BANNED: THE SPEECH THE U.N. REFUSED TO HEAR March 29, 2007

Originally Posted by joea

What did Neal say on the other thread??

If you take a look joea, heartc made his comment on 01 APR and Neal spoke today 02 APR. Perhaps you should cut the man a break, and stop baiting him using Neal as your strawman.

[cobalt]

Originally Posted by waste gate

If you take a look joea, heartc made his comment on 01 APR and Neal spoke today 02 APR. Perhaps you should cut the man a break, and stop baiting him using Neal as your strawman.

Cut him a break? Only because he agrees with you on this silly video.

And am I a dilusionist ignorant because I find this man very amusing and for the lack of better words "retarded". And why would you post such ignoramice BS with your capslock key on, like this is some important news.

"They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. "

Yes, the UN does all of that. Next thing you know they will create an army to roll into the promised land and give it back to Palestine.

I could quote all the nonsense this man spilled out, but ive already wasted enough time replying.

Originally Posted by cobalt

Cut him a break? Only because he agrees with you on this silly video.

And am I a dilusionist ignorant because I find this man very amusing and for the lack of better words "retarded". And why would you post such ignoramice BS with your capslock key on, like this is some important news.

"They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. "

Yes, the UN does all of that. Next thing you know they will create an army to roll into the promised land and give it back to Palestine.

I could quote all the nonsense this man spilled out, but ive already wasted enough time replying.

The point of the video wasn't what the man said. The point was that his views were not going to be heard. The presiding officer made it quite clear that because the statement didn't conform to the PC, political paradigm of the presiding officer's the statement would not be allowed into the record.

I don't know where you hail from but I suspect your country's dedication to free speach isn't worth the paper its written on if it's written down at all.

Which brings me to my second point in my response. Freedom of speach isn't for the freedom of, for lack of a better term, accepted speach. Freedom comes from allowing the unpopular speach from not being squashed. I have often fought for people, who have been my political opposites, their abitlity to speak their minds. You should look back to my posts. Some of those people are no longer here.

My objection to joea's post is the use of the owners opinion after the fact. For that he needs to be cut a break.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

As far as I remember, they are the only institution that has the right to legalize any form of military intervention.

Says who? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

They are probably the most corrupt organization on the planet!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

The point of the video wasn't what the man said. The point was that his views were not going to be heard. The presiding officer made it quite clear that because the statement didn't conform to the PC, political paradigm of the presiding officer's the statement would not be allowed into the record.

I don't know where you hail from but I suspect your country's dedication to free speach isn't worth the paper its written on if it's written down at all.

Which brings me to my second point in my response. Freedom of speach isn't for the freedom of, for lack of a better term, accepted speach. Freedom comes from allowing the unpopular speach from not being squashed. I have often fought for people, who have been my political opposites, their abitlity to speak their minds. You should look back to my posts. Some of those people are no longer here.

My objection to joea's post is the use of the owners opinion after the fact. For that he needs to be cut a break.

Well said.

-S

[cobalt]

His views were clearly heard. He was not interrupted once and was allowed his turn to talk. The man who responded after basically told him not to bash the council with a ridiculous and dumbfounded accusation again.


Is that too hard for you to understand?

I think so.

Originally Posted by cobalt

His views were clearly heard. He was not interrupted once and was allowed his turn to talk. The man who responded after basically told him not to bash the council with a ridiculous and dumbfounded accusation again.


Is that too hard for you to understand?

I think so.

You don't get it. Free speach should be free for everyone regardless if you think it is; 'a ridiculous and dumbfounded accusation'.

[cobalt]

Originally Posted by waste gate

You don't get it. Free speach should be free for everyone regardless if you think it is; 'a ridiculous and dumbfounded accusation'.

No, you don't get it. He was listened to and was simply told not to do what he did...again.

Originally Posted by cobalt

No, you don't get it. He was listened to and was simply told not to do what he did...again.

So his opinion won't be heard. That is very bad. That you imply your adherence is also bad.

REPLY BY U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA:
For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you'd kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I'm not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records

[heartc]

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

Thats absolute bull**** man. Hitler was elected by the people, too, and if a government cares only about their own people its a fascist regime.

Holy ****, how about democracy 101 for you, pal?

A government who cares about its own people is fascist? Holy ****, where do you come from? I see the commie media has done good work on you.

You know, you are right in that point however that we voted for Hitler. Hitler was freely elected, thank you, cause usually apologists keep coming up with "Aber es war der Reichtagsbrand" or similar bull.

All this tells us however is not that democracy is a bad thing, or how you totally confusedly stated, that democracy means fascism, but that in fact people can err, and have to live with the consequences of their choices (you learn that one in Kindergarten, actually).

Living with the consequences in our case meant that when people made the choice to vote for Hitler and his thugs, who clearly stated their goals prior to election, including the abolishment of democracy in the Republik, and the "Ausrottung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa", they would also have to deal with the consequences of their democratic decision, which meant the firebombing of Dresden for example (you know, the one people now tend to whine about in their crusade of "reviewing" our history.)

So, what you are basicly saying is that democracy might be a bad thing because WE chose to elect a party which promised to ABOLISH democracy and exterminate the Jews. Do you even know how to spell L-O-G-I-C? -
Anyway, what you found there is not so much a problem with democracy as it is a problem of GERMAN HISTORY. Not America's Democracy is bad because we ****ed up ours', not America's wars are bad because we raped Eastern Europe, and not we do have the right to lecture Israel today born on the fact that we gassed 6 Million of them some 60 years ago and thereby are somehow "in the know" of humanitarian issues (what sick logic is that anyway??), and I tell you, none of our history is going to become somehow better magically by badmouthing the US or Israel today. It doesn't work like that.

BTW, that we didn't learn A DAMN THING from our history I know when I listen to people like you: You, as about 98% of the rest in Germany, worship the UN as some kind of higher being (because they are mostly against the US and Israel, countries we do not like - oh wait, JUST THE GOVERNMENTS!!! We love the people, really. lol). But I ask you, WHAT ARE THE UN? You didn't vote for the President there, and you have about 70% dictatorships sitting at that bargaining table. So, on the one hand you admit that we voted for a dictator in the 30s and that this might have been a mistake, but at the same time you and most of your ilk worship the UN, which is made up of 70% dictatorships? Even ONE dictatorship would be one too many. But you got no problem with that. Right. You learned a lot.

- BTW, sorry Neal, but the show is already on, and neither you nor me can stop it. Maybe in this forum - but that's about it.

Ya beat me to it Heartc.

Hey GlobalExplorer, I don't know where you learned your political theory, but a lack of extra-national altruism has nothing to do with fascism.

Socialism is any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods, i.e., industry, is vested in a centralized government on behalf of the proletariat. This centralized government often plans and controls the economy. The proletariat, at who's behest the central government putatively is acting for, is that of the the class of wage earners, esp. those who earn their living by manual labor or who are dependent for support on daily or casual employment; the working class.

In contrast the theory or system of social organization that is based on the holding of all property in common being ascribed to the community as a whole, the collective, or to the state. In this system there is no concept of "private" property per se. In the former the concept of ownership of business, industry, enterprise and personal possession such as home, hearth and life do exist, but the government controls how these are to be implemented and used for the good of the State, i.e. the central authority. This is a Machiavellian concept in that when the State benefits, the people benefit. The philosophical distinction between socialism and communism, is that in the latter the State is the proletariat, i.e., the hoi polloi, itself. In theory, the central government merely conducts its affairs for the benefit of the people en mass.

The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, "bundle, (political) group," but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism. The Nazi party was the fascist embodiement of National Socialism. Fascism being a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

While it is true that Hitler was voted into office through democratic means, the 9th German federal election of the Weimar Republic held on March 5, 1933 was significant in that it was the last election to be held in Germany before World War II. However, despite achieving a much better result than in the November 1932 election, the Nazis did not do as well as Hitler had hoped, polling 43.9%, rather than the 50+% that he had expected. Therefore, Hitler was forced to maintain his coalition with the Nationalist DNVP to control a majority. In addition to this, Hitler needed a two-thirds majority to pass the Enabling Act (a law which allowed him to pass laws without consulting the Reichstag), which he gained by persuading the Centre Party to vote with him. The bill was passed on March 23 and though it was only meant to be effective for four years, it was formally prolonged twice. The powers conferred by the bill allowed the KPD and SPD to be outlawed, and firmly established Germany as a dictatorship. On the 14th July 1933 Germany officially declared a one party state with the passing of the Law against the formation of parties. On 30 January 1934, Gesetz über den Neuaufbau des Reichs changed the highly decentralized federal Germany of the Weimar era into a centralized state by disbanded state parliaments, transferring sovereign rights of the states to the Reich central government and put the state administrations under the control of the Reich administration.

That Hitler was voted into power was a direct result of crushing punative war-reparations that were demanded by the European allies at the end of WWI. Subsequently, in conjunction with the fundamental socialist philosophies prevalent throughout Germany since the latter half of the 19th century, the German political scene was quite a tragic scene. I would hazard to say that if but the German penchant for government social programs, and that the country was being bled dry with respect to compliance with the staggering burden of war reparations, the Great Depression would not have been the great catalyst with respect to Hilters rise to power. I believe that without the latter, the former also would not have been as significant concerning Hitler's rise to power. To the German people at the time, Hitler seemed to be the answer to all their problems. By the time they realized the horror in which they lived, it was far too late to do anything about it. The system that was implemented demanded complete and utter allegience to Hilter, and the Nazi party. There was no way that anybody had any hope of being anyone or doing anything without being a member of the Nazi party.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by waste gate

You don't get it. Free speach should be free for everyone regardless if you think it is; 'a ridiculous and dumbfounded accusation'.

Let me put it this way. In this board, if I say something really out of line, the moderator wil presumably stop me. He might warn me that any further transgressions will get me banned and may even delete my statement outright. If I type certain swear words, it automatically becomes stars. Should I sue SUBSIM.com in this case for "violating my rights to free speech".

Free speech is to ensure that people can always have some forum to speak out without being arrested by the government. It does not necessarily mean you may use every forum. For example, a newspaper may refuse to print your submission to the Reader's Comment section. Should you then sue the newspaper?

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Let me put it this way. In this board, if I say something really out of line, the moderator wil presumably stop me. He might warn me that any further transgressions will get me banned and may even delete my statement outright. If I type certain swear words, it automatically becomes stars. Should I sue SUBSIM.com in this case for "violating my rights to free speech".

Free speech is to ensure that people can always have some forum to speak out without being arrested by the government. It does not necessarily mean you may use every forum. For example, a newspaper may refuse to print your submission to the Reader's Comment section. Should you then sue the newspaper?

I agree Kazuaki. My problem lies in the silencing of another's opinion because of the offense it may cause the 'general' or another's thought. I in no way endorse disrespect however not everyone has a common command of language and I can and do make allowance for lack of articulation. That being said, the idea is by far more important than the words used to express that idea, and I will champion anyones ability to express that idea in the face of censorship, marginalization or belittlement.

[cobalt]

Originally Posted by waste gate

So his opinion won't be heard. That is very bad. That you imply your adherence is also bad.

REPLY BY U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA:
For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you'd kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I'm not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records

you highlighted the exact points that I made? I don't see the point you're trying to prove.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by heartc

Holy ****, how about democracy 101 for you, pal?

A government who cares about its own people is fascist? Holy ****, where do you come from? I see the commie media has done good work on you.

This is pointless. I am off.