F
Freewheeling
Guest
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>...I approve of killing terrorists. No apologies. Never will be.
>>>>>>The more we kill, the better....
>>>>>
>>>>>EVEN WHEN THE TERRORISTS ARE MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY, OFFICIAL COVERT
>>>>>OPERATIONS ORGANIZATIONS AND POLICE OF THE UNITED STATES OR NATIONS
>>>>>ALLIED TO THE UNITED STATES?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is quite silly. You worry about electrical wires connected to bars
>>>>of soap, lapdances, and panties worn as hats whlise casting a blind eye
>>>>on what Castro has done to democratic dissidents in Cuba for two
>>>>generations. What sort of moral high ground do you think you're
>>>>standing on?
>>>
>>>When did I even claim Castro was a model of human rights leadership?
>>>Never, of course.
>>
>>
>> I said you cast a blind eye, which your very next statement reveals as
>> accurate.
>>
>>
>>>(But of course Castro is still better than the fascist Battista would
>>>have been.)
>>
>>
>> I rest my case. Castro has killed at a rate at least an order of
>> magnitude greater than Batista, not to mention the fact that during that
>> regime people were free to emigrate. Not even a close call. Although
>> authoritarian regimes of the right can be brutal, their murdering ways
>> don't hold a candle to the record of tyrannies of the left. A recently
>> published book on the Stalinist era speculates that the reason why his
>> excesses were never equated with those of ****** was that the left was
>> embarassed by them, and there were few pictures to hold their feet to the
>> fire. But as everyone knows Stalin murdered five times as many people as
>> ******. (And no, this doesn't excuse Nazism, it indicts the left. Big
>> difference.)
>
> And exactly how was the Soviet Union "communist"? The number of worker run
> enterprises was approximately zero. And if all on the political left are
> equivalent to Stalin, then all on the political right must logically be
> equivalent to ******. Like than comparison?
This is the new razzle dazzle, I guess. None of the Marxist-inspired
totalitarian kleptocracies were "true Marxism." The notions of right and
left that you presume are meaningful simply aren't. To the modern left John
Locke is on the political "right," and logically part of a continuum leading
to fascism and nazism.
The fact is that fascism and nazism are ideologies of the left, not the
right. They diverge from Hegel in a slightly different direction than did
Marx, but they're only "right" in the lexicon of the left. They're all
terms of convenience. The "third way" states of continental Europe have a
chronic unemployment rate of around 10%, and it'd be higher if they weren't
free-riding on the US military. But I'm not too worried that they'll become
totalitarian, because they're probably not going to attempt "true Marxism."
But we'll see. I could be wrong.
>
> There is much more to it then the number of people murdered. Under the
> fascist regimes such as Battista's, life is a living hell for most people,
> as they are effectively economic slaves worked relentlessly by the elite
> in return for bare subsistence wages. And just where could they emigrate
> to where they would have a better life?
Again, we supported these regimes as a result of a misguided concept of
stability and because we know that the Marxist "alternative" was worse. But
watch how quickly Cuba changes once that old theif is dead.
>
>>>Typical right-wing tactic - accuse people of supporting a position they
>>>have never taken.
>>
>>
>> Er, precisely what *you* did, my friend. I just said you cast a blind
>> eye on Castro, and you've proved my point.
>
> I am not your friend.
Didn't mean to confuse you. It's just a figure of speech, buddy. Er, Elmo.
>
> Why blind eye? By implication, I stated that Castro's human rights record
> left much to be desired.
How much? Again, according to Freedom House it's one of the ten most
repressive regimes on earth. Yeah, that leaves a little to be desired.
> Do you disagree with that, and believe Castro is a human rights exemplar?
I disagree with it only in the sense that it's "praising with faint
damnation." Now, if you'd said Saudi Arabia is worse I'd have been
compelled to agree outright. Although, truth is, it's not much worse.
Oops, I just checked the scores I had for 2001 and Cuba (at 6.88) was the
fifth most repressive regime on earth, after Iraq, Burma, N. Korea and
Afghanistan in that order. It just barely beat out Saudi Arabia which was
sixth, at 6.83. This is a computed composite score which rescales the press
freedom index (normally scaled at 0 to 100). I haven't done that rescaled
composite recently, but Freedom House has a composite score for civil and
political freedom (excluding press freedom) for independent countries as
they enter 2005, and Cuba and Saudi Arabia are tied at 7 (the worst score
you can get) along with Turkmenistan, Syria, Sudan, N. Korea, Libya and
Burma. Note that Afghanistan and Iraq are no longer in that category.
And it's sure nice to have a burgeoning democracy right next door to a
couple of those regimes, to put a little pressure in the right direction
don't you think?
I mean, seriously.
I honestly don't think you need to give up your principles to be on the
right side of history, on this stuff. But I could be wrong.
>
>>>I could just as well ask. "Why do you support crushing puppies and
>>>kittens, Mr. Talkington?"
>>
>>
>> Ah well, because there are just too many puppies and kittens, of course.
>
> So you believe the puppies and kittens should be killed in a manner that
> causes a great deal of pain. I am glad we clarified this matter.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman – Pissing Contest Hell
>
>
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>...I approve of killing terrorists. No apologies. Never will be.
>>>>>>The more we kill, the better....
>>>>>
>>>>>EVEN WHEN THE TERRORISTS ARE MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY, OFFICIAL COVERT
>>>>>OPERATIONS ORGANIZATIONS AND POLICE OF THE UNITED STATES OR NATIONS
>>>>>ALLIED TO THE UNITED STATES?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is quite silly. You worry about electrical wires connected to bars
>>>>of soap, lapdances, and panties worn as hats whlise casting a blind eye
>>>>on what Castro has done to democratic dissidents in Cuba for two
>>>>generations. What sort of moral high ground do you think you're
>>>>standing on?
>>>
>>>When did I even claim Castro was a model of human rights leadership?
>>>Never, of course.
>>
>>
>> I said you cast a blind eye, which your very next statement reveals as
>> accurate.
>>
>>
>>>(But of course Castro is still better than the fascist Battista would
>>>have been.)
>>
>>
>> I rest my case. Castro has killed at a rate at least an order of
>> magnitude greater than Batista, not to mention the fact that during that
>> regime people were free to emigrate. Not even a close call. Although
>> authoritarian regimes of the right can be brutal, their murdering ways
>> don't hold a candle to the record of tyrannies of the left. A recently
>> published book on the Stalinist era speculates that the reason why his
>> excesses were never equated with those of ****** was that the left was
>> embarassed by them, and there were few pictures to hold their feet to the
>> fire. But as everyone knows Stalin murdered five times as many people as
>> ******. (And no, this doesn't excuse Nazism, it indicts the left. Big
>> difference.)
>
> And exactly how was the Soviet Union "communist"? The number of worker run
> enterprises was approximately zero. And if all on the political left are
> equivalent to Stalin, then all on the political right must logically be
> equivalent to ******. Like than comparison?
This is the new razzle dazzle, I guess. None of the Marxist-inspired
totalitarian kleptocracies were "true Marxism." The notions of right and
left that you presume are meaningful simply aren't. To the modern left John
Locke is on the political "right," and logically part of a continuum leading
to fascism and nazism.
The fact is that fascism and nazism are ideologies of the left, not the
right. They diverge from Hegel in a slightly different direction than did
Marx, but they're only "right" in the lexicon of the left. They're all
terms of convenience. The "third way" states of continental Europe have a
chronic unemployment rate of around 10%, and it'd be higher if they weren't
free-riding on the US military. But I'm not too worried that they'll become
totalitarian, because they're probably not going to attempt "true Marxism."
But we'll see. I could be wrong.
>
> There is much more to it then the number of people murdered. Under the
> fascist regimes such as Battista's, life is a living hell for most people,
> as they are effectively economic slaves worked relentlessly by the elite
> in return for bare subsistence wages. And just where could they emigrate
> to where they would have a better life?
Again, we supported these regimes as a result of a misguided concept of
stability and because we know that the Marxist "alternative" was worse. But
watch how quickly Cuba changes once that old theif is dead.
>
>>>Typical right-wing tactic - accuse people of supporting a position they
>>>have never taken.
>>
>>
>> Er, precisely what *you* did, my friend. I just said you cast a blind
>> eye on Castro, and you've proved my point.
>
> I am not your friend.
Didn't mean to confuse you. It's just a figure of speech, buddy. Er, Elmo.
>
> Why blind eye? By implication, I stated that Castro's human rights record
> left much to be desired.
How much? Again, according to Freedom House it's one of the ten most
repressive regimes on earth. Yeah, that leaves a little to be desired.
> Do you disagree with that, and believe Castro is a human rights exemplar?
I disagree with it only in the sense that it's "praising with faint
damnation." Now, if you'd said Saudi Arabia is worse I'd have been
compelled to agree outright. Although, truth is, it's not much worse.
Oops, I just checked the scores I had for 2001 and Cuba (at 6.88) was the
fifth most repressive regime on earth, after Iraq, Burma, N. Korea and
Afghanistan in that order. It just barely beat out Saudi Arabia which was
sixth, at 6.83. This is a computed composite score which rescales the press
freedom index (normally scaled at 0 to 100). I haven't done that rescaled
composite recently, but Freedom House has a composite score for civil and
political freedom (excluding press freedom) for independent countries as
they enter 2005, and Cuba and Saudi Arabia are tied at 7 (the worst score
you can get) along with Turkmenistan, Syria, Sudan, N. Korea, Libya and
Burma. Note that Afghanistan and Iraq are no longer in that category.
And it's sure nice to have a burgeoning democracy right next door to a
couple of those regimes, to put a little pressure in the right direction
don't you think?
I mean, seriously.
I honestly don't think you need to give up your principles to be on the
right side of history, on this stuff. But I could be wrong.
>
>>>I could just as well ask. "Why do you support crushing puppies and
>>>kittens, Mr. Talkington?"
>>
>>
>> Ah well, because there are just too many puppies and kittens, of course.
>
> So you believe the puppies and kittens should be killed in a manner that
> causes a great deal of pain. I am glad we clarified this matter.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman – Pissing Contest Hell
>
>