Rio starts ID checks on US flyers

[Berzerker]

O Boris -

Berzerker, honestly, if you are going to argue about the fact that any social-democrat/socialist state is necessarily criminal, then we're wasting our time.

You're a socialist (oh, "democratic socialist"?), so why on Earth would you think socialism is criminal? Tell me, O Boris, if government did not exist, could you go around plundering people's money to pay for your welfare without committing a crime? If it's a crime to steal from others, it's still a crime even if you make the theft "legal". Yes, socialism (democratic or not) is criminal by it's very nature...

The topic may be interesting on a philosophical standpoint, but we'll assume, when talking politics, that democratically elected governments who created welfare states are just fine- as long as the process was democratic.

Might (majority) makes right?

You've already found your truth in Nozick/Bastiat/Rand and that's fine with me, but don't push me around saying that murdering social-democrats is about saving the world from the dangers of wealth redistribution, and that the US was altruistic in doing that.

Where did I advocate murdering social-democrats? And where did I say the US was altruistic in doing that? I want to see actual quotes and not another rambling post full of strawmen.

Now, I'm sure you probably know that the Corporations have been using brute force to prevent laws for better working conditions, or even to prevent worker unions.

The absence of a law is not brute force, the existence of a law is brute force. It would be nice if you social democrats understood that every time you lament "there ought to be a law against that".

If you really think that strikers are only killed when they attack scabs or when they are on the company's property, then you are a one-of-a-kind ignorant dumbass.

Prove me wrong, you haven't yet.

Most countries in South America, Africa and some parts of Asia offer their police to the Western corporations to massacre workers.

Don't change the subject, we were talking about the "robber barons" of the USA, not 3rd world dictatorships. Sheesh Boris, wasn't that debate in another thread.

In some cases, the repression is only 'legal'.

Well now, you think plunder is just fine when it's "legal" in a social democracy.

Think of China, who has forced some 'unions' to elect the CEO for president! Now, I see you coming: "China is SOCIALIST you moron!.

You said it, not me. I don't resort to calling people idiots or "dumbasses" (unless they start insulting me).

Know that things are this way in so-called capitalist countries (which are in fact corporocracies), and that drilling and mining companies have been known to 'use' the despots they keep in power to secure their situation.

If a despot is in power and being bribed to do the bidding of a corporation, then it isn't a capitalist system. Capitalism requires
a free (or relatively free) market and that includes the freedom of association which is obviously violated by such practices. And a free market also requires the absence of political favoritism...Once politicians start picking winners and losers (via bribes, legislation or whatever) it's no longer a free market...

These crimes do count in America's curriculum. And as for the presidents... problem with them, is that they stay in place only for a few years, which makes it hard for them to reach the hot spots in the century's worst criminals. At least, be proud in knowing that Kissinger made it.

When were strikers murdered for refusing to work in America? No Boris, strikers were attacked by the police after the strikers attacked "scabs" or tried to shut down the business they were trying to coerce into making a new contract. Business owners didn't run around killing people who refused to work for them...

Spiffor:
Stupid yourself.

I don't think Spiffor called you stupid, he said comments made by me and Sava were stupid. Maybe you should quote him too...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS


That's what they're saying. I think the border with Canada has become a lot less informal already, hasn't it?

Not the times I've been through.

Average crossng time for a car has to be under 30 seconds.

Try bumping that to 5 minutes.



The lines will reach to New York City when we do the same to you.

It took about 5 minutes for me to enter the US as an F1 student (most of which was spent waiting for the guy at the front desk to fill out my I94). I was asked if I was carrying any plants and if all the **** in the car was mine.

"No. Yes."

All right. Have a nice day.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, and my parents were not asked to show any identification whatsoever.

None of us ever have, except for me (entering as F1).

On an airline you will be asked to show photo ID and a birth certificate. At the border they can theoretically ask, but never do.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Spiffor:
Stupid yourself. I pinpointed that the similarities between Nazis and America are intriguing at best, but there are some. Do you really think those voting for Le Pen 'love' the Muslim men? There are many such *******s in retarded America. There are plenty of good arguments showing that America is tending towards despotism too. I know it's hard for Europeans to compare someone with Nazi Germany, because they oftentimes feel like they were Satan himself. But they were not any worse than many throughout history. Alexander the Great brutally enslaved and massacred populations, so did the Mongols, so did the Crusaders, so did the communists. This historical trend has not disappeared in the 20th century and it could well show up someday in America's not-so-bright path.

Sorry, I didn't want to be vexating. I don't think you are stupid, but that your comment comparing the US to nazi Germany, and saying the difference was only a difference in scale, yes this comment is stupid. Because the difference between the US as political and administrative entity, and nazi Germany as a political and administrative entity is considerably more complex than a difference in scale.

The presence of racist aszholes in the US, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, Papua New Guinea or wherever doesn't make these administrativo-political entities any similar to nazi Germany. And even when they enforce shameful racist decisions (which happens), the motivation and ideology behind it is not any similar with the genocidial hatred of the nazis for the Jewish "plague".

[Spiffor]

Berzerker:

I remember this whole discussion between you and me started as you compared liberated European social democracies (including Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands etc.) with "liberated" Kuwait.
Except for France, Netherlands and Belgium, which all had postcolonial wars to attend, with the horror that comes along, I don't believe there was any crime done by, say, Germany. Same thing for other countries that could escape both the nazi and soviet grasp, such as Sweden, Denmark or Norway (and even Austria).

When I deemed your comment as being "as stupid" as Oncle Boris' one, I did not mean nor imply that the number of crimes done by Kuwait in comparison to social democracies was as impressive as the number of crimes of nazi Germany in comparison to the US' (what I call a "quantitative" comparison). You understood it differently, maybe due to poor wording, certainly due to our two completely different worldviews. This is a typical misunderstanding.

What I meant and implied is that you used the same faulty logic, in short that you compare apples and oranges. To be clear: welfare systems in Europe exist because the populations wanted it - it ceased to exist where the population didn't want it anymore (UK). Or in your libertarian terms: the Europeans are free to decide to be economically free or not - I wonder who you are to criticize their free decision.
OTOH, the Kuwaitis have no choice in their ruler, in the collective rules that bind them, etc.

The fact that you consider welfare states to be dictatorships, although the decision to be in a welfare state lies by the citizen, makes you use a faulty logic, and this logic is exactly the same as Oncle Boris' (what I call a 'qualitative' comparison).

[KrazyHorse]

Denmark and Austria avoided being taken over by the nazis?

Austria underwent Anschluss with Germany in 1938
Denmark was captured by the German army in the space of (IIRC) 3 weeks.

[notyoueither]

More like 3 days, the Danish government capitulated pretty quick. They were in no real position to do anything else.

Clumsy wording, I think.

[Ted Striker]

81% of people responding to the CNN poll think it's okay for the US to fingerprint foreigners

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
81% of people responding to the CNN poll think it's okay for the US to fingerprint foreigners

Are they foreigners?

[notyoueither]

I'm sort of surprised that anyone is shocked that a nation who sees itself as in a conflict is imposing restrictions on who visits it, and wants to keep track of those who do.

Actually, it is a very interesting contrast to think that a: the US wants to have ways of identifying the otherwise anonymous travellers through its ports of entry and that enrages some, but b: restricting religious freedoms of its own citizens is thought perfectly acceptable in some other places.

Spiffor, what the hell? It's OK as long as you are not the target? You're a reasonable fellow. How do you make this all jive?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Are they foreigners?

They are in Brazil.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Spiffor, what the hell? It's OK as long as you are not the target? You're a reasonable fellow. How do you make this all jive?

Sorry, but there is something that I strongly dislike about privacy being attacked. For me or for whomever else.
The attack on "religious freedom" is very localized, and I happen to disagree with the law (not that I enjoy seeing scarves, but I think the law will be counterproductive). I have not the same subjective feeling of intrusion. when it comes to this.

[notyoueither]

Why? What is private about your finger print? If a law enforcement agency wanted yours in particular, they could legally get it by offering you a cup of coffee. What is private about it?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If a law enforcement agency wanted yours in particular

Yep, mine in particular. That would mean I'd be at least implied in some inquiry or something. And hopefully my fingerprint would be ditched once the inquiry is over.
The blind registration of everybody's fingerprint is something very different. It's about getting private information from everyone and keeping it for future reference. How much longer in the future? 20 years? 30 years?

I do not like the sound of that.

[notyoueither]

You haven't established what is private about your fingerprint. You leave it all over the place. It is one of the least private aspects of your life.

Can't you see why a nation in a war might want to tighten up on the borders and know a little bit more about its visitors than the very possibly false name on the passport? Just as a nation with religious strife and exploitation in its past might want to restrict certain aspects of religion?