United States of Earth

Remove all ads!

Everything single person who has posted has disagreed with you. Yet you have the audacity to call a valued member of these forums such as Nakia dense???

 

What would be the point of leaving America because you don't believe in gun toting when you're whole idea revolves on the basis of making every country as obsessive over weaponry as yourself?

Disagreement does not equate idiocy, blind fanaticism, however, is simply a dangerous trait and should be tempered carefully.

I'm interested, however, in how the conclusion of America being the best country to promote ideals has arisen - Experience or that blind nationalistic fervour that should be a thing of the past?

 

America upholds its ideals to serve its own agenda (just like every other country). Make no mistake about it. America has bankrolled and supported dictators and corrupt governments when it serves their need. I am sorry, but I am of the opinion that you are the one who is a blind nationalist.

 

Nakia ... you are my density.

 

I can't believe how restrained people are with this guy...

 

European states are connected through the European Union; just as North American states are connected through the United States. I was responding to the European guy who said "Europeans hate guns" and I was responding in suite by pointing out that only the United Kingdom has the gun laws that he seems to think all of Europe does.

People are arrested in many European countries for so-called "hate speech" all the time. Meanwhile peaceful demonstrations are often put down by the government. And yes, political parties are banned in many European countries for being "extremist," even when these political parties are peaceful and do not engage in violent activities. You also claim you have religious freedom and the separation of church and state, yet many European countries lack protections for the free exercise of religion. France has already begun banning peaceful Islamic practices, such as the wearing of burkhas and there are talks of other countries following France's example. Meanwhile some European countries have state churches and official religions, such as England and Norway.

Even in your United Kingdom, people are banned from the country and arrested for exercising their freedom of speech. In your United Kingdom you also crack down on peaceful demonstrations and your own prime minister has advocated in favor of banning their demonstrations. The British government also virtually banned guns in the 1980s and frequently attacks the few remaining legal gun owners. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, England has an official state church and that church even has unelected seats in the House of Commons. Some local areas have even been effectively placed under Sharia law.

The British government also banned several political parties, such as the British Union of Fascists. You also banned the British National Party from participating in some elections, such as the police comissioner elections; meanwhile government employees who have connections to the British National Party are summarily fired. Even moderate parties such as the libertarian UK Independence Party are attacked by the government; take for instance the recent fostering scandal or how they weren't invited to the government-run BBC debates, despite having 11 MEPs, having three seats in the House of Lords, formerly having a seat in the House of Commons, seats in the devolved parliament, having dozens of local government seats, receiving 6% of the vote in the last election and dominating the opinion polls with ~25% of the vote (higher than the Liberal Democrats, who were invited to the debates).

 

Remind me again why it would be a great idea for everyone to become part of the US? You're not making it sound like your government is working all that well of those the current part of the earth they are governing now, why do you think they would somehow do better if more of the world would congregrate to the US?

Your sounding pretty nationalist yourself, though. Why should everyone become part of the US and not Australia, for instance?

 

Those parties are banned for good reason Do you honestly believe neo-nazis should be given a second shot at power? Starting peacefully is no guarantee of ending peacefully.

Peaceful demonstrations in recent years have often turned nasty or moved on due to disruption of services. I might not agree with how specific incidents have turned out - but that is down to individuals getting too wrapped up in their own adrenaline rushes.

England has a religion largely separate from the state. It is in no way so interlinked as is often demonstrated in American politics. The UK also has a selection of recognised faiths which are protected under certain laws and practices. The Bhurka issue is often a non issue in itself - there are plenty of alternatives which are acceptable to muslims following the practice of modesty. Bhurkas are banned along the same premise as wearing motorbike helmets into places such as airports and petrol stations - if necessary to apprehend a specific person no identity can be obtained due to their attire. It is a balance between freedoms and national security - you're a fan of that, aren't you?

I have several friends who are gun owners, I haven't heard news of any attacks on them lately. Just because they need a reason more than paranoia to obtain, maintain and possess a weapon doesn't mean they are attacked, but valid permits are necessary.

The matter of UKIP not being invited to debates is sometimes their representatives are utter plonkers who come out with sexist or racist tripe unsuitable to air in public.

I do not think it's acceptable to spout hate speech. It is base intimidation and should be abhorrent in any rational society. I do not think someone should be free to follow me in the streets spouting obscenities, I do not think there should be programmes on the television which make racist jokes and spiteful comments for the sake of offending people. If people can't be civil and are incapable of recognising other people as human beings just like them they should learn to shut up and stop spitting their venom

 

Only because we know that if [snip]

Also, we're all waiting for the screams of agony when he jumps off his ego, lands on his IQ and breaks his leg

[No, indirect insults aren't ok either. -Tal]

 

If your argument against fascism is so weak that you must resort to arresting and suppressing them, then you have bigger problems to worry about than the "rise of fascism," such as better history classes. Popular speech doesn't need to be protected, it's the unpopular speech that needs to be protected. You can't say "you can hold whatever views you want, so long as you don't hold views I dislike," and then insist that you have freedom of speech. Committing acts of violence is already illegal, so if a member of a political party started violently attacking minorities, then they have already violated the law.

Even if some protests end up with some of the protestors acting violently, I don't think we should punish everyone just because there are a few violent people. If someone at these protests starts violently attacking people, then they can be arrested for assault, but not for protesting. Also, who is to say which groups are "violent" or not? Who is to say that a Labour Party rally won't have violent incidents?

I will give you that, you have done a fairly good job of secularizing your country. Though I still think religious institutions shouldn't have ANY power or official government status in a country, and the problem still remains that the Lords Spirituals have legislative power in the country, albeit, limited power. I am opposed to taking away our freedom in the name of security, if allowing women to wear burkhas in an airport poses a "national security threat," then that is a risk I'm willing to take. A great American once said "those who trade freedom for security deserve neither."

They are harassed in that they are banned from owning most guns, with only a select few guns available. Not to mention the extremely strict requirements that inconvenience and violate the rights of gun owners at every turn. There is also the ever-looming fact that the government could take away their guns at any time, as the British government no longer has a legally protected right to bear arms.

I actually find myself in agreement with UKIP more often than not, in fact, Nigel Farage is one of my role models. I haven't had any experience with them being "racist" or "sexist," and I have interacted with several members of the party online and watched many videos of their parliamentary debates and party meetings. There was a member of UKIP who made a few homophobic statements last year, however his view goes against UKIP's official stance of supporting civil unions and he was heavily criticized by UKIP supporters for his statements. I think you'll find that racists, sexists and homophobes exist in almost every large party. In the same light one could call the Labour Party anti-Semitic for supporting George Galloway. Just because a party holds views you disagree with, doesn't mean they should be barred from participating in government-run televised debates.

I don't like "hate speech" or bigotry anymore than you do, but freedom is more important than you getting offended. If someone is slandering you and they don't stop, you can sue them or get a restraining order against them. If they physically attack you, then they are already violating the law. You do not have a right to "not be offended," and putting up with "hateful" people is something you have to do if you want to live in a free society.

Instead of trying to take away the freedom of speech of these "hateful" people, why not use your own free speech to counter their racist/anti-gun/homophobic/anti-Semitic claims?

 

The UKIP are a bunch of a backwards, knuckle-dragging, racist bigots. They're on par with the BNP, which is not a good comparison. We have very little tolerance for any kind of idiotic prejudice in this country, we're far too aged and experienced as a nation. If you hold Nigel Farange as a role model, that says a lot about you personally, although to be fair it's nothing we hadn't already gleaned on our own.

 

Because why should I have to defend the fact I'm different from someone else?

You'll find most laws in place are to stop people being complete twats. If you defend the right of people to spout hate speech you're also promoting more than just speech, people are moved to action by words - simple fact. We're an emotive species, hate speech soon spirals into action.

Perhaps you underestimate the way mob mentality works also. Scape goats are easily found in any community and the slightest pressure can turn that up a notch. So no, I do not object to that being nipped in the bud by infringing supposed "free speech" which by the way doesn't exactly exist in America either; books, songs, news articles, etc all have been banned by government.

I never said all involved in protests that turn violent should be punished, that would just be nonsense, the people who break the rules should pay the price. It's not exactly rocket science.

I personally don't give a crap what people wear either - but there are regulations in place that mean certain placed need to be able to identify people facially in certain buildings. If that means changing your attire, removing helmets, hats or sunglasses so that you can be identified then that is simply regulation. As stated before it's not a necessity in Islam, it's not impinging on any freedom any more than places that have "no shirt, no shoes, no service" dress codes.

If you honestly think I need to start spouting further reasons to stop neo-nazis rise into power I think perhaps it is you who require more thorough history lessons.

I also find it amusing you believe gun owners are being discriminated against because they can't own every make and model out there. They get something fit for purpose and use it, where's the problem in that? Is there a serious point to owning anything other than useful and used other than "Woohoo! Guns For Everybody!"?

 

I was referring to the 'greatest ever' system of government you have, for legislation to pass in the US, you need a majority, which was traditionally secured through compromise, (compromise in politics? madness!) however when politicians are elected who refuse to compromise on ANYthing, sign pledges to never yield on x, y, or z, and characterise their colleagues as the enemy, compromise becomes impossible and the system breaks down.

Under the Australian version of the Westminster system, a majority can be secured with a single vote (a law passes by 60-59 for example), this means that even if the situation were to deteriorate to one similar to the US, the government of the day can still pass it's legislation, can still carry out the will of the people that elected it. And at the end of the government's term, it is the people who can pass judgement.

When a government elected by the people, is unable to carry out the will of the people, because of a handful of fringe dwelling politicians who refuse to acknowledge the results of an election by the people, then do everything they can to stymie even the most non-partisan legislation out of spite, that's not a great system.

---------- Added 0 hours, 26 minutes and 4 seconds later... ----------

You can't be serious. The USA has led the way on progressive policy for a long, long, long time. This is just what the USA led in, and the world followed, off the top of my head:

Abolishing slavery, human/civil/women's/disabled/gay rights, the 5 day working week, minimum wage, collective bargaining, medical/sick/maternity leave, occupational health and safety, protection under the law from discrimination based on age/disability/gender/sex/race/sexual orientation, national parks, protection of endangered and threatened species, standards and protections for clean air, food and water, consumer protection, aged care, veteran's care, the safety net, PUBLIC EDUCATION, humanitarian aid at home and abroad, low-income housing, free and detailed weather services, arts grants.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, which is one of the great things about free speech, but there is absolutely zero evidence to support you claim that the UKIP are racist or "on par with the BNP." But by all means, go ahead and keep tooting your "anyone who disagrees with me is a racist" horn and see how far that gets you in the real world. And then you have the nerve to attack Americans for "demonizing our enemies."

People have the right to say things that you view are "stupid" or "bad." Besides, I think it's much better to allow such people to peacefully express their viewpoints, than it is to systematically oppress them. Do you know what happens when you oppress a group of people? They lash out.

People can say hurtful things, but again, you don't have a right to "not be offended." Here's a video I suggest you watch, he's one of my favorite political/religious/social commentators and, according to Blarmy Army, he is a "backwards racist" (he is a member of UKIP):


So why would you want to ban protests by say, the English Defense League? Doesn't banning their demonstrations go against your statement that you only want to punish those who commit violent acts and not the peaceful protestors?

I think you should note that the ban on burkhas isn't just in airports and subways, it's quite literally a blanket ban. The difference between a government banning something and a private business putting up a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign is that the latter is done by private individuals on their own property and doesn't involve the government. You can't even be arrested for violating those "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs. At most the owner could ask you to leave, and if you refused, he could have you arrested for trespassing.

They can't own anything, nobody cares about whether or not you can own a double barrel shotgun, hunting is NOT the purpose of the right to bear arms. People have the right to bear arms to fight against the worst murderer in history, government. Though even if governments would never, under any circumstance, become totalitarian, it would still be ridiculous to ban guns. The United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, mainland Europe, etc. all get along just fine with allowing their people to own even fully automatic machine guns. Yet you mean to tell me that allowing someone to own a rifle or a handgun is magically going to magically transform them into serial killers? If anything, that says more about how view your fellow British subjects.

 

Arctic Daishi, you are completely misinterpreting what I have posted. I will now ignore you and address my remarks to the my friends, acquaintances and those who may eventually get to know me.

Friends, fellow members I come not to defend the USA but to assure you that we are not all gun toting psychos out to shoot at the first sign of a perceived insult. Ten years ago this June I entered into a new world called Sorcerers Place. It opened a new world for me. I was welcomed by a green elf glaring at me. Scared me to death. The members were all so young. Most in college/university and even younger. Splunge was the old man of the Board. I was afraid to admit just how old I was. When I did I got a warm and loving welcome. You taught me that there was a wonderful world out there for me to explore and learn from. You taught me how much alike we are. The interesting thing to me is that the only two people to tell me to leave "America" are fellow residents of The USA.

So many great comments have been made here I am not going to waste your eyes quoting them. The comment that Australia should take over is a good one. My Mother almost moved there when I was a child and the country fascinates me. I was very close to being raised an Ozzie. Wish I had the money to go there. I was so ignorant that I thought New Zealand was part of Australia.

As some of you know I have strong opinions and it can be very difficult to get me to change them. You have helped me at least modify some of my ideas and opinions You have supported me through difficult times and I am always welcome here. I am a citizen of the USA but more importantly I am a citizen of the World.

I have only been able to visit Canada, Mexico, England, France and Italy but through your words I have visited many more places, gotten to know many people primarily from Europe but I have played games with a gal in Hong Kong, corresponded with someone from Israel. You have taught me that we are united already as we reach out to each other in friendship across the World Wide Web. I have even improved my spelling because of SP. My typing still sucks though.

Why would Silvery want to have her country, England, become part of the USA. It is a beautiful country rich in history and seeing the changing of the Guards at Buckingham Palace was a big thrill for me. Yes, Sil, I did get excited.

When I was preparing to visit France I was told not to go that the French hated us. Wrong, they were great. With a translator and sighn language and a few English speaking peoples help I had a great time. I had food there that was unblevable and I am not talking about fancy high cuisine but even the food we bought locally and prepared ourselves was absolutely beyond anything I have had here and I grew up on a farm. Something in the soil, maybe the blood of all those ancients who died fighting for what they believed in.

My opinion? We are one World, one people. It is up to each individual to reach out in friendship and be willing to listen to what others have to say. When my friends hurt I hurt, when my friends are sad I am sad, when they are happy I am happy.

Sorry about Starbucks and MacDonald but you do not have patronize them. I don't.

@Tal, how down and dirty may I get if I decide it is worth while sending a PM?

 

You're posting so much nonsense it's impossible to keep up.

For the record, the EU is nothing like the US. You assume that they are the same which goes a long way in proving that you don't know anything about Europe (and presumably the rest of the world).

Most Europeans don't have the unhealthy fascination for guns that you have. I know that what I'm saying hurts your feelings but that's the truth.

As far as laws regulating guns you should really do some actual reading instead of repeating NRA propaganda because you're not fooling anyone and certainly not the Europeans among us.

Intimidation and violence are the tools that Fascists and Neo-Nazis use and the main reason why you can't possibly argue in a civilized manner with those fanatics. The smart ones are even more dangerous as they know how bend the rules to further their own agenda (and ultimately change the rules once they are in power).

That is not a model for a perfect society, it's a fascistic nightmare in which only the ones who shout louder than everyone else get a say. What you are wishing for is a nation of bullies.

You advocate to turn free speech into an excuse to validate hateful intents and purposes. Are you seriously claiming that according to you it is ok to go on antisemitic/racist rants in the name of Free Speech? If so then I'm sorry but you don't have any idea what the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights are about because racism is contrary to the ideals set forth by the Founding Fathers.

The US Supreme Court itself has set limits to the First Amendment for good reasons I might add. These limits were set so that the First Amendment couldn't be abused and perverted to harm the people it was meant to protect. The idea was to protect minorities so they could benefit from free speech and not to ensure that they would be crushed by the propaganda levelled at them by racists and bigots.

There is nothing worse than a society in which it is ok to call someone names and harass someone because of their religion, origin, sexual orientation or colour. Freedom of speech should never be abused to justify anything of the sort. Nobody should have to "put up" with that in a free/ civilized society. What you are advocating is simply barbaric.

It's pretty clear that the OP was talking about himself because nobody in their right mind could possibly call Nakia dense.

Not to nitpick but the Brits abolished slavery back in 1833 (with a few exceptions that were removed by 1843). In France, slavery was first abolished in 1794, restored in 1802 and definitely abolished in 1848.

 

I'm curious ... why are so many of you here so hostile toward this guy? If you don't like what he's saying or his 'manifesto' or whatever you want to call it, he can easily be ignored. Obviously the US isn't going to be absorbing any other countries, so you would have no practical fears about being asleep at the switch while the world goes to hell. And yet most everybody here is jumping on him with a fervor that I haven't seen at SP in quite some time. To be blunt, it smacks of a rather shameful group dynamic/kill the outsider type vibe.

Anybody who's been putting in their time here should be aware that you're fighting an 18 year old first year college kid or thereabouts, right? I mean literally, he's like 18 years old or so. So settle down ... have a cream soda ... do some friggin' thing.

 

Gaear, what made me post in his thread(s) in the first place was concern, this was his first posting I saw:

source.

I read that as a cry for help, I see him drifting back to bad old habits, and by his own admission, he doesn't want to. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was impressed that he was able to talk about his personal concerns in the first place (I never could when I was his age), and with that act, I invested a little bit of myself in him. So I feel an obligation to help him.

 

Eighteen is legal age in the USA. He is an adult, able to make his own contracts, own decisions, able to vote. He voluntarily posted in the Alley. He is educated but still needs to learn to do his own research.

Old age does not make you wise just experienced in life and youth does not make you ignorant of the world around you.

That fact that he is obviously seeking gives hope that he will learn wisdom, will learn to think for himself, will learn to understand, to comprehend what other people are saying.

He can learn here just as I a much older and much more experienced person did. He can learn if he wants to. That is his choice.