: Life becomes a kind of extended adolescence—literally so for those Germans who've mastered the knack of staying in education till they're 34 and taking early retirement at 42. Hilaire Belloc, incidentally, foresaw this very clearly in his book The Servile State in 1912. He understood that the long-term cost of a welfare society is the infantilization of the population.

Genteel decline can be very agreeable—initially: You still have terrific restaurants, beautiful buildings, a great opera house. And once the pressure's off it's nice to linger at the sidewalk table, have a second café au lait and a pain au chocolat, and watch the world go by. At the Munich Security Conference in February, President Sarkozy demanded of his fellow Continentals, "Does Europe want peace, or do we want to be left in peace?" To pose the question is to answer it. Alas, it only works for a generation or two. And it's hard to come up with a wake-up call for a society as dedicated as latterday Europe to the belief that life is about sleeping in.

As Gerald Ford liked to say when trying to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." And that's true. But there's an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give you everything you want isn't big enough to get you to give any of it back. That's the position European governments find themselves in. Their citizens have become hooked on unaffordable levels of social programs which in the end will put those countries out of business. Just to get the Social Security debate in perspective, projected public pension liabilities are expected to rise by 2040 to about 6.8% of GDP in the U.S. In Greece, the figure is 25%—i.e., total societal collapse. So what? shrug the voters. Not my problem. I want my benefits. The crisis isn't the lack of money, but the lack of citizens—in the meaningful sense of that word.

Every Democrat running for election tells you they want to do this or that "for the children." If America really wanted to do something "for the children," it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the Western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a leviathan of bloated bureaucracy and unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme. That's the real "war on children" (to use another Democrat catchphrase)—and every time you bulk up the budget you make it less and less likely they'll win it.

Conservatives often talk about "small government," which, in a sense, is framing the issue in leftist terms: they're for big government. But small government gives you big freedoms—and big government leaves you with very little freedom. The bailout and the stimulus and the budget and the trillion-dollar deficits are not merely massive transfers from the most dynamic and productive sector to the least dynamic and productive. When governments annex a huge chunk of the economy, they also annex a huge chunk of individual liberty. You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher—and you make it very difficult ever to change back. Americans face a choice: They can rediscover the animating principles of the American idea—of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry, and the opportunities to exploit your talents to the fullest—or they can join most of the rest of the Western world in terminal decline. To rekindle the spark of liberty once it dies is very difficult. The inertia, the ennui, the fatalism is more pathetic than the demographic decline and fiscal profligacy of the social democratic state, because it's subtler and less tangible. But once in a while it swims into very sharp focus. Here is the writer Oscar van den Boogaard from an interview with the Belgian paper De Standaard. Mr. van den Boogaard, a Dutch gay "humanist" (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool), was reflecting on the accelerating Islamification of the Continent and concluding that the jig was up for the Europe he loved. "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it." In the famous Kubler-Ross five stages of grief, Mr. van den Boogard is past denial, anger, bargaining and depression, and has arrived at a kind of acceptance.

"I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it." Sorry, doesn't work—not for long. Back in New Hampshire, General Stark knew that. Mr. van den Boogard's words are an epitaph for Europe. Whereas New Hampshire's motto—"Live free or die!"—is still the greatest rallying cry for this state or any other. About a year ago, there was a picture in the papers of Iranian students demonstrating in Tehran and waving placards. And what they'd written on those placards was: "Live free or die!" They understand the power of those words; so should we.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=04
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2788


« Reply #592 on: May 21, 2009, 10:04:49 AM »

May 21, 2009
How to Deprogram a Liberal in One Year Or Less

By Robin of Berkeley

So what do you do when you realize that everything you've ever thought and believed no longer worked for you?  Where do you go when the bubble of progressive politics bursts in your face and you're left in the leftist place on earth?  It seems that the choices are as follows:  either you cling to your beliefs even more zealously and attack anyone who dares to disagree.  Or, if you're like me, you embark on a journey of discovery and recovery.

I wrote another piece recently for American Thinker, a letter of amends to conservatives.  In it I described why I transformed from a Berkeley leftist to a talk radio loving conservative the last 1 1/2 years.   I realized the Democratic Party wasn't what I thought, that it had mutated into something mean and rough, and that I had probably been living in a fantasy world all along.  I very much appreciated the outpouring of support, wisdom, and forgiveness from American Thinker readers. 

Many said something to the effect of:  Robin, congrats, but what in the world took you so long?  So let me explain.  I wasn't just your garden variety liberal who voted Democrat and that was about it.   I was a true believer.  A zealot.  Like many leftists who had abandoned Judeo-Christian religion, I worshipped at the altar of liberalism.  For instance, I never missed watching the Democratic National Convention.  I watched every speech, with tissue box handy.   (What kind of a freak was I anyway?)  The Democratic Party symbolized hope, love, compassion, promise, everything that was good and holy in the world.   I gave money, my time, my heart, my soul.  I cried with joy when Democrats won; I was distraught when they lost.

I was programmed from birth to be a devout liberal.  My dad, a hard working first generation Russian Jew, would lecture me on a regular basis, "The Democrats are the party of the little people.  The Republicans are the party of the rich guy."  He would also get a little weepy when he watched the DNC (so that must be where I got it from).  One of our rare moments of bonding was reading the newspapers together on opposite ends of the couch, interrupting each other with stories about the bad Republicans and the heroic Democrats.

When I was in high school in the early 70's in New York, I wrote impassioned essays on civil rights and on feminism.  In college, in the days before universities became indoctrination factories, I searched for politically left classes, and took every one I could find.  I spent years in consciousness raising groups lambasting male oppression with other angry feminists, and yelled "Two Four Six Eight, Pornography is Woman Hate,"  at numerous marches.

When I was 26, I parked myself in the People's Republic of Berkeley, CA, the epicenter of the far left.  I came as a liberal but soon morphed into a leftist as most people here do.  In Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, and the outlying towns, there is no Republican Party.  Literally.  There are only Democrats running against other Democrats.  I recall years ago going to vote at a time when there were separate lines for Democrats and Republicans.  The Democrats' line was a mile long.  The Republican's was free and clear.  After we all stood there waiting for 45 minutes, a brave young man walked up to the Republican booth and quickly voted.  I still recall the cackles and giggles as we pointed and stared at this odd, exotic bird that had come to perch for a brief while.

So maybe you get now how hard it was, how disorienting and destabilizing and crazy making it was, when I realized about 1 1/2 years ago that I no longer believed in liberalism.  I walked around in a confused state for weeks.  Being a Democrat, a liberal, a far left radical from Berkeley was a big part of my identity.  So who the heck was I if I weren't a leftist?   And what in the world would I do, given that my husband, all my friends, and all my psychotherapist clients were liberal and I would be public enemy #1 if I told anyone?   Converting from Islam to Judaism, yet still hanging out in front of the old mosque in Kabul, probably would have been easier.

After weeks of shuffling around like a zombie, it was time to do something about it.  The first step, I decided, was deprogramming myself from decades of liberal propaganda.   Out went books by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, and various 9/11 conspiracy books.  In came Mark Levin, Ben Stein, Ron Paul, and Ayn Rand.   I heard something vaguely about Talk Radio, so I scanned my AM dial, and found Michael Savage.  I was shocked and offended by his diatribes -- but also oddly intrigued.  I found many others:  Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Boortz, Medved, all of whom became my "sponsors" in recovery this last year.  I found wonderfully insightful websites like American Thinker.

To my disbelief, the more I listened and read, the more these folks made sense.  For instance, at first I couldn't understand why so many conservatives expressed concern about morality issues, like gay marriage.  Berkeley is Lesbian Central, and I know many good hearted gay people. But the more I learned, the more I started getting the larger picture; that conservatives were not necessarily impugning the character of gay people, but they were alarmed at the breakdown of traditional values.   If the basic structure of society goes, e.g., traditional marriage, religion, patriotism, common language, what remains?   If everything becomes fluid, what is there to hold onto?  Without any moral structure and traditions, a society descends into anarchy and mob rule, as it is clearly doing today. 

As I educated myself, I started thinking and rethinking.   I'd wake up in the middle of the night with the sudden realization that deeply held beliefs made no sense.  Take the anti war stance of the left.  Noble and sanctimonious and all that.  But how easy it is to sit back and preach peace when you have an army defending you; to rail against the U.S. when you are protected by free speech laws;  to demonize Israel, when you've never lived through the murderous pogroms of Tsarist Russia or the Holocaust.  How hypocritical to lambast Big Business while you are making money from their stocks in your mutual fund portfolio (that is, until Obama took over).  And how ludicrous to admire Chavez, Castro and all things socialist, when the closest experience you've had to standing on a bread line is queuing up for goat cheese/arugula pizza at Whole Foods.

And this love affair with Radical Islam -- what's up with that?   I had previously thought of Islam as a quaint, folksy religion.  But when I started actually reading about it, especially Dr. Phyllis Chesler's illuminating books and web site, I realized extremist Muslims were advocating some seriously scary stuff, like destroying Israel and the West.  I had been oblivious of the horrendous treatment of women: the honor killings, beheadings, genital mutilation.   It now seemed like the height of naivety, if not masochism, to embrace with open arms people who want to kill you.  While as a liberal I was socialized to believe everyone was good, all cultures were the same, and We Are The World, We Are The Children, I began to understand that evil exists.   The emergence of evil always offers warnings signs, and we ignore them at our peril. 

Though exhausted from lack of sleep, I also started waking up.  I realized, to my utter incredulity, that conservatives made sense, and that I was one of them.   I recalled Mark Twain's quip about his father: When Twain was a teenager, he thought his father was the stupidest man in the world; but when he became a young man in his 20's, his father had many intelligent things to say. Twain couldn't believe how much his father had learned in those years! Like Twain, I grew up and saw the world as it is.  Yes it would be nice to save the planet, to eliminate hunger, and to make everyone good and righteous.  But humans don't have the power to do that. To walk around, as I did, with utopian images that didn't match reality was to view life through the eyes of a child.  An adult understands that civility matters, people need to be held accountable for their behavior, and protecting yourself and your country are moral imperatives.

So it took about a year, but my deprogramming has been successful.  I'm comfortable in my own skin, feel more alive than I have in years, and am excited by all I'm learning and becoming.   Now when I listen to Sean Hannity's theme song, "Let Freedom Ring," I get a little misty eyed (some things never change).   I only hope and pray (yes I'm doing that more too) that the US survives when the Democrats are done "changing" it.  But if this lifelong left winger from Berkeley can wake up, hopefully others will also do so before it's too late.

Robin of Berkeley is a Recovering Liberal and a psychotherapist in private practice.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/how_to_deprogram_a_liberal_in.html at May 21, 2009 - 11:03:16 AM EDT
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #593 on: May 21, 2009, 01:29:08 PM »

CNN) — So what did former President Bush think about President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney's dueling speeches on national security policies Thursday?
He didn't watch them.
A source close to Bush said the former president was traveling at the time, enroute to New Mexico where he is the keynote speaker Thursday night at a fund raising dinner for a scholarship program for students at Artesia High School."


Good for President Bush;  isn't that what former Presidents and Vice Presidents are suppose to do?
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2788


« Reply #594 on: May 21, 2009, 02:05:58 PM »

Good for President Bush;  isn't that what former Presidents and Vice Presidents are suppose to do?

What, like Jimmy Carter?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #595 on: May 21, 2009, 02:31:59 PM »

After leaving office in 1982, he established The Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia, to advance human rights and alleviate unnecessary human suffering. The non-profit, nongovernmental Center promotes democracy, mediates and prevents conflicts, and monitors the electoral process in support of free and fair elections. It also works to improve global health through the control and eradication of diseases such as Guinea worm disease, river blindness, malaria, trachoma, lymphatic filariasis, and schistosomiasis. It also works to diminish the stigma against mental illnesses and improve nutrition through increased crop production in Africa. A major accomplishment of The Carter Center has been the elimination of more than 99%of cases of Guinea worm disease, a debilitating parasite that has existed since ancient times, from an estimated 3.5 million cases in 1986 to fewer than 10,000 cases in 2007.[48] The Carter Center has monitored 70 elections in 28 countries since 1989.[49] It has worked to resolve conflicts in Haiti, Bosnia, Ethiopia, North Korea, Sudan and other countries. Carter and the Center actively support human rights defenders around the world and have intervened with heads of state on their behalf.

Nobel Peace Prize
In 2002, President Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work "to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development" through The Carter Center.[50] He was the third US President, after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, to be awarded the Prize.

I personally am not a big fan of Carter especially while he was in office.  But as it pertains to your question, if I recollect immediately after losing the election, he didn't spend his energy trying to be in the limelight criticizing the Republican Party or the new President.  I am sure there are exceptions, but in general it seems like a nice tradition to simply go home and avoid politics at least for a few years.  Build a library.  Write a book. Otherwise you sound like a bitter old man.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2788


« Reply #596 on: May 21, 2009, 03:20:37 PM »

You forgot the part about how the head of his library quit because Carter's books had so little relation to the truth is was embarrassing to curate them.

Beyond that is the larger point you missed, you congratulate Bush, and presumably are dishing on Cheney because he partook of the exact same behavior Carter and Clinton have. How do you reconcile that?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4078


« Reply #597 on: May 21, 2009, 03:51:41 PM »

"if I recollect immediately after losing the election, he didn't spend his energy trying to be in the limelight criticizing the Republican Party or the new President."

oh really?

I don't recall previous Presidents along with their legislative hound dogs attacking mercilessly predecessor Presidents and VPs.
I don't other PRes. going around the world and mocking to the world our previous leaders.

I don't recall other Pres. allowing "criminal like invesigations" into policies they disagree with - even after they won the Presidency.

I say good for Cheney to speak up.  Why he should just fade away and let Bama and Pelosi and the rest destroy his integrity - over what?  For doing what was necessary to keep us safe?
 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #598 on: May 21, 2009, 04:08:56 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVMc4g3ybnI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffrontpagemag%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

Jimmy Carter's war against the Jews.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #599 on: May 21, 2009, 04:56:47 PM »

CCP
I think it is a time honored "tradition" to blame the last guy in the office if he's from the other party.

That being said, i too don't understand or approve of the legislative hounds.  Or the "criminal like investigations"; I am not
an attorney, but that too seems rather overzealous.  As for Pelosi, i don't understand her BS either; although
it seems Panetta (a democrat) seems to be doing a pretty good job of defending the CIA.  And rightfully
so in my opinion. 

BbyG
Didn't know about Carter's Librarian quitting; didn't care I guess.
And I don't remember Carter attacking the next administration immediately after leaving office.  There was a grace period.
Nor did Clinton; if I remember correctly he wrote a book, worked on his library, and he and President George H. Bush went on their world wide tour together arm in arm.  After his wife became political it is understandable that he re-entered the political arena.
Nor have most other Presidents and VP's.  Best to get on your horse and go off to your ranch.  And leave it for the next generation to pick up the attack.  The Republicans just need to find some new talent to take the lead in my opinion.  And then they will do fine.


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 28 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!