Democrat Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes, Predictions

[Sean Hayden]

Everyone is a potential terrorist. So the only chance to be safe is to kill all of us fuckers.

I'm starting to like you Mr. Nineberry.

[Seth]

As I keep saying: "Libertarian". You are a massive Statist.

And you're a Marxist.

Wrong, as usual.

You keep saying that, but every argument you make is a Marxist argument, therefore I dub you a Marxist.

Your misunderstanding of Libertarianism is legendary. Nothing in Libertarianism prohibits Libertarians from using force in self defense. Indeed, Libertarians are encouraged to deal with initiations of force immediately and personally, thus saving time, trouble and money. That's why it's a bad idea to initiate force or fraud against a Libertarian. We don't wait around for the police to show up.

As usual, you can't seem to follow the flow of a thread. The conversation you barged in on with your uninformed wibble was discussing the State removing civil liberties. You either didn't follow what was going on (which is usually the case), or you did and you have been shown (yet again) to be sucking on the cock of the State over basic individual rights, something no libertarian would support.

Fuck off. The conversation I'm engaged in is what I choose to converse about. What you were, or want to be discussing is of absolutely zero interest to me and your objections don't have any force or effect on what I say or do not say.

On the other hand, you are a good little fishy wiggling out there at the end of my line, and always have been.

[Seth]

That's definitely an argument that can be had by non-ideological people. But when an alleged libertarian keeps siding with the state over the individual, all one can do is point out the hypocrisy with a "Libertarian"...

Except all you ever do is point out your willful ignorance and propagandistic mischaracterizations of Libertarianism.

And I'm not supporting the state over the individual, I'm advocating individuals dealing with instances of the initiation of force against them by Islamic terrorists themselves, immediately, without even expecting assistance from the state, so you're just wrong.

There's the answer. You can't follow the flow of a conversation. How are your remedial reading lessons going, chief? You might want to ask for a refund..

Fuck off, indian.

[JimC]

Sorry, that doesn't worry me one bit.

I know. It's why your repeated assertions that you are politically a moderate are worth as much as similar assertions of all so-called centrists. When it comes down to tin tacks the lot of you can be relied on to side with the right.

No, the right would be saying close the borders, burn the mosques and intern all muslims...

I have tried to make it clear that all I am talking about is a measured response to a threat that normal police powers may not be effective to deal with, and I'm only suggesting actions like increased surveillance, communications intercepts and preventive (but not indefinite) detention for those individuals who pose a real risk to others. In fact, many such actions are available to governments at the moment, but perhaps they may need to be ramped up, particularly in France.

Again, I have made it clear that I understand that there is a potential risk to freedoms in general by allowing governments to have such power, and there needs to be a robust series of safeguards in the form of judicial oversight.

This is not an extreme position, in fact it has the centrist characteristics of attempting to balance competing imperatives as judiciously as possible. You seem to be implying that any deviation from a strict adherence to normal police and legal processes, no matter how carefully done, will unleash the fascist beast lurking at the heart of western democracies...

[pErvinalia]

I call it a conservative position. Based in irrational fear.

[Hermit]

You seem to be implying that any deviation from a strict adherence to normal police and legal processes, no matter how carefully done, will unleash the fascist beast lurking at the heart of western democracies...

Jim, I am not talking about abuse of police powers or deviation from legal processes at all. The problem is the anti-terrorist legislation. Here in Australia you can be held without charge for 14 days, and that period can be reset. Guilty or not, you'll get jailed if you talk about it. Even reporters can get 10 years in prison if they write about it. One part of the legislation is particularly bad; you can be charged with sedition under the anti-terrorism legislation, and 'sedition' is not defined. In theory you can be charged with any criticism of the government you make, even when it is in the context of a comedy act. Worst of all, the Attorney-General can bypass the Administrative Decisions Act altogether, which means the division between the legislature and the judicature has been short-circuited. This is the return of the Star Chamber, that rulers have used to get rid of noisome persons in the past. You see, the police and legal processes don't enter into it. It is the law itself that is the problem. Well over 50, actually. That's how many Bills and amendments have been passed, starting with John Howard's Prime Ministership.

[JimC]

It may have risks in terms of false positives, but it also may save lives if jihadists are detained by such legislation, and are thus prevented from acts of terror. I am not concerned that it will be used merely to suppress dissent, or other paranoid fantasies.

[pErvinalia]

It's not paranoid fantasies, as it's occurred the world over at various times. The threat from terrorism is currently minute. What's that saying? Those who would give up freedoms for security deserve neither.

[JimC]

The reality is that there are enough jihadists in Oz ready to imitate ISIS terrorists and kill people, even though they are a very small minority of the muslim population; it does not take large numbers to create massive loss of life, as we have seen overseas. The fact that many of them are under surveillance, subjected to phone taps and in a few cases actually detained has so far prevented major incidents, but they could easily still happen. To think otherwise is to have your head in the sand.

The important thing is to oppose those racist anti-muslim groups, who, like Seth, believe that all muslims are potential terrorists. I think that too many on the left, in concentrating on those idiots, have swung their pendulum too far, virtually denying any risk of terror attacks in Oz, and automatically decrying any attempt by governments to prevent such attacks in future as an affront to civil liberties.

[DaveDodo007]

It's not paranoid fantasies, as it's occurred the world over at various times. The threat from terrorism is currently minute. What's that saying? Those who would give up freedoms for security deserve neither.

Obama has already increased surveillance on his own people without any extra security as lefties are want to do. Love your new avatar by the way.

[pErvinalia]

Obama is a centre-right neoliberal. Surveillance is part of their toolkit. So much to learn, young Dodo...

[pErvinalia]

Love your new avatar by the way.

I've got Sean to thank for that. It's me in my trailer park..

[Seth]

The reality is that there are enough jihadists in Oz ready to imitate ISIS terrorists and kill people, even though they are a very small minority of the muslim population; it does not take large numbers to create massive loss of life, as we have seen overseas. The fact that many of them are under surveillance, subjected to phone taps and in a few cases actually detained has so far prevented major incidents, but they could easily still happen. To think otherwise is to have your head in the sand.

The important thing is to oppose those racist anti-muslim groups,

"Muslim" isn't a race, or had that simple fact escaped you? Therefore being anti-Muslim cannot be "racist."

who, like Seth, believe that all muslims are potential terrorists.

Well, that's what Muslims think they are because that's what Islam commands them to be, so why should anybody disagree with them? Find me a Muslim who repudiates the Koran and it's explicit commandments to slay infidels, engage in jihad, support the caliphate and obey sharia law and I'll show you a non-Muslim pretending to be a Muslim who is probably more likely to get killed by real Muslims for being an apostate than you are for being an infidel.

I've heard a lot of Muslims temporize and obfuscate and flat-out lie about the Koran and what Islam requires of them, but I've NEVER heard one say that Mohammed was wrong, that he was a child-raping pedophile, that the commands of Islam to slay infidels or enslave them is completely evil, that sharia law is totalitarian and offensive to human dignity, or that Mohammed does not actually speak for Allah. Not one, not once, not ever. I've never heard a Muslim repudiate the Koran and it's explicit violence. But I have heard them lie about it and dance around the truth and make all sorts of excuses not to repudiate the evil that is Islam.

That being the case, it's hardly irrational to consider all Muslims to be terrorists-in-waiting, or at least co-conspirators in Islamic jihad and silent participants in Islam's attempt to take over the world. Any moral person who doesn't adhere to and support Muslim beliefs as stated in the Koran would abandon the religion and the society and argue against it.

Ever see a Muslim do that? I haven't.

I think that too many on the left, in concentrating on those idiots, have swung their pendulum too far, virtually denying any risk of terror attacks in Oz, and automatically decrying any attempt by governments to prevent such attacks in future as an affront to civil liberties.

I think the reason the Muslims haven't targeted Oz yet is because it's too much like the sweatbox they came from and it's so remote and politically useless to them that they have bigger fish to fry. I imagine when they've subjugated the rest of the planet they'll eventually get around to Oz.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

"Muslim" isn't a race, or had that simple fact escaped you? Therefore being anti-Muslim cannot be "racist."

You've either missed my point, or have little knowledge of the groups I am talking about. Of course it is possible to detest Islam (and more so than other religions, at that) without being a racist. However, the various groups in Oz are very definitely racist, and have used the anti-Islam banner to increase membership, as clearly many people are concerned about potential terrorism. However, it is abundantly clear from reported comments that the leadership of this group simply detest the idea of non-white immigration into Oz. The left groups that oppose them (and are involved in violent clashes with them in demonstrations, with faults being on both sides) correctly oppose their racism, but have at the same time tended to say that any criticism of Islam, or pointing out that Islam is currently the main religion that fosters terrorist attacks, is itself racist, which you would agree is absurd.

[pErvinalia]

The reality is that there are enough jihadists in Oz ready to imitate ISIS terrorists and kill people, even though they are a very small minority of the muslim population; it does not take large numbers to create massive loss of life, as we have seen overseas. The fact that many of them are under surveillance, subjected to phone taps and in a few cases actually detained has so far prevented major incidents, but they could easily still happen. To think otherwise is to have your head in the sand.

The important thing is to oppose those racist anti-muslim groups,

"Muslim" isn't a race, or had that simple fact escaped you? Therefore being anti-Muslim cannot be "racist."

who, like Seth, believe that all muslims are potential terrorists.

Well, that's what Muslims think they are because that's what Islam commands them to be, so why should anybody disagree with them? Find me a Muslim who repudiates the Koran and it's explicit commandments to slay infidels, engage in jihad, support the caliphate and obey sharia law and I'll show you a non-Muslim pretending to be a Muslim who is probably more likely to get killed by real Muslims for being an apostate than you are for being an infidel.

I've heard a lot of Muslims temporize and obfuscate and flat-out lie about the Koran and what Islam requires of them, but I've NEVER heard one say that Mohammed was wrong, that he was a child-raping pedophile, that the commands of Islam to slay infidels or enslave them is completely evil, that sharia law is totalitarian and offensive to human dignity, or that Mohammed does not actually speak for Allah. Not one, not once, not ever. I've never heard a Muslim repudiate the Koran and it's explicit violence. But I have heard them lie about it and dance around the truth and make all sorts of excuses not to repudiate the evil that is Islam.

That being the case, it's hardly irrational to consider all Muslims to be terrorists-in-waiting, or at least co-conspirators in Islamic jihad and silent participants in Islam's attempt to take over the world. Any moral person who doesn't adhere to and support Muslim beliefs as stated in the Koran would abandon the religion and the society and argue against it.

Ever see a Muslim do that? I haven't.

I think that too many on the left, in concentrating on those idiots, have swung their pendulum too far, virtually denying any risk of terror attacks in Oz, and automatically decrying any attempt by governments to prevent such attacks in future as an affront to civil liberties.

I think the reason the Muslims haven't targeted Oz yet is because it's too much like the sweatbox they came from and it's so remote and politically useless to them that they have bigger fish to fry. I imagine when they've subjugated the rest of the planet they'll eventually get around to Oz.

"Remote"? It's only a couple of hundred of kms from Indonesia.