Main Menu

The politics of being banned

Started by Bluke, June 09, 2011, 03:19:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

hawk_88

Quote from: Bluke on June 10, 2011, 04:41:25 PM
Well every time I fly, I am glad when I get pulled aside for a bag inspection and an explosives swab. I'd much rather a small delay then being stuck on a plane with an impassioned jihadist.

I don't agree with profiling, but there has actually been a shift away from profiling in the security sector.

It actually doesn't work, you will never hear of terrorist boarding a plane wearing a robe with full face beard. He will carry a brief case, have slicked back hair and be clean shaven.

In regards to democracy and its different forms, 'deliberative democracy' is far superior to any other in my mind.

Since 911 no terrorist has been stopped form boarding a plane by security checks. A couple of terrorists have gotten through and the only reason they were caught is that they stuffed up, like the one who was caught with explosives in his underwear.

Again, I am probably with you given what we have in Australia, I don't feel put out, apart from a few things like nail clippers and that rubbish, but the security in the US is much more invasive and time consuming. No fly lists for instance. Not only can people be put on that list with no evidence, it is such that many people that share names with those on the list have also been unable to fly. Toddlers have been placed on the list (hopefully by mistake) and can't be removed. Then there is the invasive, basically lawless TSA, who do as they wish.

Bluke

No terrorist that you've heard of. You never hear of intelligence victories, unless its Osama Bin Laden. Regardless, the key is that no terrorist has attempted (or been successful) a plot employing airplanes as weapons, or harmed those on air planes as a result of the deterent that increased airport security provides.

I also disagree with no fly lists, they're a particularly ugly part of the Patriot Act and the process for the removal of ones name shouldn't nearly be as difficult as it is.

What I primarly speak of are increased vetting practices of airport staff, contractors and security personnel.

incog43

.

You have to recognise that in the wake of 9/11, Bali, 7/7, Madrid, Mumbai and the rise of transnational terrorism that governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens. I do not agree that legislation like the Patriot Act, rendition or 'robust interrogation' are an appropriate response to transnational terrorism. However, I do believe that more pragmatic measures like increased airport security do provide a measure of safety for air travellers etc. As do more centralised security agencies such as Home Land Security. One of the revelations to come out of 9/11 was the massive intelligence failure on behalf of the CIA/NSA/FBI. That attack theoretically could have been prevented if those agencies had simply cooperated a little more. Unfortunately the nature of government agencies means that they are continually competing for funding, publicity etc. 9/11 helped to expose that culture.

One of the revelations to come from 9/11 was that Arab states wanted the US out of their countries, so much for that huh?

Furthermore, you have to accept that the post-9/11 US was always going to undergo a rapid shift towards a more securitized state. The symbolism of the 9/11 attacks was undeniable, Al Qaeda hit the economic and military heart of America and very nearly struck the political heart. Al Qaeda exposed the weak underbelly of the US and invoked fear, uncertainty and anomie amongst the population. Even if you disregard the 3000+ death toll, the very nature of an attack occurring on US soil was always going to scar Americans psychologically. You may call it a shift towards fascism/socialism/whatever but the transparency, accountability and checks and balances of the US system mean that while there may be a shift towards one side of politics, it is usually followed by a shift back towards the other side.

In context, 100,000 people are murdered in the US every year, 3000 or 4000 died on 9/11. Over 500,000 Iraqis and Afgans have died since their sovereign nations were invaded.

What an opportunity 9/11 was to repress civil rights and liberties, and boy, didn't they take advantage of it. I give you the beginning of a police state. I give you a country that has abandonned their bill of rights

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - ben franklin


I dispute your claim that Obama is a 'full blown' socialist. No socialist would ever claim Obama as one of their own. Bank bail outs were to save the US CAPTIALIST financial system from collapse. The medicare reforms were to prevent a full blown collapse of a dying health care system. My partner lived in the US for 8 years and their health care system was great if you had the money, and disgusting if you didn't. Fortunately for her, her dad had a good job and with good health cover. Not so fortunate are many others.

DDispute all you like, this is not a free market system, this is socialism.

Have you no understanding of Ireland or Greece? These governments bailed out their banks, and now these governments are broke, who do you think pays for this, the people pay, not the banks, the losses are socialised for christ sake.

Obamacare is to be mandatory, understand, you have no choice, this is the socialisation of health care


Your statistical evidence points to one thing only Incognito, that the US is in recession, that the government is fighting that recession as best it can while also implementing a reform regime. 46 million people on food stamps only evidences the ever growing income disparity gap in the US, which is wider than in East Timor, an income disparity gap that is the result of capitalism, not socialist policies. The US barely resembles a socialist regime, it is simply trying to protect its capitalist foundations.

The stats clearly show that more and more people are dependent on Government entitlements, do they not, 1 in 6 in fact.
US Deficits are getting bigger, not smaller, entitlement spending is increasing, not reducing. 42,000 factories have been closed in the US since 2001, what do they make their? IPADS?

Here's, some more stats;

US debt 14.5 trillion
US debt with unfunded added 103 trillion

Get the picture, it will never be paid back. it cant be.

In free markets, a business succeeds or fails, THEY DO NOT get bailed out by taxpayers, these are publictry traded institutions, NOT government bodies, when they fail, THEY FAIL, they will be replaced, that's how free markets work.


Such rash claims like 'Obama is a full blown socialist' only serve to undermine your argument because he is quite clearly a libertarian and was a civil rights lawyer before being president. Are you not also a civil libertarian? In fact if I didnt know better, I would say you are employing many of the arguments of the far right 'Tea Party,' and their conservative policies are far from your libertarian underpinnings.

What in gods name does the fact that he studied constitutional law have to do with this?? He certainly knows how to disregard the constitition does he not :) If he is a libertarian why does he not support the bill of rights, this is no arguement, AGAIN YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHAT PEOPLE SAY, AND NOT WHAT THEY DO!

One final point, the estimated cost of the 2012 US election is 2 - 3 Billion dollars, how do you think they raise that money?

Ma & Pa Kettle in Iowa? How do they raise this sort of money, where does it come from? What is democracy? The will of the people of the will of campaign contributors?

The merger of State and Corporates is fascism, its that simple, the people can vote for who they like, its a 2 headed monster sharing the same body.

War in Iraq, bush, who continued the war and extended it, Obama.
Bush tax cuts, who extended the tax cuts, Obama.
Increased government spending and deficts, thats Bush, who increased it, Obama.
Patriot act, Bush, who extended it, Obama, TSA?

Vote for who you want, it does not matter. Open you eyes, forget concepts and watch what they do, dont listen to what they say.




incog43

Quote from: Prospector_1 on June 10, 2011, 04:08:57 PM
incog spoke of the German people being too scared to do "what was necessary" to stop the rise of Hitler and the Nazi state. I simply say they likely had no idea of what to do.

Wrong we both were.

They wanted him, they embraced him, he was their savior, those you saw the truth were to scared to speak up.

It will happen here one day, a strong man/woman to save us, and you WILL embrace them :(

korza

Ding Ding Ding, time out, page 16 of this thread has just been raped. Come in page 17.




KORZA

Bluke

#125
QuoteOne of the revelations to come from 9/11 was that Arab states wanted the US out of their countries, so much for that huh?

Arab states? You mean Islamic Fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda and purist Salafi Muslims. But I do agree that one way to douse the 'War on Terror' would be for a US withdrawal from the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia and the dropping of blanket support for Israel - which will never happen.

In context, 100,000 people are murdered in the US every year, 3000 or 4000 died on 9/11. Over 500,000 Iraqis and Afgans have died since their sovereign nations were invaded.

What an opportunity 9/11 was to repress civil rights and liberties, and boy, didn't they take advantage of it. I give you the beginning of a police state. I give you a country that has abandonned their bill of rights

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - ben franklin

It's a Jus ad bellum (right to wage war) versus Jus in Bello (laws of war) argument essentially.  I believe the US, sanctioned by the UN had every right to go into Afghanistan. What I disagree with was the way the war was waged and Bush's follow up invasion of Iraq. Yes he most certainly violated the sovereignty of Iraq with his illegal invasion and he should be put in front a war crimes tribunal (too bad the US aren't a signatory to the International Criminal Court), although I would hardly call Afghanistan a sovereign nation. 

As I define it, there are three forms of sovereignty;
Popular sovereignty (Support of the people - which the Taliban did not have)
Imperial Sovereignty (Where the Taliban have the ability to project power over a territory - which they largely did have although they were entirely reliant on aid from Pakistan and the ISI)
and
Institutional sovereignty (where other nation states recognise the Taliban, which the International society as a whole had not).
Thus Afghanistan in my mind had no sovereign rights having only Imperial sovereignty (even that was shaky with the Northern Alliance controlling large parts of Afghanistan.)

I am disgusted at the murder rate in the US and the power the NRA holds over congress (but the 'Right to bare Arms' is enshrined in your precious constitution). But that argument holds no sway when discussing the psychological damage that 911 did the collective psyche of Americans which I was refering to.

Also, if it's any consolation, I believe that the US policies (and invasions) post 911 promoted more terrorism. What cannot be denied however, is the fact there have been no more attacks on US soil.


QuoteDDispute all you like, this is not a free market system, this is socialism.

Have you no understanding of Ireland or Greece? These governments bailed out their banks, and now these governments are broke, who do you think pays for this, the people pay, not the banks, the losses are socialised for christ sake.

Obamacare is to be mandatory, understand, you have no choice, this is the socialisation of health care

I don't claim to be an economist, so I am getting a bit out of my depth. However I do not believe that you can compare Greece and Ireland to the US because the former are subject to their binding agreements with EU. Theres also the fact the US is the worlds largest economy (although i believe China is rapidly catching up) and Greece and Ireland two of the smallest in Europe.

Furthermore I see nothing inherently wrong with the 'socialisation' of health care. The more people that can get satisfactory health cover the better.   


QuoteThe stats clearly show that more and more people are dependent on Government entitlements, do they not, 1 in 6 in fact.
US Deficits are getting bigger, not smaller, entitlement spending is increasing, not reducing. 42,000 factories have been closed in the US since 2001, what do they make their? IPADS?

Here's, some more stats;

US debt 14.5 trillion
US debt with unfunded added 103 trillion

Get the picture, it will never be paid back. it cant be.

In free markets, a business succeeds or fails, THEY DO NOT get bailed out by taxpayers, these are publictry traded institutions, NOT government bodies, when they fail, THEY FAIL, they will be replaced, that's how free markets work.

And yet it is the Free Market that has landed the US in this situation in the first place is it not? The subprime mortgage crisis and all that? Perhaps a 'socialist' response is necessary to alleviate the problem? Like I said I don't claim to be an economist. What I do know is that Australia's banking sector is in great shape because it IS regulated.
Quote
What in gods name does the fact that he studied constitutional law have to do with this?? He certainly knows how to disregard the constitition does he not  If he is a libertarian why does he not support the bill of rights, this is no arguement, AGAIN YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHAT PEOPLE SAY, AND NOT WHAT THEY DO!

One final point, the estimated cost of the 2012 US election is 2 - 3 Billion dollars, how do you think they raise that money?

Ma & Pa Kettle in Iowa? How do they raise this sort of money, where does it come from? What is democracy? The will of the people of the will of campaign contributors?

The merger of State and Corporates is fascism, its that simple, the people can vote for who they like, its a 2 headed monster sharing the same body.

War in Iraq, bush, who continued the war and extended it, Obama.
Bush tax cuts, who extended the tax cuts, Obama.
Increased government spending and deficts, thats Bush, who increased it, Obama.
Patriot act, Bush, who extended it, Obama, TSA?

Vote for who you want, it does not matter. Open you eyes, forget concepts and watch what they do, dont listen to what they say.

You are a very cynical guy aren't you. :)
I'm afraid the some more of your basic assumptions are false.

1) Obama has INCREASED tax revenue since coming to office.
2) Obama is drawing down forces in Iraq and was elected with a mandate to withdraw forces.
3) Yes Obama increased govt. spending during the GFC to ensure the economy didn't boil over, however he is now reducing it significantly.
4) Obama only extended three elements of the Patriot act, although it remains very invasive.

Like I said above, the US is far far from the ideal type democracy, campaign contributions and lobby groups are a stain on the US system, as is the pre-selection process. Which makes discussing it in such a light impossible. It has its strengths (few remain that I can think of) and its weaknesses.

Additionally, I have considered what Obama 'says,' and what Obama 'does.' Which is exactly what led me to my conclusion that in matters of domestic policy he is social democrat, and in matters of international relations, he is neo-liberal.
But he is no fascist, or communist.

There would be a few Jews, Gypsies, Gays etc turning over in their graves at the thought of a comparison between the President of the United States and a Fascist Dictator. Unfortunately comparrisons between Bush and Mussolini arnt far from the truth.


hawk_88

#126
Quote from: Bluke on June 10, 2011, 06:05:08 PM
And yet it is the Free Market that has landed the US in this situation in the first place is it not? The subprime mortgage crisis and all that? Perhaps a 'socialist' response is necessary to alleviate the problem? Like I said I don't claim to be an economist. What I do know is that Australia's banking sector is in great shape because it IS regulated.

This is exactly my point. The problems in the US have been caused by its concrete insistence on the "Free Market". The US's economy (not to mention politics) has become entirely reliant on an unchecked free market that collapsed and would have taken the entire country with it without "socialist" (As you put it) intervention. Almost every western nation in the GFC used stimulus to artificially interfere with the free market to ensure the social stability of their respective nations.

Bluke

#127
I suppose that makes every Western nation 'socialist,' how ironic 20 years on from the fall of the wall.


incog43

#128
Quote from: Bluke on June 10, 2011, 06:05:08 PM
QuoteOne of the revelations to come from 9/11 was that Arab states wanted the US out of their countries, so much for that huh?

Arab states? You mean Islamic Fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda and purist Salafi Muslims. But I do agree that one way to douse the 'War on Terror' would be for a US withdrawal from the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia and the dropping of blanket support for Israel - which will never happen.



Also, if it's any consolation, I believe that the US policies (and invasions) post 911 promoted more terrorism. What cannot be denied however, is the fact there have been no more attacks on US soil.

Funny that :) Yet still they line up at airports, drones in the sky, call big Sis as I said, never waste an opportunity :)


QuoteDDispute all you like, this is not a free market system, this is socialism.

Have you no understanding of Ireland or Greece? These governments bailed out their banks, and now these governments are broke, who do you think pays for this, the people pay, not the banks, the losses are socialised for christ sake.

Obamacare is to be mandatory, understand, you have no choice, this is the socialisation of health care

I don't claim to be an economist, so I am getting a bit out of my depth. However I do not believe that you can compare Greece and Ireland to the US because the former are subject to their binding agreements with EU. Theres also the fact the US is the worlds largest economy (although i believe China is rapidly catching up) and Greece and Ireland two of the smallest in Europe.

Furthermore I see nothing inherently wrong with the 'socialisation' of health care. The more people that can get satisfactory health cover the better.   

Okay, you are struggling, does not the US treasury have a binding agreement with its bond holders, that is, to repay the debt + yield? You bet it does :) Will it? Sure with worthless dollars :)

The US is the biggest consumer in the world and it is now the biggest debtor nation in history, think about that, 103 trillion doolars in funded and unfunded liabilities, an infrastructure that is collapsing, 1 in 6 on entitlements, what are entitlements? FREE MONEY!

They will NEVER be able to repay these debts, simply they are becoming a service economy rather than manufacturing based.

Last month, over 900,000 people applied for jobs at Mcdonalds, think about that, give me a job, any job....please.

Nothing wrong with socialization of health care? Really, so I earn more money than you (just saying) and I should pay your health care? Your Grandads? The guy next door? How about you get your hands out of my pockets and use your own money, socialism IS SPENDING OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.


I am not responsible for your health issues, nor you for mine, WE are not entitled to anything except that which we can afford, STOP SPENDING my money, got it :)You look after yur health I shall look after mine.

BTW, ever looked at social healthcare in the former USSR? Do that sometime, services go down in terms of both quality and quantitiy, there is no incentive!





QuoteThe stats clearly show that more and more people are dependent on Government entitlements, do they not, 1 in 6 in fact.
US Deficits are getting bigger, not smaller, entitlement spending is increasing, not reducing. 42,000 factories have been closed in the US since 2001, what do they make their? IPADS?

Here's, some more stats;

US debt 14.5 trillion
US debt with unfunded added 103 trillion

Get the picture, it will never be paid back. it cant be.

In free markets, a business succeeds or fails, THEY DO NOT get bailed out by taxpayers, these are publictry traded institutions, NOT government bodies, when they fail, THEY FAIL, they will be replaced, that's how free markets work.

And yet it is the Free Market that has landed the US in this situation in the first place is it not? The subprime mortgage crisis and all that? Perhaps a 'socialist' response is necessary to alleviate the problem? Like I said I don't claim to be an economist. What I do know is that Australia's banking sector is in great shape because it IS regulated.
Quote
What in gods name does the fact that he studied constitutional law have to do with this?? He certainly knows how to disregard the constitition does he not  If he is a libertarian why does he not support the bill of rights, this is no arguement, AGAIN YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHAT PEOPLE SAY, AND NOT WHAT THEY DO!

One final point, the estimated cost of the 2012 US election is 2 - 3 Billion dollars, how do you think they raise that money?

Ma & Pa Kettle in Iowa? How do they raise this sort of money, where does it come from? What is democracy? The will of the people of the will of campaign contributors?

The merger of State and Corporates is fascism, its that simple, the people can vote for who they like, its a 2 headed monster sharing the same body.

War in Iraq, bush, who continued the war and extended it, Obama.
Bush tax cuts, who extended the tax cuts, Obama.
Increased government spending and deficts, thats Bush, who increased it, Obama.
Patriot act, Bush, who extended it, Obama, TSA?

Vote for who you want, it does not matter. Open you eyes, forget concepts and watch what they do, dont listen to what they say.

You are a very cynical guy aren't you. :)
I'm afraid the some more of your basic assumptions are false.

1) Obama has INCREASED tax revenue since coming to office.
2) Obama is drawing down forces in Iraq and was elected with a mandate to withdraw forces.
3) Yes Obama increased govt. spending during the GFC to ensure the economy didn't boil over, however he is now reducing it significantly.
4) Obama only extended three elements of the Patriot act, although it remains very invasive.

Obama has not collected more tax revenue sport, you know why, because only 47% of the US labour force actually pay taxes, and right here, right now that labour force may as well be 1980 thats how much it has shrunk, less labour, less taxes collected.

Drawing down forces? WTF, he was elected 3 years ago, they are still there, they aint going anywhere, you know why? Iraq will ask them to stay :) And think of all that lovely oil, because there sure as hell were no WMD!

Obama is not reducing spending at all FFS, is that not what the congress show down is all about?

The budget deficit has already risen from 1.4 trillion to 1.5 trillion


The patriot act is now firmly in place, there are drones in the sky, TSA at airport, Americans in AFGAN, Lybia and perhaps Yemen?

OH yer, he is a real liberterian :)





Like I said above, the US is far far from the ideal type democracy, campaign contributions and lobby groups are a stain on the US system, as is the pre-selection process. Which makes discussing it in such a light impossible. It has its strengths (few remain that I can think of) and its weaknesses.

Additionally, I have considered what Obama 'says,' and what Obama 'does.' Which is exactly what led me to my conclusion that in matters of domestic policy he is social democrat, and in matters of international relations, he is neo-liberal.
But he is no fascist, or communist.

There would be a few Jews, Gypsies, Gays etc turning over in their graves at the thought of a comparison between the President of the United States and a Fascist Dictator. Unfortunately comparrisons between Bush and Mussolini arnt far from the truth.

Obama is a socialist. He is no libertarian. LMAO

Look, I could do this all day, I know the US economy like the back of my hand, this is what I do, you can provide no facts apart from what you read in MSM.

aLL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO ONLY 1 OUTCOME, WE BOTH KNOW WHAT THAT IS,

TA for the chat.


Well argued btw, I enjoyed it.

Bluke

#129
Whats MSM? I dont get the acronym, other than Methylsulfonylmethane...

We agree to disagree, which is the usual and expected outcome.

Good stuff, I always enjoy exploring others perspectives and yours was an entertaining one.

Cheers

Prospector_1

MSN, maybe? Murdoch Socialist News ...

Bluke

#131
Dunno? Never heard of it?

Never been affiliated with any socialist group, nor am I socialist...

I would consider myself an eclectic theorist; I don’t believe that there is any one true theory of the state, or of international relations, or of ethnic conflict, or of anything. I do think that theories provide a useful framework for understanding certain phenomena, but there are many circumstances for which theories cannot provide useful insights, thats why I like to pick and choose. ;)

hawk_88

#132
I know you sort of concluded the debate, but I would like to ask a question.

incog43, I have always seen fascism as an opportunist thing, not an inevitable conclusion of some social cycle. However you paint a picture of conspiring G-Men actively manipulating events to empower the state. How do you see future of the US? What would the next 30 years look like, both within the population as well as the relationship of the US with other countries given it's fascist slide?

Obviously your views don't align with mine but I genuinely am curious how you see everything moving forward.

Bluke