Nazism finds home in America

[FearlessLeader2]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Fine. Whoops, dopey me, I misquoted it.

Still doesn't leave any room for misinterpretation. Or was your bold-face on 'well-regulated' intended to imply that 'shall not be infringed' does not apply? Clearly, in this context, 'well-regulated' means 'thoroughly trained and checked out in the weapon system in question', NOT 'overly burdened with statutes and limitiations'.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Fayadi
First of all I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR I DONT LIKE CCP

Well, I wouldn't trust CNN for news. CNN is a pro-socialist network, and favors a quasi-Marxism versus Capitalism.

CNN has incredibly biased reporting, and if you ask me, they were almost in support of the Taliban and the USSR.

 

[Sixchan]

Huh? CCP and CNN are different thing aren't they? One's a communist party, the other is a news network, right?

 

[amadeus]

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

 

[PinkyGen]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Well, I wouldn't trust CNN for news. CNN is a pro-socialist network, and favors a quasi-Marxism versus Capitalism.

CNN has incredibly biased reporting, and if you ask me, they were almost in support of the Taliban and the USSR.

Yeah, it's part of the evil communist conspiracy (tm). I don't remember any CNN stories praising the Taliban or the USSR, though I do remember one program about a British journalist sneaking into Taliban controlled Afghanistan and reporting on the atrocities. Well, keep on watching Fox, I find their claim to be non-biased laughable.

On gun control, I think well regulated can ensure you aren't selling guns to criminals or psychos. I don't think we should disarm the country though.

 

[CurtSibling]

Rmsharpe,

You are aware out there in Minnesota, that the USSR disbanded
in favour of democracy more than tne years ago?

It's called The Russian Federation, now.

And they are friends of the USA and Europe.

Just thought I would update you on world events!

 

[IceBlaZe]

CurtSibling, the relations between USA and Russia are still not very good, russia is still not a stable country and the russians do make rival weaponry.
just dont forget that.

EDIT: Dont forget that europe and USA are mad on russia for 'leaking' nuclear technology to the middle east (For The simplest example: Iran).

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
You are aware out there in Minnesota, that the USSR disbanded in favour of democracy more than tne years ago?

CNN's been around since 1980 -- I'm well aware that the power balance shifted from the communists to the Russian mob.

And they are friends of the USA and Europe.

Just thought I would update you on world events!

But you've still got to watch your back for the Russkies...a former KGB agent is running the place now.

 

[Fayadi]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Well, I wouldn't trust CNN for news. CNN is a pro-socialist network, and favors a quasi-Marxism versus Capitalism.

CNN has incredibly biased reporting, and if you ask me, they were almost in support of the Taliban and the USSR.

Do you know why?Their main intention to tell the world is that they are no propaganda for the Americans.I have CNN at home.So if CNN has been supporting the American,the whole world will think CNN is a propaganda

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
But you've still got to watch your back for the Russkies...a former KGB agent is running the place now.

Considering the fact that just about anybody who's a political somebody in Russia was in some way part of, or worked for The Communist party at some point under The USSR, that point is decidely moot. Yeltsin had a one-time position in The Politburo, in case you need reminding.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting that Russia is just the USSR "rebranded"?

 

[PinkyGen]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


But you've still got to watch your back for the Russkies...a former KGB agent is running the place now.

Actually, this is a good thing, as the KGB was actually an agency that pressed for reform in its latter years, while the party didn't want to listen.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
"I hate Illinois Nazis!"

That said, I don't think the answer to Nazism is a crackdown on the 1st Amendment. If anything, freedom of information is the best possible weapon to bring to bear against these types.

Here in America, skinheads, Nazis, the KKK, and similar groups are regarded as nutcase cultists, not mainstream citizens. No one respects their opinions or supports their insane philosophies, and the very fact that they are free to spew their bile is all the defense this country needs against them.

Too right.

I'm a very liberal 'anti-nazi'. Having said THAT, I would like to paraphrase a great American patriot and say that while I may not (DO NOT) agree with what they have to say, I would defend to the death their right to say it. As I would anybody's.

To deny them their civil rights is to become them. It's another way for a democracy to show why it's better than fascism or nazism.

 

[allan]

Hear hear.

Such absurd ideas as Nazism are bound to fail in a free marketplace of ideas such as ours. Usually at KKK rallies, you find five or ten times more COUNTERdemonstrators than Klansmen themselves, and the Klansmen get shouted down....

If you were to exclude the First Amendment to such groups however, I daresay their number of sympathizers may actually INCREASE, because things which are forbidden tend to attract certain people. Plus these groups would have the satisfaction of being labeled an actual THREAT rather than just a bunch of harmless morons beneath contempt, like they are now.

"I would like to paraphrase a great American patriot and say that while I may not (DO NOT) agree with what they have to say, I would defend to the death their right to say it."

I thought that was Voltaire who said that, though I could be wrong.... But I agree, too.

 

[VoodooAce]

CNN is better than Fox.

CNN is as socialist as Fox is fascist.

Actually, it really is getting ridiculous. They are the most biased news group in the USA. They should change the name to GOP news, rather than using a name like Fox and trying to pass themselves off as a legitimate news source.

I know that CNN and other media groups have a rep as being liberal, but I just don't see it. Maybe it's cuz I'm liberal. I'm not really totally joking there.

It's always harder to see the bias when they take your side. I've made, really over the last 6 or 7 years, a conscious effort to see what the right is always crying about. Never saw anything that I'd call a blatant attempt to change peoples mind like what you get from Fox news these days.

Certainly nothing like what Fox has become. Can you see Fox giving Bill Clinton the kind of run Duh-bya has gotten from CNN and the rest of the media....even before 9/11?

Even when his pole numbers were falling through the floor late in the summer, CNN was still sticking their toungue in GOP mouth.

Fox is all GOP, all the time. I'll get my news from a legitimate news source, thank you very much.

 

[Thuloid]

Here's the problem-- we're all pretty much agreed that Nazis suck and racism ought to disappear from the planet. However, if we enforce that opinion with guns( that is, outlaw racist speech and ideas in addition to the physical violence we fear they lead to ), we lose the ability to argue against those terrible ideas except by force. If the use of such force becomes unjust, "oppressed" ideas like Nazism might make a comeback, as people identify with them against the government-- this is far too great a risk to take. If we outlaw ideas, we become reliant on force to oppose them, and eventually ignorant and incapable of meaningful argument against these evils. Reliance on force alone to argue our beliefs leads us into the kind of brutality and stupidity which are characteristic of the very ideas we want to suppress. Paradoxically, the presence of a legally protected minority of racists, nazis, and the like in a society keeps the larger society on edge and more aware of the problems these points of view create, and therefore more able to oppose them and prevent these ideas from reaching meaningful expression.

Making something illegal means: "I want people with guns to stop this activity." This ought to be a last resort, when more subtle tactics are unable to control a problem. The question is whether the effects of enforcing such a law might be better or worse than if the law did not exist. Using violence to stop speech which could possibly lead to violence seems problematic at best.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Heh, that exact same argument shot me down on Fundamentalism. This time it's on my side.

You CCN-FOX people, go find your own darn thread.