[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.

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...

I don't get it. Please explain.

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:
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

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

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.

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

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.

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?

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...

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! ;)


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.

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.


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.

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


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:

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 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.

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

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