Brian Burger schrieb:
> > This is not true--I've gamed with political viewpoints
One of the major differences in European and US use of political language.
In Europe "Liberal" are still literally for liberties. I.e.human rights and
tolerance, minimum state interference and low taxes, free market economies,
free trade.
As far as I understand US politics (who does?) US 'Liberals' are what we over
here would call Social Democrats or even Socialists. Ready to tax the rich to
give to the poor. Rather vociferous about helping the 'Third World'.
'Politically correct' in the bad sense of that word, etc.
In Europe, it would be quite unusual for a memeber of a Communist party to b
ecalled a 'Liberal'.
Greetings Karl Heinz
As far as I understand US politics (who does?) US 'Liberals' are what we over
here would call Social Democrats or even Socialists. Ready to tax the rich to
give to the poor. Rather vociferous about helping the 'Third World'.
'Politically correct' in the bad sense of that word, etc.
About right, in the US the lines run from 'Liberal' i.e. Social Democrat to
"Conservative"i.e. free market economies, free trade etc. These can belong to
either of the two major political parties but tend to be
Democrat/Liberal and Republican/Conservative. This is by no means a
hard and fast rule but, is generally correct.
In Europe, it would be quite unusual for a memeber of a Communist party to b
ecalled a 'Liberal'.
But they can be "Greens" can't they? Ours can be also and generally are.
On or about Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 07:14:56AM -0500, Don M typed:
> In Europe, it would be quite unusual for a memeber of a Communist party
Generally, if someone's a member of one of the Green parties he'll be called
"Green" rather than anything else; I think it's generally considered that the
policies advocated by such parties are so far away from anyone else's
(particularly before the last few years, when they toned it down a bit in
order to start actually getting elected) that it's a more important marker.
Generally, if someone's a member of one of the Green parties he'll be called
"Green" rather than anything else; I think it's generally considered that the
policies advocated by such parties are so far away from anyone else's
(particularly before the last few years, when they toned it down a bit in
order to start actually getting elected) that it's a more important marker.
Roger, Well they haven't toned it down a bit here....Guess that's why none are
getting elected here...yet.
> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
> As far as I understand US politics (who does? ) US
Damn sure not most USians.
> 'Liberals' are what
That covers it. Happy to spend other people's money.
> In Europe, it would be quite unusual for a memeber
Heh. US public usage tends to try to pin things into bipolarity. This is
impossible as a rational political opinion encompasses a spectrum of things
which may not fit into the two choices. For instance, I believe in unlimited
firearm ownership for
non-felons without a record of mental disease. I also
wouldn't be bothered by decriminalization of marijuana or state recognition of
homosexual relationships. On the other hand, unlike your classical
libertarian, I believe in the interstate highway system, air traffic
controllers, large and well-funded Armed Forces, and
an actively imperialistic foreign policy. And the income tax.
That doesn't fit into a single category I'm aware of. I end up voting
Republican because I hate the Democratic Party (it being the official DP line
that overseas military personnel should not have the right to vote[1]) but I'm
not happy with a lot of the loons it throws up on a regular basis.
> At 6:27 AM -0700 9/13/02, John Atkinson wrote:
Up personal freedoms and liberties!
> the other hand, unlike your classical libertarian, I
I think it's more Jingoistic isn't it?
> That doesn't fit into a single category I'm aware of.
Same here. People have trouble grokking why I'm a member of the ACLU
_and_ the NRA. Of course, I was just bloody annoyed that after
joining the ACLU I some how got on Al Gore and Bill Clinton's "send us money"
list for junk mail. I'm so annoyed by it I'm going it give the ACLU an earful
about it first good opportunity I have. At least the NRA puts me on mailing
lists for neat catalogs and stuff. I've yet to start receiving hard
conservatives asking me for money.
> I end up voting Republican because I hate the
The moderates are ok on either side. Its the nutcases that really make me
wonder. Cynthia Mckinney for one....bloody good riddance.
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 06:27:56 -0700 (PDT), John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For instance,
What's interesting here is that there's not a whole lot of difference between
John and me as far as beliefs go. The biggest is probably firearm ownership
(no, I am _not_ trying to start THAT debate) but that's more of a
Scots-Canadian versus US difference, I think. Otherwise we're probably
pretty close in our beliefs. And yet he characterizes himself as conservative
and me as liberal.
It just shows what I've always thought, that political parties have their own
agenda and no party fits (or even _can_ fit) most citizens of a given
country.
Allan said:
> Otherwise we're probably pretty close in our beliefs. And yet he
I think you identified yourself as a liberal; I don't recall John commenting
on it. Not that "liberal" and "conservative" are particularly useful
identifiers any more.
I'd say this is all rather off topic, though.
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >the other hand, unlike your classical libertarian,
No, it's recognition of the reality of international relations, accompanied by
a fairly heavy reading of the past 10,000 years of recorded history. You will
not have "Peace in our Time" unless enforced by a nation or group of nations
with overwhelming military power available to step on the idiots that the
cesspools of humanity breed. Hegemony, if not Imperium.
Although the air traffic controllers and highways seem
more common-sense than jingoism.
> No, it's recognition of the reality of international
You are missing fact that hegemonies and imperiums invariably end up crushing
freedoms and liberties. In other words "if we can force other states to do
what we want all the time, why can't we force our own citizens to do what we
want. It's for their own good, after all."
> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> You are missing fact that hegemonies and imperiums
The British managed to avoid such. And they ran 2/3
the planet's surface for a couple centuries.
[quoted original message omitted]
And that would be Game$ Work$hop?
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
It makes pefect sense to me. The 1st Ammendment is What. The 2nd is How.
Freedom, and the right to protect it.
OBGZG-L: What sort of constitution does the NAC operate under ?
OBOT: I'm going to commit an Internet faux pas and explain my.sig. The
quote is from the opinion by Attorney General Andrew Johnson establishing the
military tribunal to try and execute John Wilkes Booth (assasinated Pres.
Lincoln in 1865). There was a discussion on kuro5hin.org about the military
tribunals in operation right now. The Booth tribunal came up as precedent.
Someone quoted the document my.sig
links to, the passage was " These banditti that spring up in time of war
are respecters of no law, human or divine, of peace or of war... and may
be hunted down like wolves."
The respondent objected to the presence of the phrase "hunted down like
wolves" in a document being cited on Constitutional issues on the grounds that
such a savage sentiment disqualified a document from being considered part of
Constitutional canon. I read the docuemnt and found the phrase I quote, which
I strongly believe lies at the heart and in the bone of the found fathers'
intent. So I made it my.sig.
It's a fascinating read if you have any interest in Constitutional issues.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> Same here. People have trouble grokking why I'm a member of the ACLU
> the ACLU I some how got on Al Gore and Bill Clinton's "send us money"
> earful about it first good opportunity I have. At least the NRA puts
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Michael Llaneza wrote:
> It makes pefect sense to me. The 1st Ammendment is What. The 2nd is
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc reasoning here. Having guns!= freedom. Freedom does
not nessecarily = having guns. But that's a flamewar for another day.
> OBGZG-L: What sort of constitution does the NAC operate under ?
Probably a very messy one!
The UK has no 'Constitution' in the sense of a single over-arcing
document.
Canada has a Constitution & Bill of Rights, with references to a number of
other documents.
The US has a Constitution, of course, but the NAC is founded after the
*collapse* of the republic in the 2nd Civil War. (Which was, if you read some
of the canon bits, actually a *nuclear* civil war! Florida nuking North
Dakota? Something like that. It's what prompted the US military to take over &
ask for stabilization help from the UK & Canada, in the canon timelines.)
An over-arcing NAC document (let's call it the Articles of
Confederation, just to differentiate btwn that & various Constitutions...)
would probably have some sort of Bill of Rights, and then a lot of language
about regional differences!
We've also got to accomodate Central/South America - after 150+ years,
they're probably fully integrated into the rest of the NAC.
I'm thinking that the slightly more British model (of a gradually accumulated
'constitution') would be more flexible for something as large & varied as the
NAC. Some things (Bill of Rights, govt duties at various levels) would be
hardwired, and the rest allowed to evolve from an amalgamation of everyone's
past practice.
Like I said, incredibly messy. The constitutional lawyers would be busy
people!
From: "Michael Llaneza" <maserati@earthlink.net>
> Someone quoted the document my .sig
A phrase which has been in English law for quite a few centuries, as I recall.
When someone was outlawed and "to be dealt with as wolves are" it meant that
if you found him, you didn't have to try to capture him or go through the
court system, you could just go ahead and shoot him.
Yep. The post I was replying too *needed* correction. Hunting wolves is one of
the reasons we have a society in the first place.
> Laserlight wrote:
> From: "Michael Llaneza" <maserati@earthlink.net>
Don M. wrote in reply to KHR:
> >As far as I understand US politics (who does? ) US 'Liberals' are
[...}
> >In Europe, it would be quite unusual for a memeber of a Communist
European Greens are generally *US-style* "Liberals", just like your
Greens are.
As KHR wrote above, US-style "Liberals" and European-style Liberals are
not
the same thing at all - which means that most European Greens interpret
the word "Liberal" as a rather serious insult.
John Atkinson replied to Imre A. Szabo:
> >You are missing fact that hegemonies and imperiums invariably end up
Er, well... only if you count the oceans :-/ And I'm not entirely sure
that all Africans, Indians, Amerindians, Aboriginies etc. would agree that the
British "managed to avoid" crushing their liberties and freedoms, either...
Later,
> John Atkinson replied to Imre A. Szabo:
Aside from minor details, like the items listed in the Declaration of
Independence...
> --- Don M <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote:
And the results are in! Tribalism replaces colonialism, death rate soars!!!
Bye for now,
> > And just look at the results.....)
That would be evolution at it's simplest?
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> > > >to do what we want. It's for their own good,
I didn't say it wasn't rough on the colonials.
But I really don't think it would be realistic to describe the UK as a
tyranny. The Founding Fathers were, if you read the DoI, mostly torqued
because HM Government weren't following their own laws.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Er, well... only if you count the oceans :-/ And I'm
SLOC is the basis of world domination.
> not entirely sure that
The subject under discussion is what the Hegemon does to their own citizens.
The whole point of Imperium or Hegemony is to crush
the liberties of those states (or pre-state
populations, such as most of those you mention) who are inclined to causing
trouble.
The US decisively restricted every right of the Taliban (including the right
of many of their members to breathe), and are about to do the same thing to
Iraq. You don't build an empire on campfire songs and encounter sessions.
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
Point of Fact: The phrase "dealt with as wolves are" originated in Roman
proscription decrees.
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, John Atkinson wrote:
> The whole point of Imperium or Hegemony is to crush
Ah yes, indeed. I am sure all those indiginous people were BOUND to come
looking for the good old British Islands to come pick a fight.
> The US decisively restricted every right of the
I'm not even going to reply to this, because things would get out of hand.
> > You are missing fact that hegemonies and imperiums
Most of the American colonies were so pleased with "benevolent" British rule
that respected their freedoms and liberties that the colonies revolted and
kicked the British out. As for not following their own laws, that is a matter
of interpretation. Most British Lords of the time did not view the colonials
as equals, and hence not privileged to the same treatment. The colonials had
the radical and revolutionary ideas that they were equal.
The British Empire was founded on two great principles. The first dominated
until the middle of the 1800's (until new colonialism). That principle was
economic exploitation. The "savages" were subjugated not for any concern for
their well being, but rather to make it more efficient to extract money. The
second principle was prestige. In the mid 1800's it became prestigious to be a
large empire, aka new colonialism.
The British maintained their empire because most of the empire paid for itself
plus. The key ingredient was superior military technology. Going up against
breach loading rifles with spears is not any fun. Going up against gattling
guns with spears is much worse. Trying to take on a Frigate with spears and
catapults isn't any better. Water cannons don't cut it against an armored
cruiser.
The Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact were an Imperium and Hegemony for defense. It
crushed freedom's and liberties in pursuit of its goal and destroyed the
economies and environment of all the countries it was "defending."
In order for the U.S. to set up its Imperium and Global Hegemony; then it will
either destroy it's economy if that Global Hegemony is for defense, or it will
have to systematically sack and plunder the planet to pay for it. Neither
option leaves any room for consideration of the freedoms and liberties of the
countries in the Global Hegemony. While the economic Global Hegemony does
allow the continuation of freedoms and liberties in the U.S, it will make the
U.S. a global hypocrite. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence and
U.S. Constitution are only for Americans. Not for anyone else.
> As for not following their own laws, that is a
The
> colonials had the radical and revolutionary ideas that they were
IIRC -- and it's been a long time since I studied this -- colonials
were British subjects and should in theory have had the same rights as the
people living in London. Not the same rights as the aristocracy, but that's
not what they were complaining about. Not that this is on topic anyway.
> In order for the U.S. to set up its Imperium and Global Hegemony
The American Empire was established quite a while ago--it's just
that, unlike the British Empire, almost all the natives we subjected were on
the same continent.
Will we have a global hegemony? No--remember that Canada and UK
have to step in and form the Anglian Confed...
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Er, well... only if you count the oceans :-/ And I'm
SLOC? Haven't heard that particular acronym before. Elaborate.
As for the land area of this planet, AFAIK Britain never controlled 2/3
of
it at any one time. I doubt that you'll reach 2/3 of the land area even
if every territory ever controlled by Britain at some point in time is
counted, including Aquitaine :-/
As for the US restricting the Taliban, well... yes, at least temporarily
-
though they seem to be resurgent again now. As for Iraq, we'll see in time.
Later,
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> SLOC? Haven't heard that particular acronym before. Elaborate.
Sea Lines Of Communications
> IIRC -- and it's been a long time since I studied this -- colonials
Actually it was a large part of the problem. Most of the Founding Fathers were
for all intents and purposes a landed aristocracy and they knew it.
> The American Empire was established quite a while ago--it's just
Actually, exterminated would be a more accurate description...