Anonymity is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the United States was founded, in part, thanks to Thomas Paine's anonymously written, pro-revolution pamphlet Common Sense. On the other hand, 12-year-olds who post anonymously on the internet can be rather unpleasant and cause real problems by cyberbullying. Whether you think the good outweighs the bad, this news is troubling indeed: A far-reaching bill introduced in the New York State Senate could end the practice of posting online once and for all.
Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara / NY Senate Introduced by New York State Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara (R—Big Flats), S6779 would require that any anonymous post online is subject to removal if the poster refuses to post — and verify — their legal name, their IP address, and their home address. From the (likely well intentioned) bill:
"A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate. All web site administrators shall have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted."
Critics are quick to point out how dangerous and ineffective the anti-privacy bill would be in the off chance that it somehow passes. After all, IP addresses do nothing to verify a person's identity, and including your home address on a controversial internet post could open you up to real-life threats.
In effect, the bill is an online stalker's dream. Of course, the most likely result of the bill's passage would just be the full-scale elimination of all comment systems everywhere, because the system is an unworkable burden on both the poster and the "web site administrators" who would need to respond to ludicrous take down requests at all times of the day.
I know I had been hearing about anti-cyber-bullying laws being enacted over the years and people getting arrested after doing something stupid on facebook, so the fact that more extreme speech-regulation laws were coming down the pike doesn't surprise me... But this?? It obviously doesn't stand a chance of going anywhere, but the fact that it was introduced and that some lawmakers would seriously consider going this far is certainly troubling. I wish there was a way to hold people accountable for say things like libel and/or cyber-bullying, BUT, a way that didn't ruin the Internet for everyone else, and I just don't know what that would be exactly without infringing on general principles of freedom of speech...
This is framed as a privacy issue, but if I have to give up my home address, phone number, etc. every time I say something controversial, you can bet I'm going to be deterred from saying something controversial, hence you're going to achieve a great deal of deterrence/intimidation when it comes to unpopular speech (which is the whole point of the 1st Amendment, protecting unpopular speech - popular speech doesn't need protecting, well, in theory ;))... The argument against the Fairness Doctrine was somewhat similar, forcing radio broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial subjects led to them avoiding the talk-format altogether and become mainly a music station and what not, etc.
Anyway, I thought this topic would make for a good conversation. Thoughts ?
Title: Re: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!"
Post by: Gogan on May 25, 2012, 12:47:24 AM
I agree that people should be held somewhat accountable for what they say online. Not sure this is it, as the article states it's a stalkers dream. But let's face it, a lot of people wouldn't say some of the stupid shit they do if they knew everyone can see who they are IRL. ...and there's a LOT of ppl posting stupid shit.
Title: Re: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!"
Post by: RegalSin on May 25, 2012, 01:08:56 AM
cyberbullying is not a crime. Retards who, takes things too seriously, is a crime.
1. A guy was talking to a gal, was talking sex, and then went to where she lived. Saw she was fat. Killed her and burnt her house down.
2. A young military man, was talking to an retired military man. The old man, kept calling him a nerd. The young man told him to shut it. However the older man, even took his photo and placed it on a jack in the box, or something like that. Calling him nerd. The young man decided to burn down the older man trailer park.
These examples, just means that people are too childish. That is like oh my gosh, he said that. They are just trying to femnazi the entire internet. Oh my gosh that person said that, they must be the scum of the universe.
Title: Re: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!"
Post by: rag-time4 on May 25, 2012, 03:14:06 AM
Anonymity is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the United States was founded, in part, thanks to Thomas Paine's anonymously written, pro-revolution pamphlet Common Sense. On the other hand, 12-year-olds who post anonymously on the internet can be rather unpleasant and cause real problems by cyberbullying. Whether you think the good outweighs the bad, this news is troubling indeed: A far-reaching bill introduced in the New York State Senate could end the practice of posting online once and for all.
Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara / NY Senate Introduced by New York State Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara (R—Big Flats), S6779 would require that any anonymous post online is subject to removal if the poster refuses to post — and verify — their legal name, their IP address, and their home address. From the (likely well intentioned) bill:
"A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate. All web site administrators shall have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted."
Critics are quick to point out how dangerous and ineffective the anti-privacy bill would be in the off chance that it somehow passes. After all, IP addresses do nothing to verify a person's identity, and including your home address on a controversial internet post could open you up to real-life threats.
In effect, the bill is an online stalker's dream. Of course, the most likely result of the bill's passage would just be the full-scale elimination of all comment systems everywhere, because the system is an unworkable burden on both the poster and the "web site administrators" who would need to respond to ludicrous take down requests at all times of the day.
Anyway, I thought this topic would make for a good conversation. Thoughts ?
My main thought is that if freedom and liberty are important to you, do all you can to get liberty loving people into office. The Republican who sponsored the bill is a typical big government Republican. A typical communist of the Gingrich / Romney / Santorum ilk who want every citizen monitored, tracked, and under the watchful eye of the government. I for one have no interest whatsoever in a more docile internet population. Its more healthy to give everyone an open platform to speak their mind, even if someone is a total jackass.
Title: Re: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!"
Post by: Arkhan on May 25, 2012, 03:23:23 AM
How is this any different than random brochads harassing people they see walking down the street.
oh-wait.
on the internet, its often fat mouthbreathers who couldn't punch through a wet noodle if they had to.
Title: Re: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!"
Post by: Jibbajaba on May 25, 2012, 03:39:41 AM
Yeah, good luck making that happen.
Chris
Title: Re: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!"
Post by: NightWolve on May 25, 2012, 12:28:48 PM
My main thought is that if freedom and liberty are important to you, do all you can to get liberty loving people into office.
So far so good... But then:
Quote
The Republican who sponsored the bill is a typical big government Republican. A typical communist of the Gingrich / Romney / Santorum ilk who want every citizen monitored, tracked, and under the watchful eye of the government.
That particular republican may very well be a big government type, I don't know him so I won't go out on a limb, but to call Gingrich / Romney / Santorum communists (and typical at that) is ridiculous! I will admit I have called Bush a big government socialist in the past because of socialist welfare policies -- normally associated with democrats -- that he promoted and recast as "compassionate conservatism" such as his expansion of Medicare to help provide prescription drug coverage to seniors, etc. But "communist" takes on a far different meaning for me and I view it to be a socio-economic type philosophy, not just something strictly limited to economic policies.
Anyway, the main guy that I'd take issue with in your list is Newt Gingrich! This is the guy that led the 90's "Reagan revolution," the republican takeover of the House in 1994 which ended the 40 year reign of Democrat majority control! He pushed through welfare reform, passed a capital gains tax cut and the first balanced budget since 1969, among other things. That takeover forced B.J. "Bubba" Clinton to go along with things a democrat normally wouldn't go along with leading to his pronouncement, "The era of big Government is over" in 1996. We even eventually saw budget surpluses back then! So, unlike the others you listed, Newt Gingrich actually had a record of reducing the size of federal government and trying to get runaway costs under control! Throwing him into a "communist" column is beyond absurd...
The other two guys, it's not so simple there... I'd have to label them big government types by their voting records. Romney in particular with his "Romneycare" program in Massachusetts, and because of this he's essentially neutralized, in a sense, from criticizing "Obamacare" which shares the same principles. Santorum, as a senator, went along with many things that Bush wanted like the Medicare expansion, so he's kinda in the same boat.
I take it that you may have wanted to say something more along the lines of big government authoritarian and I suspect you were drawing comparisons to the Communist Chinese government with its iron-fisted control of the Internet in its own country which supposedly impressed many other governments around the world given that they were able to accomplish such control... In that case I would understand your usage, but still, Gingrich / Romney / Santorum never introduced something this extreme or near it as far as I know. In Santorum's case, are you perhaps alluding to something like his vote on the Patriot Act ??
Quote
I for one have no interest whatsoever in a more docile internet population. Its more healthy to give everyone an open platform to speak their mind, even if someone is a total jackass.
Fair enough.
Title: Re: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!"
Post by: vestcoat on May 25, 2012, 02:11:22 PM
My main thought is that if freedom and liberty are important to you, do all you can to get liberty loving people into office.
So far so good... But then:
Quote
The Republican who sponsored the bill is a typical big government Republican. A typical communist of the Gingrich / Romney / Santorum ilk who want every citizen monitored, tracked, and under the watchful eye of the government.
That particular republican may very well be a big government type, I don't know him so I won't go out on a limb, but to call Gingrich / Romney / Santorum communists (and typical at that) is ridiculous! I will admit I have called Bush a big government socialist in the past because of socialist welfare policies -- normally associated with democrats -- that he promoted and recast as "compassionate conservatism" such as his expansion of Medicare to help provide prescription drug coverage to seniors, etc. But "communist" takes on a far different meaning for me and I view it to be a socio-economic type philosophy, not just something strictly limited to economic policies.
Rag-time's general statement is right-on, but he misused "communist" when referring to the neo-cons.
Communism is when government controls business. Fascism is when business controls government.
Both suck, but right now we're much closer to the latter than the former.
And yeah, Gingrich/Romney/Santorum and the lot are totally invasive when it comes to our individual freedom.
Title: Re: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!"
Post by: nodtveidt on May 25, 2012, 05:14:31 PM
f*ck the lot of those Republican twerps.
Title: Re: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!"
Post by: Joe Redifer on May 25, 2012, 07:28:13 PM
Rag-time's general statement is right-on, but he misused "communist" when referring to the neo-cons.
Ah OK, we have some agreement, they're not communists! Why, they're "neo-cons..." BTW, how long is that "neo" prefix good for anyway ?? 10-20 years and should we use "paleo-cons" to distinguish between regular conservatives ? ;) Personally, when I first heard this "neo-con" term, it was on MSNBC and it was followed by "Jewish Cabal" in reference to Bush's cabinet members, specifically Paul Wolfowitz.
Quote
Communism is when government controls business. Fascism is when business controls government.
I agree to that partial definition of communism but I have no idea where your redefinition for fascism came from and it certainly wasn't the nature of Germany/Italy in that WWII era.
I agree to that partial definition of communism but I have no idea where your redefinition for fascism came from and it certainly wasn't the nature of Germany/Italy in that WWII era.
The definition is old and comes from Mussolini of all people: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
List of corporations that profited in the Holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust)
One of the "Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism (http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm)" (traits shared between Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and several Latin American dictators) is: "#9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite."
Finally, on a personal note, my grandpa flew a B17 over Germany in WWII. There was a Ford automobile plant marked on their maps. The fact that the Ford plant had been converted by the Germans to manufacture tanks - tanks that were killing our American troops - was an open secret. Nevertheless, my Grandpa and the other pilots were ordered to keep their bombs well away from it because it was an American company. Our government valued corporate profits more than the lives of our troops even seventy years ago.
Again, I'm no fan of communism either; both it and fascism end up using the same oppressive measures in the end, but right now our country needs a little more democracy before unbridled capitalism turns into monopoly.
Title: Re: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!"
Post by: NightWolve on May 26, 2012, 02:09:09 PM
You said fascism is when business controls government and that isn't true in any historical or factual sense of the ideology/system and its goals. Government still controls businesses, just NOT to the extreme level of communism... Under fascism, government bureaucratizing the economic activities of the nation meant less freedom, less control for businesses/corporations, not the other way around! A forced "merger" (or else!) with the State by a violent, totalitarian, revolutionary party-in-charge isn't something that sounds like a deal that is going to yield more freedom/control for a business/corporation afterwards... Only if you're using the term as an epithet the way that it is typically used does your statement make sense. If your definition is serious, then I still don't see any merit to it given what you posted.
Whether you're gonna refer to say Mussolini's corporatism principle as a state-directed, regulated market economy that is dedicated to the nation or "state socialism turned on its head" as he did, the State/the Party was STILL the boss and more so than before! A generic Wiki definition of corporatism is, "Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which the economy is collectively managed by employers, workers, and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level." OK, that still sounds like the State is the boss! And if the boss comes to you and says, cooperate with our agenda, you'll get to keep most of your profits, or face the alternative of you and your family disappearing (hint hint), which do you choose ? I think I'm going to choose to live, cooperate and make profit !!
Fascists weren't free market capitalists and they weren't communists either, though they hated the latter by the end, they did work with them in the past (Mussolini praised the October Revolution that brought Lenin to power and Italy was the first to recognize the Soviet Union under his regime, then there's stuff like the Hitler-Stalin pact, carving up Poland, etc.). They felt they were surgical in terms of trying to carve out a socialist position between the two destructive extremes that they saw (capitalism v. communism). Italy nationalized a lot of industries (e.g. Petroleum), Germany not so much (though their original charter called for complete nationalization), and they did go through a period of privatizing, but still, their ideology was a type of socialism in economic areas which meant MORE government control of corporations, not less and certainly not the other way around! And given the totalitarian aspects of their ideology, making opponents and other "undesirables" disappear, your choice as a corporation (or whatever else) to cooperate was pretty clear... This sounds about right, "While Fascism claimed that corporatism gave workers power alongside employer in workplaces in reality the concept of "Fuhrerprinzip" gave employers and State-appointed workplace managers absolute control over the workplace as dictated by the State-owned German Labor Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labor_Front)."
Your Ford automobile plant story demonstrates a point: That plant used to make cars, then the State came along and forced it into making tanks for its war effort! They nationalized it for their purposes! That's not respect for private property rights or free market capitalism... I suspect that the German owner of that particular plant was faced with a choice, cooperate or disappear! Maybe he was a Nazi supporter and did it voluntarily, maybe not, I dunno, but if he stood up and said "I reject this war and I wanna continue to make cars," what would happen in that particular time period?
I think the point I'm trying to make is, under such circumstances, what kind of excessive (or otherwise) counter-influence or counter-control over government could corporations/businesses have exerted over Fascist regimes when talking WWII-era Germany/Italy and how frequent was it, IF I am to take your definition seriously ?? I don't see it; I do understand there's a view that corporations had a cozy relationship, that is, if the corporation behaved itself, towed the Fascist party line, did what it was told to do when necessary, it would be rewarded with policies to help make it more profitable... And given the possible punishment for not cooperating, why would their behavior of choosing profits over standing up to a mad regime be surprising ? You can't kill/intimidate everybody that opposes you (although, heh, these guys made millions disappear, they sure tried) and you don't want the entire population hating you all at once, etc. so if you can "buy" support at times with some kind of kickback in exchange for cooperation, that's good enough in the meantime while you consolidate more state power.
Finally, your noting that US bombers were given orders to avoid bombing this plant, that's a criticism of the US government who at this point was waging war against a Fascist regime! Ford, a US business, telling the US government, "Hey, if possible, could you avoid bombing that plant we built over there, because, well, maybe after the war we can rebuild/restore it, you know ??" and our government complying with that request is a type of, I dunno, cronyism, bad judgement, etc. Ford had a powerful influence over our government which actually affected military strategy and if more tanks made it out on the battlefield because orders were given to spare this plant, they have blood on their hands. In any case, whatever that was, it wasn't "fascism" unless it's being used as an epithet. That is an interesting story BTW, I didn't know about it!
Quote
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
One more quick point, I dunno who this writer is, but at least when it comes to the Italian fascists, they came to power through violent revolution, killings, occupations, seizing train stations, post offices, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Rise_to_power_and_initial_international_spread_of_fascism_.281922.E2.80.941929.29) just like the Bolsheviks. Whether they had a corporation or two to help finance the revolution, I dunno, but even focusing on the "mutually beneficial relationship" comment, that doesn't tell you who controlled who! I don't think it's ambiguous given all the history that's available nor in the direction you state (business controls government), further down in that link you find:
Quote
The Fascist regime created a corporatist economic system in 1925 with creation of the Palazzo Vidioni Pact, in which the Italian employers' association Confindustria and Fascist trade unions agreed to recognize each other as the sole representatives of Italy's employers and employees, excluding non-Fascist trade unions. The Fascist regime first created a Ministry of Corporations that organized the Italian economy into 22 sectoral corporations, banned workers' strikes and lock-outs, and in 1927 created the Charter of Labour, which established workers' rights and duties and created labour tribunals to arbitrate employer-employee disputes. In practice, the sectoral corporations exercised little independence and were largely controlled by the regime, and employee organizations were rarely led by employees themselves but instead by appointed Fascist party members.
Title: Re: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!"
Post by: rag-time4 on May 26, 2012, 03:26:49 PM
My main thought is that if freedom and liberty are important to you, do all you can to get liberty loving people into office.
So far so good... But then:
Quote
The Republican who sponsored the bill is a typical big government Republican. A typical communist of the Gingrich / Romney / Santorum ilk who want every citizen monitored, tracked, and under the watchful eye of the government.
That particular republican may very well be a big government type, I don't know him so I won't go out on a limb, but to call Gingrich / Romney / Santorum communists (and typical at that) is ridiculous! I will admit I have called Bush a big government socialist in the past because of socialist welfare policies -- normally associated with democrats -- that he promoted and recast as "compassionate conservatism" such as his expansion of Medicare to help provide prescription drug coverage to seniors, etc. But "communist" takes on a far different meaning for me and I view it to be a socio-economic type philosophy, not just something strictly limited to economic policies.
Anyway, the main guy that I'd take issue with in your list is Newt Gingrich! This is the guy that led the 90's "Reagan revolution," the republican takeover of the House in 1994 which ended the 40 year reign of Democrat majority control! He pushed through welfare reform, passed a capital gains tax cut and the first balanced budget since 1969, among other things. That takeover forced B.J. "Bubba" Clinton to go along with things a democrat normally wouldn't go along with leading to his pronouncement, "The era of big Government is over" in 1996. We even eventually saw budget surpluses back then! So, unlike the others you listed, Newt Gingrich actually had a record of reducing the size of federal government and trying to get runaway costs under control! Throwing him into a "communist" column is beyond absurd...
The other two guys, it's not so simple there... I'd have to label them big government types by their voting records. Romney in particular with his "Romneycare" program in Massachusetts, and because of this he's essentially neutralized, in a sense, from criticizing "Obamacare" which shares the same principles. Santorum, as a senator, went along with many things that Bush wanted like the Medicare expansion, so he's kinda in the same boat.
I take it that you may have wanted to say something more along the lines of big government authoritarian and I suspect you were drawing comparisons to the Communist Chinese government with its iron-fisted control of the Internet in its own country which supposedly impressed many other governments around the world given that they were able to accomplish such control... In that case I would understand your usage, but still, Gingrich / Romney / Santorum never introduced something this extreme or near it as far as I know. In Santorum's case, are you perhaps alluding to something like his vote on the Patriot Act ??
Quote
I for one have no interest whatsoever in a more docile internet population. Its more healthy to give everyone an open platform to speak their mind, even if someone is a total jackass.
Fair enough.
You're right, what I was referring to as "big government communism" was in this context dealing with strong state power and authoritarianism. On this front, Gingrich may well be the worst of the three! He is a strong proponent of strengthening the police state / secret police apparatus of the government.... a hallmark of communist governments built around powerful centralized state power:
Taking your description of Gingrich's record of reducing government spending in the 1990s at face value, I would point out that having a large budget deficit is not an inherent feature in communist governments. Cuba currently operates at a modest budget deficit. Libya, under the Jahmahiriya regime, did not have a budget deficit nor a national debt.
The most destructive aspect of communism, in my view, in terms of the economy, is the ability for people in the government to decide winners and losers in the economy. It seems to me Gingrich has had a hand in this aspect of communist ideology as well:
I'm really glad you responded NightWolve... I remember from your conversation in the fighting street thread saying that you had a Ronald Reagan avatar in the past... I hope you embrace the best of what Reagan stood for, not the worst. Reagan says here, at 1:48 , "those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course [toward totalitarianism]:
Title: Re: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!"
Post by: RegalSin on May 28, 2012, 02:26:01 PM
cyber bullying is not a crime. The problem is bad parenting. When I used the internet, for the first time, people used to call everybody a six year old, who got hold of their parents password.
Seriously teenagers, just need to understand, the internet is not real, and you can say what you, and do what you want. Because it is just words, and not real people. Whatever a person says over the internet is not to be taken seriously, or even joke wise. Little buggars needs to GTFUP and stop suckling on Uncle Sams nipples.
The next god forsaken thing, they will do is pass a sexual harrasment law, and claim that words do rape.
Cyberbullying is just complete arseholery, that is all. People need to grow up and realize that because somebody says something, does not mean you should travel across the world, on a mission
People who get mad, or cry should be banned from using computers, or go and find something else, because the world is full of arseholes. Shoudl I march down to my work place, and shoot the person, who dare to make fun of my work? Should I find every girl, who turned me down, and tear em a new one? Should I run down the bastards who impregnated my females. One day, I should pay the dickless who impregnated my sister, and do not send her a dime. and rape his arse, like a school girl from Kite?.....should I do that?????
It is called self control. Nobody should not get arrested because of words. That would be the day, when RegalSin gets sent to jail for posting, words.
Take the military guy, who made fun of the the other military guy, and called him a nerd. He drove all the way down, just to burn his trailer. That guy is a lunatic. If people have no self-control, then that shows how dumb we are.
If an english person posted on an East Asian website, I am sure, with all their negative ideas about the west, they would ignore, and say "stupid westerner"
One day people are going to be so stupid, you could pick people up from off the street, like grass. They do not even know what to do. You know what idiots say about snake bites? They say "do not suck it" , and instead call somebody for help???????? IS EVERYBODY MAGICALLY EQUIPED WITH A CELLUAR PHONE?????? It is like am living in backwards Disney r-tard land. Facebook is like a nightclub, or after-party.
...................................
I just going to "defend" Timothy McVeigh, he was part of a religious "sect", and the way they handled it was almost, inhuman.
Title: Re: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!"
Post by: NightWolve on May 28, 2012, 09:34:52 PM
Had to be a RuPaul err, I mean, a Ron Paul guy!! Figures! ;)
You're right, what I was referring to as "big government communism" was in this context dealing with strong state power and authoritarianism. On this front, Gingrich may well be the worst of the three! He is a strong proponent of strengthening the police state / secret police apparatus of the government.... a hallmark of communist governments built around powerful centralized state power:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBSqtGX-alc
I didn't find anything wrong with Gingrich's answer in that video (he gave a good answer overall and a good rebuttal to Ron, I thought!) and I can't seem to make the giant leap that you can from that answer to, "Why, he's a big government communist that would turn us into an authoritative police state!" Too late though, right? Prez. Hussein already signed a 4 year extension of the Patriot Act... Communist Police State here we come!!! Heh. Oh, but wait, uh, it has been in effect since 2001 (at least, most provisions minus some that weren't knocked out by court-challenges) - why aren't we there already ? Perhaps it's not as extreme as it's being portrayed/characterized by its opponents ?
I think we ought to be able to talk about national security issues, that is, reasonable measures that can be taken to help thwart future terrorist plots without hysterical and/or hyperbolic charges that anyone who endorses such measures is a "communist" or comes "close" and that they would put us on a direct path towards becoming like the Communist Chinese government... Think we can do that or what ? This is a lazy way (intellectually) of discrediting an idea/policy, by simply trying to associate it with destructive, totalitarian movements/ideologies (e.g. fascists/communists, etc.) that have a lot of blood on their hands and at certain points in revolutionary times had to build walls to keep people (read: workers/resources) from escaping... Ron Paul does this specifically in the next Freddie Mac video by equating a GSE to fascism (which could be accurate actually). How about though just oppose it because the Federal government a) is trillions in debt, b) had to bail it out with almost a half a trillion ($400 billion) and c) probably shouldn't have created it in the first place (I say 'probably' because whether it should exist or not is above my pay grade as citizen political commentator - Hehe!) RATHER than invoke images of swastikas or hammers&sickles? Make the case on the merits!
The problem is, after the Patriot Act, my life or that of the average citizen didn't change a single bit, so its effects can't be "felt" day-to-day. I cannot feel as offended as you are on the issue because the offense is more perceived than tangible (if that's the right way to explain it). For opponents, that presents a problem in convincing others as to its perceived dangers. The workaround to this problem is to to gin up hysteria by making wild-eyed accusations and extreme slippery slope type arguments as Ron Paul does in this video which prevent us from trying to thoughtfully analyze the issue. To effectively discredit the Patriot Act and its supporters given Newt's rebuttal, he throws around "police state," equates the measure to, "Having a policeman and/or a camera in every house to prevent child/spousal abuse! Yes, you'll prevent and stop a lot of crime, but EVERYBODY will be a perpetual victim living in such a state!!" That is an emotional way-out-there argument that paints an extreme picture and of course few people would want that, but I cannot take the man seriously as a result and I don't see how one reaches that conclusion/warning from ANY of the provisions in the Patriot Act.
Highlights: Ron says, "Terrorism is a crime...and...we dealt with it rather well with Timothy McVeigh!" and then channels Ben Franklin, "Don't sacrifice liberty for security!", etc.
Newt says, "Timothy McVeigh succeeded! That's the whole point. " As in, he blew up a Federal building killing 168, wounding 800, people etc... "I don't want a law that says after we lose an American city we're sure gonna come find you! I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we're gonna stop you!"
I think Ron got owned... "We dealt with it rather well..." I mean, I understand, he's talking about how a criminal court was able to handle prosecuting McVeigh as opposed to say a military tribunal, which gets us into another debate, but still, to hold that aspect up in the face of the fact that ultimately McVeigh succeeded and this is more importantly about how to prevent things like that from happening again made him look foolish...
Quote
Taking your description of Gingrich's record of reducing government spending in the 1990s at face value, I would point out that having a large budget deficit is not an inherent feature in communist governments. Cuba currently operates at a modest budget deficit. Libya, under the Jahmahiriya regime, did not have a budget deficit nor a national debt.
Your full term was "big government communist" so at the very least, wrong guy to call a "big government" type assuming I take your liberal usage of "communist" out of it for a moment... Why do you say "taking his record at face value" ? Is there any question that the 90's GOP reduced the size of government and tried to change course after 40 years of democrat control ?? As for Cuba, it's an embargoed small island, I would think everything is small but I'm not an expert and that takes us off on yet another fruitless tangent. I don't think your liberal usage of "communist" was ever serious, but I've been arguing with you as if it was... It seems you throw it around at everyone that isn't as libertarian as Ron Paul. Are you taken seriously when you've done it elsewhere? I kinda doubt it...
Quote
The most destructive aspect of communism, in my view, in terms of the economy, is the ability for people in the government to decide winners and losers in the economy. It seems to me Gingrich has had a hand in this aspect of communist ideology as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4G8udkqGxY
I think given that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac were $400 billion dollar debacles recently, this makes him look corrupt and I'm not sure I buy his explanation! A million bucks for how long of a consulting gig I wonder? I had heard about an Obama adviser James Johnson making off with $21 million, so this GSE seems rather generous with other peoples' money - not surprising...
Anyway, taking your additional dropping of "communist" into consideration again, if serious and not just used as an epithet, it technically fails to hold up. Supporting the concept of a GSE is, yes, supporting a government intervention into the economy, but not at a sufficiently extreme level that a true-blue communist would call for! This is technically somewhere in the fascist-socialist spectrum and to be clear, I don't use the latter terms in a bad way in this case.
Look, ideas/policies need to be judged on their merits, when NOT to intervene in the economy and decide that liberty works better in that situation, and when TO intervene to potentially prevent disaster in the worst case or to help improve society! One thing's for sure, it's the era of Laissez-faire capitalism that has long since been over (if it ever fully existed) thanks to incidents like the Great Depression and it's gonna stay that way for a long time! We have a mixture or influence of everything in our times and slapping fascist/socialist/communist labels on government interventions into the economy to deter/discredit them is only gonna go so far...
Quote
I'm really glad you responded NightWolve... I remember from your conversation in the fighting street thread saying that you had a Ronald Reagan avatar in the past... I hope you embrace the best of what Reagan stood for, not the worst. Reagan says here, at 1:48 , "those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course [toward totalitarianism]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ8cek1AOcY
1) Embrace the best of what Reagan stood for by...voting for Ron Paul ?? His presidential bid did end in failure...again, BTW. ;) But if it makes you feel any better, forced into the choice of him versus any democrat, I'd vote for him any day of the week!
or
2) Embrace the best of what Reagan stood for by agreeing with you and Ron Paul on issues like the Patriot Act because if I don't a) "Thou hath embarked on a downward course towards totalitarianism... " and b) I'm likely a communist and stand for the worst of things to boot ??? That about right ?? Hehe!
Well, regardless, this kind of set up is rather unfair psychologically and not very constructive. If I dare to disagree with you, you've already given me your answer using a Ronald Reagan quote from one of his greatest speeches of all time. Using that, and say ole Ben Franklin's famous quote, "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither!" which it's sort of based on, is a selective usage of quotes being applied to a modern situation. Ben Franklin isn't here and he didn't have to deal with Osama Bin Laden and threats like him. So how much or how little should we heed his warning ? How about no police and no military then ?? Well, I mean, if I want a police force, I'm sacrificing liberty for security, thus I deserve neither! You get where I'm going with that. Those quotes are useful to an extent, but they're not a part of some suicide pact and not necessarily applicable...
Finally, you really will have to classify me as a "communist" after reading this to remain credibly consistent and I've been called a great many things in my time, even fascist, but never a communist until now I guess!!! Who would've thought that I had moved so far to the Left on the political spectrum!!! Heh-heh!
Ah man, I'll have to avoid entertaining silliness like this in the future. I do love you Ron Paul guys (http://www.ysutopia.net/forums/index.php?topic=295.0), I'll tell you that much! ;)
@RegalSin: Thanks, kinda, for still getting back to what I originally wanted to talk about... I figured entertaining these distractions had derailed the thread for good.