2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^Sagemind:

There is something to be said for Anarchy. Not a pleasant world it would make, but some digression through anarchy would be progressive for government to be more productive and less corrupt.
Of course anarchy can bread its own corruption as well.


The real meaning of anarchy is what modern Americans would call libertarianism - did you watch the recent Chomsky vid on political semantics? Check out prince Peter kropotkin.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Dude hasn't seen V for vendetta......
I've always wondered about that, if they have to make sure not to watch other stuff covering their material so they don't get influenced by it.


The movies of vendetta and from hell are not even remotely worthy of the comics.
Although to really enjoy the comics you have to be a depressed young person in Thatchers Britain. Listening to 'a forest' by the cure might be the only way back..:)

Buffet's very strange tax argument...

And some background.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Wishful thinking. The promised "drubbing" of A.C. never arrived.
Is the argument that Bush really attempted "nation-building" in Afghanistan? There were 30K troops in Afghanistan when he left office.
At that time, Harry Reid, Democrat Senate Leader, said: “I am stunned that President Bush has decided to bring so few troops home from Iraq and send so few resources to Afghanistan.” So according to Reid, 30K troops wasn't/isn't enough.
Obama's curious decision to keep the Afghan war going just doesn't make sense. I was surprised he betrayed his fanbase's wishes to leave.
It's obvious His Earness has no intention of winning over there, and has either gone along with or even developed all the bull$hit "rules" that make it impossible to win. You don't set timelines when you're fighting a war; you win it.
There's a very good case for getting the hell out of Afghanistan. Probably public opinion will end it along with the removal of His Earness in 2012.


Sooo you think Iraq was the better war to keep going....or are you actually antiwar?

You want to go rattle sabres about freedom of expression in Europe go publish anything that denies the holocaust, or print Mein Kampf (also banned in Netherlands), or make any kind of Nazi related object in Germany.
Will you go also defending freedom of expression then?


Yes, I would, actually. I think Silencing of holocaust deniers is a bad idea.

That being said, however much you want to, could you REALLY compare Wilders views with that of a nazi, or a holocaust-denier?

If you actually listen to what he says, even in your "Fascist exposed" hardtalk interview, does he threaten violence?, encourage violence?

I would say that he has some pretty simplistic, populistic and unrealistic points of views on how to treat "non-western" immigrants, and, just like holocaust-deniers and simplistic demonizers of "jews" I would say this:

I DO NOT AGREE WITH HIM.

But, in a democracy, that is all beside the point. It is an expression of opinion.

I Dont really give a shit.

He has a democratic RIGHT to express his opinion. Feel free to disagree, as I have, feel free to call him an idiot, call him a fascist, a nazi, a racist, whatever you want.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT.

This is the issue : Should Geert Wilders bet PUNISHED, by the COURT of the Netherlands, for what he has said and done?

My answer is :

NO.

Argued against?
YES

Scorned?
PERHAPS,

Disliked?
Perhaps

Challenged?
YES

As I wrote in some of my previous posts, I disagree with many o our fellow opponents, but do I think Mr. fjordman should be punished For his views? NO. Challenged? Yes opposed? Yes ridiculed? Yes.

But not punished.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Pat Condell doesn't even know who the fuck Geert Wilders is or what he stands for.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Fascist-Exposed-Geert-Wilders-on-R
adical-Islam
Watch Wilders squirm under questioning when interviewed by BBCs Hard Talk and expose himself as a fascist who just doesn't like immigrants.


The thing is : In this case it doesnt matter if Geert Wilders eats babies for breakfast, he is being charged for making a movie that is strictly critical towards ISLAM. Period. It doesnt matter if you, me or Condell agrees or sympathizes with whatever Geert Wilders say, In this matter, he is being charged for essentially blasphemy, if anything..

I know very little about Mr. Wilders, and he might be the biggest asshole on the planet, Judging from the HardTalk interview, I certainly disagree with him on many points, For instance, he wants To use "administrative detention" to round up people who are hostile to his "Values", which essentially means that he is hostile to his own values and should be in detention himself..

The point is that in any case, its all OPINIONS, just like "Allah Ackbar, All infidels are dirt" is an opinion. Both may be good or bad or disgusting, depending on who hears them, but they shouldnt be illegal.

If a Muslim makes a movie with quotes from the Torah, and images of children being slaughtered by IDF's bombs, Many will probably find it offensive, perhaps inaccurate, but unless it ends with "Kill all the Jews", it is still entirely within our Free Speech rights. In America, it would be free speech no matter what, but most of Europe has "Hate Speech" laws, under which threats of violence or death against groups or individuals is illegal, and that brings us to the heart of the issue:

Has Geert Wilders threatened with, or encouraged violence or murder of groups or individuals?

No. (Well, not to my knowledge, and not in "Fitna", which is what he is charged for)

Case closed

I was watching Hardtalk last night, they had an Israeli ambassador on regarding the recent military actions in Gaza, the point was raised that Israel is using a disproportionate response to the threat it faces, the ambassador dodged the question by saying that Hamas is forcing its hand, to which the interviewer then came back to yes it is Hamas intention to carry out such action because it lacks any other form of resistance but why is then Israel a nation that wants to represent something better then a fundamentalist terrorist group lowering itself to terrorism itself?

Al Jazeera report on Israel's attack on UN run school in Gaza.



You condemn the actions of Hamas without ever looking at why terrorism has become the last resort of certain political groups in Palestine. Maybe it's because Israel doesn't really care about striving for a Palestinian state and peace.