GameBanshee Forums

@Sojourner: Your trying to prove that Hitler had better speech writers than our beloved Bush?

Of course he did - which would explain all the plagiarising going on.

Rofl. He have a good teacher indeed, but I think he should work a bit more on the "Invasion" part. Its supposed to be more smooth as I recall things.

hrmm... having problems deciding if I should laugh, stick my head in the sand or shoot myself. They all seem to be viable choices...

The basic history of empires, and the tradition it's established, seems to be working in our (read: the dissidents who should be tattooed on a vital bodypart and put in secondary positions in society...) direction. Mostly they've spent so much time expanding and pushing their "way of living" in new and exotic locations, they go belly-up by ignoring their homebase.

Originally posted by Sojourner
"It would be a heck of a lot easier to be a dictator than work in a democracy." - Then Texas Govenor George W. Bush, 1996

I actually agree with this one. If the dicator'd benevolent, there would be no problem. There would be no time- and moneyconsuming elections and parliament, there would be no need for cover-ups and influencing public opinion, etc. because the dictator would be honest and good and nice.
The problem, however, is finding such a person. I can only think of one. Me. Because I know I can trust me to be benevolent and stuff.

Since we Eurotrash are up and about, posting our pinko-bleedin-heart messages, I think it's time we shared in the wisdom of this guy!

Now this little nugget of an international icon has made himself into something of a spokesperson for everything that civilization sort of tries to evolve away from. I mean, honestly, I have nothing against pop personalities, they beeing actors, athletes or musicians, trying to use their considerable clout for what they beleive to be a good cause. We have, of course, Bob Geldof and his Live Aid. We have former Pink Floyd guitar maestro David Gilmour selling his £5,7 million mansion and giving every single penny to charity for children and cancer research.

Then on the other hand, we have Ted Nugent, Gene Simmons and Paris Hilton. People who are by default symptoms of absolutely everything that is wrong with our "evolved and democratic" way of life.

Gene Simmons used to be a primary school teacher. How that ever happened is quite beyond my admittedly limited comprehension. Can you imagine having your children taught and influenced by a person who's career nuggets includes statements like:

"All of my life means making money and chasing skirt. Any man who claims to have other goals is a *** and a traitor to his species."

"You Euros think you're so safe over there in you sheltered societies. Just remember that we're coming to kick your ass each time you make a noise we do not agree with."

"Norway is a nice, cosy, clean and comfortable place. I might use it as a coffin, 'cuz that's all that it's good for."

"I banged a chick in Finnland and got her knocked up. Since I'm an American, I pay child support just by being me."

The argument always seems to revolve around the type of government that is good, but I have to wonder whether this interest is misdirected. The problem isn't dictatorships, or democracies, but as Coot hinted--the quality of people who seek office, meaning power over others. Thomas Moore, in Utopia, had the people in his ideal land mock the principles of democracy by pointing out that no one who seeks power is allowed to run for office--but of course, Utopia was a satire, and Moore was brilliant enough to realize that once you remove the people who really covet power from the equation, there's no one left to assume it. If governmental power cannot be misused for private gain, megalomaniacal display, helping one's friends or controling the lives of others, where's the attraction in exercising it? It's time consuming, endless paperwork, honest discussion with all sides over interminable questions, seeking endless middle grounds...

To bring us back to the sad present, Shrub hasn't the faintest idea how to truly use the power he has to the advantage of all. He seeks the personal aggrandisement of his pals. He invades other nations on private crusades. He has arguably bankrupted his country, economically and morally. He displays no qualities of leadership. His instincts, his abilities, are centered entirely around the acts of gaining and holding office. He is exactly the kind of person that Thomas Moore's shade is no doubt laughing his butt off about, today.

Originally posted by Moonbiter
"All of my life means making money and chasing skirt. Any man who claims to have other goals is a *** and a traitor to his species."

"You Euros think you're so safe over there in your sheltered societies. Just remember that we're coming to kick your ass each time you make a noise we do not agree with."

"Norway is a nice, cosy, clean and comfortable place. I might use it as a coffin, 'cuz that's all that it's good for."

"I banged a chick in Finnland and got her knocked up. Since I'm an American, I pay child support just by being me."

Gene Simmons is now my personal hero. Take that you Euro hippies!

Fable... do you ever sleep?

I've been out on the web. Now, since I'm not very internet-savy, I've sort of waded through endless result like "See Britney in hot anal action" and somesuch. However, I managed to find this! and a fun story like this.

Talk about priorities...

There was a lot of protest following Gene Simmons' statements about muslims. This is how he responded:

Originally posted by fable
It's time consuming, endless paperwork, honest discussion with all sides over interminable questions, seeking endless middle grounds...

But Fable, this is exactly how we Dutch run our country...! It's the reason Holland is the worldpower everyone is in awe of!

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
*Shudder*

Wow. That's about the most chilling comparison I've heard about the Bush Administration.

How about another one?

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one." - Chancellor Adolf Hitler, promising the German Parliment that the Enabling Act (Nazi Germany's version of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, etc) would be used with restraint. March 23, 1933

"On March 2 [1933], Hitler was asked by a corespondent of the Daily Express whether the suspension of liberties was permanent. He answered in the negative saying that full rights would be restored as soon as the Communist danger was over. The reality was that the decree of February 28th established what would become the normal order of things under National Socialism - arrest on suspicion, imprisonment without trial, the horrors of the concentration camps. This condition would persist until the end of the Third Reich." - from The World At War: The Reichstag Fire


Outside View: Son of the Patriot Act

Lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice were recently sent up to Capitol Hill to testify in support of expanded powers beyond those it already garnered in the 2001 Patriot Act. Just as in 2001, when the original Patriot Act was delivered to the Congress in the immediate aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, the department raised the doomsday scenario that "without these new tools, there could very well be another terrorist attack." The administration also said the new powers would be employed only for cases involving true terrorism (which has not turned out to be the case).
...
These are but a few of the far-ranging new powers now enjoyed by the government as a result of the Patriot Act's passage. Almost immediately, the government began using them. And just as quickly, it began lobbying for more power -- expanded secret hearings (so-called "secret-secret" hearings in which the defendant doesn't even know there is a hearing going on that will determine his fate); a broader range of circumstances in which government field agents could secure administrative subpoenas (also innocuously known as "national security letters") to obtain evidence against citizens and other persons; an expanded definition of "terrorism;" the ability to use evidence gathered abroad, even if gathered in violation of our Bill of Rights; the ability to go after a suspected foreign terrorist without complying with the Fourth Amendment, even if there was no link whatsoever to any foreign terrorist group; criminal penalties if a person disclosed the fact they had been served a subpoena, even if simply to contest it in court; and more.

The "Son of Patriot" started making the rounds quietly on Capitol Hill.

Conservatives and liberals alike raised a ruckus when this expanded version of the seminal 2001 Patriot Act surfaced (unofficially, of course), and it caused much of the opposition to the parent statute to become better focused and more vocal. The administration disavowed its fingerprints were on this stealth legislation, though it was obvious it had been drafted and was being supported by the Department of Justice.

At the same time, the administration began discussions with key supporters on the Hill to enact pieces of Son of Patriot; sticking them in other bills.

This two-pronged strategy began to pay off. For example, last year it was able to secure passage, in an authorization bill, of expanded power whereby field agents could require persons or organizations to turn over evidence.

Now the administration is flexing its muscles, and seeking enactment of a stand-alone bill that would expand several of the Patriot Act's provision, including "secret-secret" proceedings and others noted above.

I thought that message threads were supposed to be finished as soon as someone made a reference to Hitler.

Don't know about that, but I'm inclined to think any references to Hitler aren't helpful. The remarks that were quoted could be put into the mouths of any several dozen modern or near-current government leaders, to equal effect. The comments are in themselves innocuous. What made a difference was Hitler's intentions, and I don't think it's credible to assume Shrub is anything remotely like Hitler. Dubya has done enough to be criticized accurately and devastatingly for without dragging into it the likes of a demented madman, in my opinion.

I guess I should have put a smiley after the remark I made above. It was a humorous reference to Godwin's Law, which was formulated in response to heated arguments on Usenet (i.e., the internet newsgroups). I think it originally applied to instances where one poster compared another poster to Hitler (or called him or her a "Nazi") in "rebuttal" to an argument, rather than applying to just any old reference to Hitler. But, of course, "laws" become misunderstood over time.

I thought it was funny when, in a response to a post of mine, Moonbiter talked about pulling out a copy of Mein Kampf, and it made me think of Godwin's Law. I know that wasn't meant to be a rebuttal to my post, but that's really what this is all about.

Thing is, we did have a poster here, once, who actually compared one of the other members to Hitler. That poster didn't last very long. I thought you might have been referring to something like that with your remarks, above.

I guess the reference was more obscure than I thought. (That's always bad for comedy, you know.) I'm not an internet guru myself, and since I had heard of Godwin's Law, I figured that a lot of other people had heard of it as well.

I don't think Sojourn is saying that Dubya = Hitler, she's just pointing out that, in her opinion, there's more than a few similarities between what was happening then and now, misuse of power, being dishonest, manipulating public opinion, etc.
That doesn't make the Bush administration national-socialists, but a very dangerous situation is being created.

Originally posted by Coot
That doesn't make the Bush administration national-socialists...

Then what does it make them?

By the way, since this thread isn't dead, after all (ha-ha), I'd like to mention that I read an article in a UK newspaper a few days ago that suggested that the abuse of Iraqis isn't limited to those inside prisons; American soldiers are abusing Iraqis everywhere in Iraq, up to and including rape and murder. I wonder to what extent that is true. (I'm sure it's a matter of degree and that it varies from place to place and from time to time.) I know that "war is hell" and all that, but that's certainly no excuse for it. Right after Senator Kerry got back from his tour of duty in Vietnam, he claimed that American soldiers were "committing atrocities", and I would have believed him. But lots of people in the military came down hard on him for saying that, accusing him of "lying" and tarnishing the reputation of the American soldiers. Whatever. Recently, Kerry distanced himself from what he said back then and said that he was exaggerating because he was angry about the whole Vietnam fiasco. Everyone knows it was a big fiasco now, but it's strange how people are still criticizing Kerry for saying it was a fiasco back then. They must be taking illegally-acquired Oxycontin in massive doses. But anyway, I find it strange that Kerry has been silent about the Iraqi prison scandal, when he now has proof that American soldiers really do commit atrocities when the U.S. has invaded a foreign country. American soldiers are doing a lot more to tarnish their image than Kerry ever did.

But anyway, I find it strange that Kerry has been silent about the Iraqi prison scandal, when he now has proof that American soldiers really do commit atrocities when the U.S. has invaded a foreign country.

He's not specifically been silent about this issue, but silent concerning just about everything. He gives the impression of not running for office. He hasn't hit the Bush administration on the soaring deficit, where he could push the Social Security Scare button (with reason). He's not hit the president for his brave words and cutbacks to education, his tax cuts to the wealthy, his involvement (and those of his pals in his administration) with the fossil fuel industry, the breaching of federal laws to knife a former associate (Joe Wilson) who refused to go along with his false Iraqi WMD reports, etc. He's simply boring people to sleep with sedentary cliches, which he's done for years.

Commentators over here are fairly convinced that his team's strategy is to let Dubya's poor performance run against his mouth. Personally, I'm not sure. Kerry is by nature so cautious and mainstream that if he woke during the middle of the night he'd probably rush to put out a press release saying that it wasn't his custom to reverse the policy of most Americans in sleeping until morning, and that he wouldn't do it again. If he gets into the White House, we'll probably have a caretaker administration that moves the country back to its pre-Bush centrist/right position but with no new initiatives; unless Kerry populates his Cabinet with bold individuals. He just might do something smart like that, but I find it doubtful.