A nice editorial

[dean_acheson]

I'm still kinda in disbelief that somebody actually wrote this, and maybe means it.

I can't imagine hating my political opponents this much.....

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/122407Lindorff.shtml

[Skybird]

Why reducing it to a matter of "hate"? You are not having some rethorical tactics on your mind, maybe...? :hmm:

This is true in an international context as well:

The important thing is that we, on the higher ground both actually and figuratively, need to remember that, when they begin their historic migration from their doomed regions, we not give them the keys to the city. They certainly should be offered assistance in their time of need, but we need to keep a firm grip on our political systems, making sure that these guilty throngs who allowed the world to go to hell are gerrymandered into political impotence in their new homes.

Very, very true.

[August]

Very, very true.

So in Skybirds world only the correct political thinking should be rewarded by the right to vote, right? :roll:

[SUBMAN1]

Oh my gosh! What a hate monger.

[Skybird]

Very, very true.

So in Skybirds world only the correct political thinking should be rewarded by the right to vote, right? :roll:
Explain what your statement has to do with my quote from that editorial. :hmm:

[Skybird]

There is a couple of new jokes, they all begin like this: "Skybird, August and Subman meet on the forum. Said one of the guys: etc etc etc" :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

Well, I take it as a hate speech from this paper.

The good news is this guy is pretty much an idiot. What this guy failed to take into account is that the entire flat South East is heavily democrat (and should be over run as well - eliminating those democrat states), and these conservatives simply won't roll over and die, they will move North and take over his states! Since the Conservatives are experiencing a population increase across the board, and the liberals are experiencing massive population decrease, it won't be hard to take over any of these states and turn them red - SAVING AMERICA from these hate mongers!

What a bastard. He wants us all to die.

-S

[August]

Very, very true.
So in Skybirds world only the correct political thinking should be rewarded by the right to vote, right? :roll: Explain what your statement has to do with my quote from that editorial. :hmm:

Well the part you bolded silly. It's "very, very true" according to you right?

They certainly should be offered assistance in their time of need, but we need to keep a firm grip on our political systems, making sure that these guilty throngs who allowed the world to go to hell are gerrymandered into political impotence in their new homes.

[August]

BTW check out the comments to this article at the authors website:

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/87#comments

[dean_acheson]

Why reducing it to a matter of "hate"? You are not having some rethorical tactics on your mind, maybe...? :hmm:

This is true in an international context as well:

The important thing is that we, on the higher ground both actually and figuratively, need to remember that, when they begin their historic migration from their doomed regions, we not give them the keys to the city. They certainly should be offered assistance in their time of need, but we need to keep a firm grip on our political systems, making sure that these guilty throngs who allowed the world to go to hell are gerrymandered into political impotence in their new homes.

Very, very true.

I think anytime you wish that folks get kicked out of their homes, farms, and livelihoods, have to relocate, and then plan on keeping them as second class citizens, you are exhibiting either extreme bigotry, or irrational hate.

I'm shocked that you are shocked at my comments.

If I said, I hope that all gun control nuts get mugged and shot by robbers, and then I can spit on them while they lay on the sidewalk bleeding, wouldn't I deserve some condemnation for being extreme? I think so.

[dean_acheson]

BTW check out the comments to this article at the authors website:

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/87#comments

those comments are a real gas!

gas isn't outlawed yet, is it?

[Tchocky]

I think it's fairly obvious that this isn't meant in quite the serious fashion that some people are taking it.
Sure, there's an ugly sentiment at heart, but the premise is so outlandishly infantile to discount serious consideration.

[August]

I think it's fairly obvious that this isn't meant in quite the serious fashion that some people are taking it.
Sure, there's an ugly sentiment at heart, but the premise is so outlandishly infantile to discount serious consideration.


Mein Kampf was so outlandishly infantile as to discount serious consideration as well. Until it happened that is...

[Skybird]

Very, very true.
So in Skybirds world only the correct political thinking should be rewarded by the right to vote, right? :roll: Explain what your statement has to do with my quote from that editorial. :hmm:

Well the part you bolded silly. It's "very, very true" according to you right?

They certainly should be offered assistance in their time of need, but we need to keep a firm grip on our political systems, making sure that these guilty throngs who allowed the world to go to hell are gerrymandered into political impotence in their new homes.

Yes, totally true. He who has behaved and acted like an egoist and, irresponsible idiot, shall not be given power to cause a mess again.
I indeed consider it to be justified and reasonable to exclude people who have rejected to react to mounting threats from future power and decision making, since they have disqualified themselves for that responsibility. Note that the author as well as me says nothing against giving assistance and help and aid on a humanitarian level once desaster has come as a result from these foolish policies. Indeed, he encourages it. Only to bring the same idiots who prveented action while there was time - these idiots should not be given a second chance to implement their stupid policies again.

When you give shelter to refugees, or your neighbour whose house has burned down in the night before - you help him, but you do not wish him to take over your house and all yous possessions and manipulate your heating and gas tanks like he did with his own, do you.

Like Tchocky said, the author is not to be taken literally, but has shown an intention to illustrate the problem by thzinking a possible conseqeunce rigzht down to the end, and in a somewhat ironic way.

I have seen his website and read some comments before, but these comments tell more about the commentor than about the author. that he supports a movement to impeach bush and Cheney, also doe snot spoeak agaisnt him in my book - I wish for the same and consider bush ending his second term regularly as a great failure of the democratic system. that somebody is given the maximum of possible time to do damage on and on and attack basic democratic principles, hints at some basic safeties and design features not wokring well. If the sysstem would have worked so well - they would have been prohibited to normally fulfill their possible maximum of terms, and removed from power indeed.

[Tchocky]

I think it's fairly obvious that this isn't meant in quite the serious fashion that some people are taking it.
Sure, there's an ugly sentiment at heart, but the premise is so outlandishly infantile to discount serious consideration.

Mein Kampf was so outlandishly infantile as to discount serious consideration as well. Until it happened that is...\
Someday I'm going to create a new account called Godwin, and run around telling everyone they're worse than Hitler.

[dean_acheson]

[quote=Skybird]
Yes, totally true. He who has behaved and acted like an egoist and, irresponsible idiot, shall not be given power to cause a mess again.
I indeed consider it to be justified and reasonable to exclude people who have rejected to react to mounting threats from future power and decision making, since they have disqualified themselves for that responsibility. Note that the author as well as me says nothing against giving assistance and help and aid on a humanitarian level once desaster has come as a result from these foolish policies. Indeed, he encourages it. Only to bring the same idiots who prveented action while there was time - these idiots should not be given a second chance to implement their stupid policies again.

When you give shelter to refugees, or your neighbour whose house has burned down in the night before - you help him, but you do not wish him to take over your house and all yous possessions and manipulate your heating and gas tanks like he did with his own, do you.

[\quote]

yes, unless they are fellow citizens, and have as much a right to vote, and participate, as everyone else.

this guy is actually saying that global warming is finally the chance to setup the dictatorship of the prolater..... I mean, enlighted enviormental activists.

[August]

I indeed consider it to be justified and reasonable to exclude people who have rejected to react to mounting threats from future power and decision making, since they have disqualified themselves for that responsibility.


Of course you do Skybird. However:

You do realize that where a person votes or in this case lives does not indicate in the least how they voted right?

You do realize that country folk tend to be way more well armed than city folk right?

You do realize that eliminating all the city dwellers like yourself who don't grow their own food or keep their own livestock is the most effective way of stopping global warming right?

You do realize that city dwellers like yourself are responsible for an overwhelming majority of the pollution in the world right?

Good luck with that idea Skybird. I'm thinking that in your brave new world you'll need all the luck you can get...

[August]

I think it's fairly obvious that this isn't meant in quite the serious fashion that some people are taking it.
Sure, there's an ugly sentiment at heart, but the premise is so outlandishly infantile to discount serious consideration.

Mein Kampf was so outlandishly infantile as to discount serious consideration as well. Until it happened that is...\
Someday I'm going to create a new account called Godwin, and run around telling everyone they're worse than Hitler.

I don't get it. Please explain.

[Skybird]

It seems that you love to make the same mistake not only twice, but as often as possible. and if you followed a corrupt bunch of people, and they did mess up things, and then there is a disastrous consequence - you tell me that nevertheless you would still follow them, and give them the same chance another time so that they can ruin things again?

Well - not logical a decision that would be.

I conclude that all you talking here is meant to distract only, because I am sure you know it better. argue with that single quote that i initially posted:
The important thing is that we, on the higher ground both actually and figuratively, need to remember that, when they begin their historic migration from their doomed regions, we not give them the keys to the city. They certainly should be offered assistance in their time of need, but we need to keep a firm grip on our political systems, making sure that these guilty throngs who allowed the world to go to hell are gerrymandered into political impotence in their new homes.
That is as reasonable a statement as reason can be. It says: if they fall from their own ignorrance and incompetence and bring suffering about their followers in their lands, in case of emergency and disaster give these people the humanitarian help needed so that the people can survive and make it into safety - but do not ever allow their bad leaders the power again to ruin things as much as they alraedy have done one time - it's already bad enough that they messed it up once: why allowng them to do it a second time again?

It's obvious that everybody here can understand that message in that quote perfectly, since it is neither hidden nor in any way coded or encrypted, but for reasons that are beyond me some still fight about it, . Okay, do it - but from here on without me. The thing is too obvious indeed. There is no argument to fight over - only a habit to keep on rumbling, no matter how. ;)

It seems christmas time is over :D

[joea]

Sorry I gotta agree with August and Dean on this thread...you can't deprive people of civic rights because you disagree with their viewpoints. Unless someone is actually convicted of a crime...and the idea of declaring millions of people "criminal" somehow doesn't sit well with me. :shifty:

[CCIP]

I think it's fairly obvious that this isn't meant in quite the serious fashion that some people are taking it.
Sure, there's an ugly sentiment at heart, but the premise is so outlandishly infantile to discount serious consideration.

Mein Kampf was so outlandishly infantile as to discount serious consideration as well. Until it happened that is...\
Someday I'm going to create a new account called Godwin, and run around telling everyone they're worse than Hitler.
I don't get it. Please explain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

[Ducimus]

I think the article in question was written in a sarchastic, point blank, and blunt manner, for the purpose of getting a rise out of people. Not hard to do on the internet. I doubt this commentary appears on a printed newspaper. Judging by the responses, im guessing he accomplished his goal.

[August]

It seems that you love to make the same mistake not only twice, but as often as possible. and if you followed a corrupt bunch of people, and they did mess up things, and then there is a disastrous consequence - you tell me that nevertheless you would still follow them, and give them the same chance another time so that they can ruin things again?

Well - not logical a decision that would be.

So what you're saying then is that allowing Germany to continue as a country after WW2 was not logical seeing as your people had nearly ruined the entire world, twice in a single century? I had no idea you felt that way.

I conclude that all you talking here is meant to distract only

I asked you a simple question but now that you bring it up what exactly was your dog in this hunt?

because I am sure you know it better.

Indeed i do apparently because I am not the one talking about creating a permanent class of sub citizens, you are and you don't even seem to see the irony in that.

That is as reasonable a statement as reason can be. It says: if they fall from their own ignorrance and incompetence and bring suffering about their followers in their lands, in case of emergency and disaster give these people the humanitarian help needed so that the people can survive and make it into safety - but do not ever allow their bad leaders the power again to ruin things as much as they alraedy have done one time - it's already bad enough that they messed it up once: why allowng them to do it a second time again

Maybe its a translation thing, maybe a reading comprehension thing, but you ought to realize that the article wasn't talking about politicians, it was talking about millions of average citizens whose only crime is to have lived in a state that voted against your preferred political party. Care to rethink your arguments again?

[/quote]but from here on without me. The thing is too obvious indeed. There is no argument to fight over - only a habit to keep on rumbling, no matter how. ;)[/quote]

I guess not. Easier to run away than defend your position right?

[August]

Sorry I gotta agree with August and Dean on this thread...you can't deprive people of civic rights because you disagree with their viewpoints. Unless someone is actually convicted of a crime...and the idea of declaring millions of people "criminal" somehow doesn't sit well with me. :shifty:

In all fairness I think that Skybird, with his limited command of the English language, and ignorance of American society, doesn't really understand that this was the implication. I'm thinking he believes it has to do with Bush/Cheney or some other group of individuals..

Guess it's too late to explain it to him though...

[Skybird]

It seems that you love to make the same mistake not only twice, but as often as possible. and if you followed a corrupt bunch of people, and they did mess up things, and then there is a disastrous consequence - you tell me that nevertheless you would still follow them, and give them the same chance another time so that they can ruin things again?

Well - not logical a decision that would be.

So what you're saying then is that allowing Germany to continue as a country after WW2 was not logical seeing as your people had nearly ruined the entire world, twice in a single century? I had no idea you felt that way.

You would have been the first to complain if germans wouldn't have learned anything from the hitler era - and would have formed another Hitler II-regime after 1945. Hey, your nation even would not have allowed it, and prevented it by force, and would have forced us to learn from our earlier mistakes! ;)


I conclude that all you talking here is meant to distract only

I asked you a simple question but now that you bring it up what exactly was your dog in this hunt?

That you happily follow those leaders a second time who brought you into a mess in the first, and that you do not learn from their mistakes, and would offer them the opportunity to make the same mistakes again - by allowiung them into power and influence again. You understood it already in the first go, you are not stupid.

BTW, since you are so demanding on answering your questions, you haven't answered mine when you said "So in Skybirds world only the correct political thinking should be rewarded by the right to vote, right?", and I asked you what that has to do with my opinion that the autor has a right point in his editroial when saiyng what I already quoted him with. The author is about an environmental desaster, and you replied with reference to political correctness. Where is the link? That desaster cannot happen i.y.o, since it is politically incorrect? It already does happen in several parts of the world, and has already effected millions and millions. Financially it even already effects Wetsern nations and their economies. The bill already lists dozens of billions. maybe that is politically incorrect. But nature does not care for that term.

because I am sure you know it better.

Indeed i do apparently because I am not the one talking about creating a permanent class of sub citizens, you are and you don't even seem to see the irony in that.

That is your way to read what he means, but I disagree. He was using sarcasm when talking about the conservative voter's land beeing flooded like by biblic justice, since it are these guys preventing all and any adressing of courses for climate change, like last has been seen in Bali. And even that nothing that was acchieved there was too much for bush - as he marked just one day after the conference was over. This editorial is not about abstracts like voting rights - it is about not allowijng a bunch of stupids, lobbies and potlicians being allowed (after such a desaster like he describes) not to go on as if it is business as usual.


That is as reasonable a statement as reason can be. It says: if they fall from their own ignorrance and incompetence and bring suffering about their followers in their lands, in case of emergency and disaster give these people the humanitarian help needed so that the people can survive and make it into safety - but do not ever allow their bad leaders the power again to ruin things as much as they alraedy have done one time - it's already bad enough that they messed it up once: why allowng them to do it a second time again

Maybe its a translation thing, maybe a reading comprehension thing, but you ought to realize that the article wasn't talking about politicians, it was talking about millions of average citizens whose only crime is to have lived in a state that voted against your preferred political party. Care to rethink your arguments again?

If these are the people like he ironically describes - supporters of environment-hostile policies and those who bring according politicians into office - then it is reasonable not to give them the option again to continue voting for such lobbyists again, by not allowing the flood-surviving anti-environmental lobbyists as candidates again - like it was reasonable never to give the germans after WWII the option again to vote for a second Nazi leader as head of state. This is what the author means by saying "do not hand them over the keys of your cities on higher ground - becasue they would use the opportunity to drown your home cities as well like they have drowned there own".

Don't worry, I understand the editorial perfectly. I understand it so good that indeed i see the intended use of sarcasm and exaggeration in it.

but from here on without me. The thing is too obvious indeed. There is no argument to fight over - only a habit to keep on rumbling, no matter how. ;)

I guess not. Easier to run away than defend your position right?
No, but against such massive detemrination to intentionally misunderstand me, all defense is fruitless. Admitting to see the point would mean for you to raise a question mark about the policies he is critcising - and that is too much demanded. I think that is all cause of yours.

Again, some piece of text that is very easy to understand:
They certainly should be offered assistance in their time of need, but we need to keep a firm grip on our political systems, making sure that these guilty throngs who allowed the world to go to hell are gerrymandered into political impotence in their new homes.

Very, very reasonable. ;) He says the same again at the end, in different words:


There will be much work to be done to help the earth and its residents—human and non-human—survive this man-made catastrophe, and we can’t have these future refugee troglodytes, should their personal disasters still fail to make them recognize reality, mucking things up again.
It should be considered acceptable, in this stifling new world, to say, “Shut up. We told you this would happen.”


I would welcome not to be called up by name again here - this talking leads nowhere.

[August]

I would welcome not to be called up by name again here - this talking leads nowhere.

Sure Skybird, no problem. I fully understand how debating an article written in an unfamiliar language might get you on the wrong side of democratic principles... :roll:

[Skybird]

It would not be any different if it would be printed in German. In the end I can understand English much better than I can express myself when talking/writing.

But it is kind that you try to help me out with my notorious language problems. Always good to see somebody trying to help by telling others the subject is pressumed to be handicapped. :up:

[joea]

I really think you two are confusing the masses of people who vote conservative for various reasons and the small political elite that sets policy. Not all those who voted for "them" were responsible for pollution, and sure as heck many of the "democrat" voters pollute as well too.

[August]

It would not be any different if it would be printed in German. In the end I can understand English much better than I can express myself when talking/writing.

But it is kind that you try to help me out with my notorious language problems. Always good to see somebody trying to help by telling others the subject is pressumed to be handicapped. :up:

I was just trying to give you a gracefull out of the corner you've painted yourself into...

[SUBMAN1]

It would not be any different if it would be printed in German. In the end I can understand English much better than I can express myself when talking/writing.

But it is kind that you try to help me out with my notorious language problems. Always good to see somebody trying to help by telling others the subject is pressumed to be handicapped. :up:Just a little clue, if you cannot write or express the English language, you certainly cannot grasp what is written. You would be considered clueless if not able to put your thoughts accurately back in the same writing, so you fool no one with that statement.

-S

[Tchocky]

It would not be any different if it would be printed in German. In the end I can understand English much better than I can express myself when talking/writing.

But it is kind that you try to help me out with my notorious language problems. Always good to see somebody trying to help by telling others the subject is pressumed to be handicapped. :up:Just a little clue, if you cannot write or express the English language, you certainly cannot grasp what is written. You would be considered clueless if not able to put your thoughts accurately back in the same writing, so you fool no one with that statement.

You seem to have understood it fairly well.

[CCIP]

Hey now, quit this "it's my language and you don't own it" thing. You don't want the applied linguist in me to start talking :doh:

Seriously, Skybird hasn't got any language comprehension issues. I say this as someone with a degree in the field :p

[August]

Seriously, Skybird hasn't got any language comprehension issues. I say this as someone with a degree in the field :p

Then why does he not understand that the article was referring to millions of people from all walks of life who happen to live in those states and not just a few government officials?

[CCIP]

Seriously, Skybird hasn't got any language comprehension issues. I say this as someone with a degree in the field :p
Then why does he not understand that the article was referring to millions of people from all walks of life who happen to live in those states and not just a few government officials?

That's a question of ideology, not language. :hmm:

[August]

Seriously, Skybird hasn't got any language comprehension issues. I say this as someone with a degree in the field :p
Then why does he not understand that the article was referring to millions of people from all walks of life who happen to live in those states and not just a few government officials?
That's a question of ideology, not language. :hmm:

Well there goes his only excuse from what i can see...