Humpty-Dumpty and all the King's horses

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, February 24, 2006 22:47
VIEWED: 3294
PAGE 5 of 6

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

GEEZER

Friday, February 24, 2006 12:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I'm plenty consistant enough, and if I contradict myself very well, I contradict myself. Consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds.

You follow which ever way your Beloved Leader point you.

Actually, it's "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Consistency as I mentioned it refers to keeping your story straight.

And once again with the "Anyone who doesn't agree with me must be brainwashed" meme. Sheesh.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, February 24, 2006 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How do you define the "evil" and "good" of a nation?

Ooh! Me! Me!

But just one example.

An "Evil" nation is one where this bulletin board wouldn't exist in the first place, and if it did, the people who disparage the government on it would be disappeared and no one would ever know, e.g. North Korea, China, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia.

A "Good" nation allows free expression of opinion, even if it does not agree with the government's position or causes dissent and trouble. e.g. Denmark, England, the United States.

We could go on listing "good" and "evil" traits all day. Every country has both in differing degrees. The real test is probably - Pick where in the world you'd most like to live. That would be the best of the "Good" places for you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SEVENPERCENT

Friday, February 24, 2006 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I'm plenty consistant enough, and if I contradict myself very well, I contradict myself. Consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds.

You follow which ever way your Beloved Leader point you.

Sorry, DT, but as an English teacher I have to correct you -

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 24, 2006 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
This is the sort of statement that I take as a partisan picking-a-fight, and I've learned to avoid them.

That's a good way of getting my back up DT.

I asked the question because you were using Hong Kong like it was a example of an all out millitary invasion, which it isn't. The lease was with the Chinese government for Hong Kong and the surrounding area (it was originally indefinatly British after the first Opium Wars, but that was changed with the addition of extra territories after subsequent conflicts and the signing of the 99 year lease).

I believe the lease was with the Chinese government, thus since the Peoples Republic of China is the Chinese Government, Hong Kong is rightfully PRC territory since the end of the lease. If Britian had stayed there, or America or anyone else had attempted to prevent the PRC taking control, they would have been the aggressor.

In fact the PRC is a successor to the ROC and Qing and it's claim to Hong Kong and it's surrounding territories was up held by UN resolution as I understand it. As I see it we can argue whether handing over control to the PRC was the right thing to do till the Cows come home, but if we had prevented it we would be the aggressor on Chinese soil.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

GEEZER

Friday, February 24, 2006 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How do you define the "evil" and "good" of a nation?

You want to talk EVIL?

Quote:
Chinese slap ban on TV cartoons

Cartoons that blend live-action actors with animation are to be banned from TV in China.
Shows such as Teletubbies and the film Who Framed Roger Rabbit? could be affected by the decision taken by the country's main TV and film regulator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4743414.stm

Banning the Teletubbies? My God.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, February 24, 2006 5:03 PM

That's becuse Teletubbies are gay. Winky carries a purse, you know. The Xtian right says so, so it seems Communist Chinese and Xtians are on the same side!

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 24, 2006 5:21 PM

Quote:
Ooh! Me! Me!

But just one example.

An "Evil" nation is one where this bulletin board wouldn't exist in the first place, and if it did, the people who disparage the government on it would be disappeared and no one would ever know, e.g. North Korea, China, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia.

Apparently you not only put words in the mouths of your contenders, you also put words in the mouths of your allies! In sum, your definition of a "good" nation is based on civil liberties. I presume you mean laws which prevent "unreasonable" search and seizure, indefinite detention, and torture? Laws that prevent snooping on email and phone calls, policies that make government open and accountable, and representatives that are not swayed by money?

But, okay- I'll bite: I'd prolly like best to live in New Zealand. Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway sound pretty good too. Due to an accident of birth, I was born here, and ongoing commitments keep me here. I keep working to make this nation a better place. And you....?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

GEEZER

Friday, February 24, 2006 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In sum, your view is that a "good" nation has civil liberties in place. I presume you mean laws that prevent "unreasonable" search and seizure, indefinite detention, and torture? Laws that prevent snooping on email and phone calls, policies that make government open and accountable, and representatives that are not swayed by money?

Preventing unreasonable search and seizure? you mean like the 4th Amendment? Yeah, that's a good law. I seem to recall that a prohibition on indefinite detention is there in the Bill of Rights as well. A decision on whether prisoners taken during combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq fall under this law is working its way through the courts, just like any other dispute.

Congress just passed a law refining and enlarging the definition of torture, and outlawing it. Neat, eh? The system works.

Most any "snooping" requires a warrant. The very small percent, very strictly defined as contact with an overseas terrorism suspect, that can occur without a warrant requires a report to a Congressional oversight body. Called any terrorists lately?

With a free and active media just champing at the bit to pull down anyone they can in the name of ratings, and sunshine laws enacted in the past 30 or so years, we know quite a bit more than ever before about the workings of the government.

Politicians swayed by money? Like death and taxes, that's with us always.

That glass still looks half full to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, February 24, 2006 7:36 PM

Quote:
Preventing unreasonable search and seizure? you mean like the 4th Amendment? Yeah, that's a good law. I seem to recall that a prohibition on indefinite detention is there in the Bill of Rights as well. A decision on whether prisoners taken during combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq fall under this law is working its way through the courts, just like any other dispute. Congress just passed a law refining and enlarging the definition of torture, and outlawing it. Neat, eh? The system works.

Most any "snooping" requires a warrant. The very small percent, very strictly defined as contact with an overseas terrorism suspect, that can occur without a warrant requires a report to a Congressional oversight body.

First of all, I noticed that you skipped right past "open and accountable" government. That's pretty typical of your responses: you ignore what you don't have answers for, and steer the conversation away from your areas of weakness. So, to note:

Geezer apparently has no opinion on open and accountable government. Since the Constitution and other laws don't work unless the government actually follows them, this is a rather large omission: Russia actually has some rather nice laws on the books. So does China.

Whether the Bush administration broke the law and "snooped" on citizens illegally (and on the face of evidence, it appears that they did) is a matter of some importance. And meanwhile, people are still in detention, and prisoners have died of abuse in US custody. When will those prisoners actually get a hearing? When will Congress investigate warrantless spying? When will the Administration stop impeding the CIA-outing investigation? When will Gonzales and Bush be brave enough to testify under oath? When will Geezer actually support civil liberties? To borrow one of Rummy's favorite lines: "Who knows"?

Where the system works, it's thanks to people like me and not you, Geezer. I actually defend civil liberties through all legal means at my disposal, and try to hold the government accountable. What about you? "Lackadaisical" is too active a description. Even "passive" doesn't seem to capture the right tone. "Obstructive" might be more accurate.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

GEEZER

Friday, February 24, 2006 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

First of all, I noticed that you skipped right past "open and accountable" government. That's pretty typical of your responses: you ignore what you don't have answers for, and steer the conversation away from your areas of weakness. So, to note:

Geezer apparently has no opinion on open and accountable government. Since the Constitution and other laws don't work unless the government actually follows them, this is a rather large omission: Russia actually has some rather nice laws on the books, too. So does China.

Ahem:

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
With a free and active media just champing at the bit to pull down anyone they can in the name of ratings, and sunshine laws enacted in the past 30 or so years, we know quite a bit more than ever before about the workings of the government.

Quote:
Whether the Bush administration broke the law and "snooped" on citizens illegally is a matter of some importance.

Important enough that we just bypass the protections you mentioned above and just throw the whole lot in jail without the formality of law?

Quote:
Where the system works, it's thanks to people like me and not you, Geezer. I actually defend civil liberties through all legal means at my disposal, and try to hold the government accountable. What about you? "Lackadaisical" is too active a description. Even "passive" doesn't seem to capture the right tone. "Obstructive" might be more accurate.

True, I don't support lynch-law, or assume a person is guilty until proven innocent. I don't even know what's "right" with 100% certainty at all times. Tell me, what's it like to be God?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE