Slipknot's Racism
Metallica Mac
MeInside1
respect..........some people online were talkin about how slipknot is straight
edge.....mick said that anything you hear online is a lie......that they arnt
straight edge but he doesnt do any drugs but he doesnt speak for the rest of
the band......thats there own business.....sorry for rambling......but racism
is not resept so take it for what its worth.......
Funky Donny
>Has Slipknot ever spoke out about their feelings on other races?
To a man, Slipknot understand that we are all the same, so it wouldn't occur
to them to talk about 'other races' as you put it - if you aren't racist, you don't
make a mental separation. Slipknot are as equalitarian as they come, which is
the major reason they wear the masks - they don't want people putting them
on these 'rock star' pedestals when they talk to them - and people don't treat
them any different offstage, because they don't know who they are!!!
Totally non-racist, non-sexist people - Slipknot are anti-rednecks.
Funky Donny
George M. Moehlenhoff
NO way racist... I have seen them chilling black kids, white kids, pretty
much anyone who wants to hang can...
Metallica Mac <metall...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000621202441...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
Snoochie Boochies
whatever. It's just some narrow-minded fucks that think being a certain
colour makes you fucking superior... and thats just bullshit. I was out
today, and i kept fucking seeing shit like KKK stickers and fucking NF
stickers and shit, and every one i saw, i tore down.
Theres no fucking need to discriminate against another person just because
of colour, race, religion, gender, or sexual preference...
As you can see, this is a subject that particularly pisses me off...
Funky Donny
>They told me that they do not speak out on anything x-cept
>respect..........some people online were talkin about how slipknot is straight
>edge.....mick said that anything you hear online is a lie......that they arnt
>straight edge
They do their thing - they ain't straight edge, but they ain't druggies. They are
like you and me. They do their thing, and they don't over indulge - some of
them don't drink, some do, a couple smoke cigs, they are just people.
>but he doesnt do any drugs but he doesnt speak for the rest of
>the band......thats there own business.....sorry for rambling......but racism
>is not resept so take it for what its worth.......
Totally. Racism is indefensible bigotry. Slipknot aren't racists, because they
aren't bigots, and they have respect for everyone.
Except for Mick who wants to exterminate all living things... (HAH!)
Funky Donny
MeInside1
Captain Misfit
position of leadership and power that built this world, to an increasingly
helpless and stifled hole in society. Anyone who blindly ignores reverse
racism is ignorant to the seriousness of it. It doesn't seem like that big of
a problem now, but wait ten years.
~ Captain Misfit ~
FUNBAGS: What the FFFFFF..!
"Don't let the size fool you... It's real... and it works." - Ron Popeil
(King of Paid Advertisements)
Dusty Shutters
Snoochie Boochies
MeInside1 wrote in message <20000622203743...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
Funky Donny
>The problem today isn't racism, it's reverse racism.
Don't be a twat.
You're saying 'the problem isn't white guys being racist against black guys, it
is black guys being racist against white guys'.
Man, is this the shit your dad tells you - this is a fucking learned response - if
it ain't then back it up with data. Come on - back your right wing reactionary
bullshit up, fascist.
>White males went from a
>position of leadership and power that built this world, to an increasingly
>helpless and stifled hole in society.
You have the mind of a fucking KKK man. Go to a newsgroup where they
tolerate this sort of bigotry - maybe alt.fan.adolf-hitler or something.
> Anyone who blindly ignores reverse
>racism is ignorant to the seriousness of it. It doesn't seem like that big of
>a problem now, but wait ten years.
Fuck off.
Captain Misfit? Captain Imperial fucking Wizard more like.
Funky Donny
Captain Misfit
That was inspired.
>You're saying 'the problem isn't white guys being racist against black guys,
>it
>is black guys being racist against white guys'.
That's reverse racism. That's what I said. Thanks for providing a definition
though.
>if
>it ain't then back it up with data.
Watch television. What more data do you need? Why can there be Black
Entertainment Television, but no White Entertainment Television. And don't try
to tell me every other station is white. Every black guy on tv can sit there
and make fun of white people. When do you EVER see a show with a cast made up
of mostly white guys with one black guy that they jokingly fuck with him about
his color? Never. Why? Because that's racism. But black guys can make all
the jokes they want and it's just comedy. Well that's real fuckin funny. They
can say whatever they want and we have to keep our mouths shut. Television is
just one example. How about this. Say you wanted to be a cop. You take an
exam for it. You score a 95 on the exam, and the black guy next to you scores
an 88. Guess who's going to be a cop? Not you. You may be more qualified,
but blacks get ten points added automatically. That is bullshit.
>Captain Misfit? Captain Imperial fucking Wizard more like.
That was ridiculous. This is exactly what I mean. I can't be proud to be
white, and defend my race without being considered some KKK fucking redneck.
You have no idea.
Funky Donny
Hey Misfit:
You said:
"White males went from a position of leadership and power that built this
world, to an increasingly helpless and stifled hole in society."
That is racism.
And further to this, you said:
"I can't be proud to be white, and defend my race without... [yadda yadda
yadda, further blathering]"
Proud to be white? Like you had something to do with it? How can you be
proud of an accident of birth?
Defending your race? Against whom? Who is locking YOU up because of
your colour? Who is impoverishing YOU for your colour? What the fuck?
(One in every two black children in the USA live in dire poverty, as opposed
to one in five white children. Over 40% of people on death row are black
males, where the percentage of black males in society is 6%. These figures
show that the USA is an institutionally racist country, in spite of so-called
'protections' such as the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act. This pisses
me off - and I am NOT 'defending the black race', I am attacking bigotry,
because I despise it. That is my focus.)
I just happen to have been born white, and I don't see you leaping to MY
personal defence. And if you did, I would shout at you to get the fuck off my
fucking team - I don't want the support of fucking bigots.
You're proud to be white? What is it about being white you're proud of?
WHAT virtues are exclusive to whites? Name me ONE?
There's the challenge - when you come back with your smart, considered
reply to this message, I want you to specify ONE virtue about being white
which we have, which people of colour don't have.
And be VERY careful, because as soon as you do find an 'exclusively white
virtue', you show your true, confederate, colours.
> ~ Captain Misfit ~
The Racist.
Funky Donny
Ian
Funky Donny <e...@billhicksrules.net> wrote in message
news:O$4TQOAfj...@heavymetal.demon.co.uk...
> >
> "White males went from a position of leadership and power that built this
> world, to an increasingly helpless and stifled hole in society."
>
> That is racism.
Why?
Is asking for a black coffee in a transport cafe racist too? Is 85% of
mugging victims in London describing their assailant as a young black male
racist? Is Paul Condon a racist for announcing these statistics on
television?
I hope your answer to all of these questions is no. I'm not racist but when
boards, bodies and commissions (for racial equality), not to mention
Birmingham City Council, claim that they are it creates an anger within me
because it makes truths unspeakable. A coffee without milk is black in
appearance by nature and how calling it as such can be deemed offensive is
way beyond my capitalist, right wing (but not facist), conservative
understanding.
> Proud to be white? Like you had something to do with it? How can you be
> proud of an accident of birth?
I'm proud to be English and that was an accident too. It doesn't stop me
being proud of the fact. 'To be born English is to win the first lottery in
life' (sorry, I can't quote the origin of this saying)
> Over 40% of people on death row are black
> males, where the percentage of black males in society is 6%. These figures
> show that the USA is an institutionally racist country, in spite of
so-called
> 'protections' such as the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act.
Perhaps, just perhaps, it reflects crime statistics as opposed racism.
Eddie, i've not commented on everything you did as everything else you said
did not give me cause to disagree. I think what i've said above are valid
points though.
Ian
Funky Donny
writes
>
>Funky Donny <e...@billhicksrules.net> wrote in message
>news:O$4TQOAfj...@heavymetal.demon.co.uk...
>> >
>> "White males went from a position of leadership and power that built this
>> world, to an increasingly helpless and stifled hole in society."
>>
>> That is racism.
>
>Why?
Because it isn't true, it is just parroting the 'history' of the power elite. If you
said 'Columbus civilised the Americas' and neglected to mention his
wholesale massacre of the Arawak natives of Hispaniola, or the subsequent
genocide across the Americas by the European invaders, then we are looking
at a revisionist misrepresentation.
If we look at the history of the European conquerors with a sense of moral
proportion, we see that far from being a civilizing influence, they brought a
level of barbarism to the Americas which the world had never before seen.
Historically speaking it is entirely selective and morally reprehensible in terms
of its lack of proportion. 'White Males' built this world? Well what about the
HUGE cities built by the Native Americans which were destroyed wholesale
by the conquering Europeans. What about the remarkable civilisations of the
African peoples. How about the Asian civilisations conquered and brutally
'civilised' by 'white males'.
Of course, there are instances of other conquerors from other parts of the
world bringing death and destruction, but none on such a scale as that
brought by the Europeans.
So, Misfit is ignoring a whole bunch of factors, by elevating white males to a
position of 'leadership and power which built this world'. Of course that is
misrepresentation, and of course it is racist.
What about the red males which built and civilised the Iroquois civilisations?
Surely that was part of 'the world' before it was razed by the invaders? What
about the red males which built the Central American civilizations which were
wiped out by the Hispanic invaders?
How about the beautiful, culturally diverse, exceptionally civilised areas of the
Indochinese lands, lethally 'civilised' by the British and French?
How about the Indian subcontinent, where the British held power for the
longest time, and where the indigenous population was impoverished the
most?
To tie the idea of civilisation and leadership solely to white males, as Misfit
does is racist in the extreme, particularly in light of the fact that white males
generated the biggest body counts.
>
> Is asking for a black coffee in a transport cafe racist too?
No of course not.
>Is 85% of
>mugging victims in London describing their assailant as a young black male
>racist? Is Paul Condon a racist for announcing these statistics on
>television?
Paul Condon is not a racist for announcing such figures. But the police force
is a racist organisation.
If you talk to the black community, and particularly black victims of
muggings, you will find that on the whole they refuse to even report such
crimes, because they tend to be laughed at, sworn at, brutalised, or they are
arrested themselves! They are certainly not taken seriously. This 85% figure
is not representative of the full spectrum of muggings which happen. Don't
assume that 'reported' crime is in any way indicative of the crime which
actually goes on.
And of course, police 'crime statistics' are so distorted that they present false
figures in any case. Let's say that you get mugged by a gang of three people.
The way that police record it is as if there were three muggings! Each person
in the gang is recorded as perpetrating a separate mugging, according to
police records. So take Condon's statistics with a pinch of salt.
>
>I hope your answer to all of these questions is no. I'm not racist but when
>boards, bodies and commissions (for racial equality), not to mention
>Birmingham City Council, claim that they are it creates an anger within me
>because it makes truths unspeakable.
And I have yet to see evidence that the CRE does this.
>A coffee without milk is black in
>appearance by nature and how calling it as such can be deemed offensive is
>way beyond my capitalist, right wing (but not facist), conservative
>understanding.
Of course it is ridiculous. But believe it or not, so-called loony left councils
do NOT pass such silly rulings. Remember the big story in the tabloids a few
years ago where Lambeth council banned the song 'baa baa black sheep'?
This was invented by the Sun newspaper, and parrotted by the obedient
provincial media big time. And so it went with ALL the other 'looney left'
stories you heard.
And you fell RIGHT into their trap!
Give me ONE example of council policy where such things ARE a fact - I
want the actual reference, not the allegation reported by the press.
>
>> Proud to be white? Like you had something to do with it? How can you be
>> proud of an accident of birth?
>
>I'm proud to be English and that was an accident too. It doesn't stop me
>being proud of the fact. 'To be born English is to win the first lottery in
>life' (sorry, I can't quote the origin of this saying)
I am not proud - as the late, great Bill Hicks says, it just happens to be where
my parents fucked.
I do feel fortunate that I was not accidentally born somewhere like Burma, or
Bangladesh, or Harlem. I am LUCKY, not proud. And of course, the quote
you repeat is precisely about this good fortune, and not about a virtue the
British have - because last time I looked, there were NO unique British
virtues. We have the same compassion, love, hope, charity, etc., as people all
over the world.
>
>> Over 40% of people on death row are black
>> males, where the percentage of black males in society is 6%. These figures
>> show that the USA is an institutionally racist country, in spite of
>so-called
>> 'protections' such as the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act.
>
>Perhaps, just perhaps, it reflects crime statistics as opposed racism.
It doesn't reflect who is DOING the crime. Amnesty reports that more than
one in every six people on death row are innocent, based on evidence.
Black people figure so highly in crime stats because the police ARREST
more black people. (Also, more black people in the USA are guilty of crimes
against poverty, such as robberies, because they are disproportionately poor,
which is institutionally racist!!!!!!!).
But let me point this out - George W. Bush, the governor of Texas, is a
cocaine user, and a racketeer. Why ain't he in jail?
We all know there is a big coke problem in the corridors of power - Wall
Street is full of people eroding their nasal passages with powder. Record
companies are full of successful executives sniffing all the time.
But where do the police go for their arrests? Into the black areas. THIS is
why there are a disproportionate number of black people in the jails. You find
crime where you look for it. And the cops look in the poor areas, and the
poorest areas are the black neighbourhoods.
>
>Eddie, i've not commented on everything you did as everything else you said
>did not give me cause to disagree. I think what i've said above are valid
>points though.
Well consider them invalidated!
Thanks for the comments though Ian - and respect to you!
Ed
Funky Donny
Captain Misfit
Again, me being proud of what I am has nothing to do with racism. I never said
blacks were beneath me. If anything what I've said has been pro-equality. You
are racist.
>How can you be
>proud of an accident of birth?
So you have no pride? Obviously not.
>Defending your race? Against whom?
You, you stupid fuck. Are you completely illiterate?
>Who is locking YOU up because of
>your colour?
No one. I never said anything about getting locked up. I'm talking about the
fact that the job field is not equal. It isn't fair. How is it right that it
is harder for a white man to get a job in a society he built than a black man?
>One in every two black children in the USA live in dire poverty, as opposed
>to one in five white children.
Well, someone's parents should lay off the crack and get a job. My parents
work their asses off. They damn well could too, especially seeing as how
affirmative action practically guarentees them a job over whites.
>Over 40% of people on death row are black
>males, where the percentage of black males in society is 6%.
Thanks for providing evidence to support what I'm saying. Not only do they
leech off welfare, and jobs, but they are also the most rampant criminals.
>I don't want the support of fucking bigots
I am not anti-black. I'm pro-white pride. And that's not pro-white power,
there's a huge difference.
>You're proud to be white? What is it about being white you're proud of?
You have to ask that?
>There's the challenge - when you come back with your smart, considered
>reply to this message
Why don't you come up with a smart question first. Then I'll give you a smart
answer.
>I want you to specify ONE virtue about being white
>which we have, which people of colour don't have.
So why is it that one can be proud to be American, or human, or male, or
female, or black, or whatever, but I can't be proud to be white. I'm proud of
what I am. I wouldn't want to be anything else. Just like I like my dick. I
wouldn't want to look down and see black skin anymore than I would want to look
down and see tits.
>And be VERY careful, because as soon as you do find an 'exclusively white
>virtue', you show your true, confederate, colours.
So? No matter what I say you have something to prove, and you're going to pick
at my words, and twist them around so I sound like Hitler. Fuck you. You
aren't worth the time.
>Funky Donny
The race traitor.
(Are those the confederate colors you were looking for assfuck?)
Sieg Heil!
Funky Donny
Misfit <tremt...@aol.com.funbags> writes
>Not only do they
>leech off welfare, and jobs, but they are also the most rampant criminals.
All the evidence is in, the 0Jury's back, and here's their considered verdict...
KKK Racist fuck. QED.
You're wrong, get over it.
Funky Donny
TrixxSatan
its called racism, but if blacks make fun of whites, it's just called joking
around? I don't know about you but I don't and never have owned any slaves nor
did my immediate family. If I make a black joke its not being racist, its
making a joke cause they joke about whites. I watch BET and black
comedies,always making fun of whitey. Whitey, what the hell kind of term is
that? I dont go around calling them Darky's or Blacky's I call them human.
I'm not racist at all, if somone is an asshole, and they're black or white, I
still make fun of them equally. So for all you who think racism is rampant,
think again. If I owned a slave, ok call it racism, but until that day, don't
call people racist unless they say "im a racist"
Funky Donny
>Well I somewhat agree. I mean, why is it, that if whites make fun of blacks,
>its called racism, but if blacks make fun of whites, it's just called joking
>around?
No. That is called racism too. Racism is about the disparagement of another
because of their race. A logical extension of this definition is that racism is
also the ideological elevation of one's own race above another.
Racism is ALSO about the assignment of virtues or faults to an entire people.
Generalisation about people because of their colour, sexuality, age, etc., is
called bigotry
> I don't know about you but I don't and never have owned any slaves nor
>did my immediate family.
Nothing to do with it. If I go around and hit people because they are Korean,
or if I refuse them asylum because of their colour, this is nothing to do with
slavery.
It is of course racist though.
> If I make a black joke its not being racist,
Er, yes it is.
>its
>making a joke cause they
Who? The black race? That is racist - you generalised about an entire colour
group. Specify who made jokes about YOU.
> joke about whites.
So two wrongs make a right? If someone makes a racist comment about your
race, and you make a racist comment in retaliation, how does this make your
comment NOT racist?
> I watch BET and black
>comedies,always making fun of whitey.
And if I see such programs I am gonna complain about it, because it is racist.
> Whitey, what the hell kind of term is
>that? I dont go around calling them Darky's or Blacky's I call them human.
Now we're talking.
>I'm not racist at all, if somone is an asshole, and they're black or white, I
>still make fun of them equally. So for all you who think racism is rampant,
>think again.
Racism IS rampant. One in five white kids are in poverty in the USA. One in
every TWO black kids live in poverty in the USA. Now tell me racism isn't
rampant?
> If I owned a slave, ok call it racism, but until that day, don't
>call people racist unless they say "im a racist"
So you're only a racist if you own a slave? Wha?
Sorry Trixx - I have to disagree. If someone says racist shit, then I am gonna
call what I see - they don't have to sign post their bigotry for me to spot it
where it lies.
For instance, earlier in this thread, Misfit didn't say 'I'm a racist', but he did
say this about people of colour:
>Not only do they
>leech off welfare, and jobs, but they are also the most rampant criminals.
So I can rightly infer from this that he is a dyed in the wool racist. (I assume
that Misfit doesn't own any slaves, so bang goes that argument!)
There are also more subtle ways racism can present itself, which is one
reason why the Third Reich achieved such a position of power in Europe.
Most Germans of the thirties and forties wouldn't have considered
themselves racist either, yet these so-called non-racists were frequently anti-
semitic, but this somehow 'didn't count'!
Racism doesn't have to wear a neon swastika to be racism!!!
Ed
Funky Donny
Walter Simpson
out.
What the UK did to africa was the exact same that was done to us, we where a
trible society then the Romans came along destroyed our religion, killed and
murderd us, the they introduced laws, sewers, stone bridges etc. They
civilised us.
Then their empier colapsed, we lost some of their skills, stuff like the
ability to make a half decent bridge, a house with 2 levels.
The same has happend in Africa, given time they will sort them selves outand
become like the rich nations of the world.
I am not saying that what was done was right, I don't believe it was, but it
has happend every where.
Just wanted to point that out.
Walter
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I pledge allegiance to no flag,
No blood rag on every body bag.
'I used my face to break his hand'
Some film
Funky Donny <e...@billhicksrules.net> wrote in message
news:+m7udCAs...@heavymetal.demon.co.uk...
Dan OConnor
member of the country you were born in. All other countries accross the
world have a similar attitude, the Irish and Scottish celebrate the fact
they are Irish and Scottish but if the English try to do the same they are
being racist?? Now where is the logic in that? If someone has a logical
answer to why the English are not allowed to have "national pride" then
please let us all share in you wisdom!!
> >That is racism.
>
> Again, me being proud of what I am has nothing to do with racism. I never
said
> blacks were beneath me. If anything what I've said has been pro-equality.
You
> are racist.
>
> >How can you be
> >proud of an accident of birth?
>
> So you have no pride? Obviously not.
>
> >Defending your race? Against whom?
>
> You, you stupid fuck. Are you completely illiterate?
>
> >Who is locking YOU up because of
> >your colour?
>
> No one. I never said anything about getting locked up. I'm talking about
the
> fact that the job field is not equal. It isn't fair. How is it right
that it
> is harder for a white man to get a job in a society he built than a black
man?
>
> >One in every two black children in the USA live in dire poverty, as
opposed
> >to one in five white children.
>
> Well, someone's parents should lay off the crack and get a job. My
parents
> work their asses off. They damn well could too, especially seeing as how
> affirmative action practically guarentees them a job over whites.
>
> >Over 40% of people on death row are black
> >males, where the percentage of black males in society is 6%.
>
> Thanks for providing evidence to support what I'm saying. Not only do
they
> leech off welfare, and jobs, but they are also the most rampant criminals.
>
Captain Misfit
Don't ever call me a KKK Racist fuck. I prefer Nazi Racist fuck.
>You're wrong, get over it.
I'll get over it after we've won the race war.
~ Captain Misfit ~
For all the good you've done gone done I've done gooder.
FUNBAGS: They're what's for dinner.
Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws.
Captain Misfit
>called bigotry
>
I'm sorry. I owe you an apology. You aren't racist. You're a bigot.
>One in five white kids are in poverty in the USA. One in
>every TWO black kids live in poverty in the USA. Now tell me racism isn't
>rampant?
What the fuck does poverty have to do with racism? Why don't they get the fuck
off of welfare, out of the ghetto, and GET A JOB!
>For instance, earlier in this thread, Misfit didn't say 'I'm a racist', but
>he did
>say this about people of colour:
>
>>Not only do they
>>leech off welfare, and jobs, but they are also the most rampant criminals.
>
I said that in response to your saying how many blacks are in jail. All you
did was prove they commit more crimes. That was your data, not mine.
>So I can rightly infer from this that he is a dyed in the wool racist.
I will agree. I am racist. I'm proud to be white. I'm not a bigot though (by
your defenition). I have skinhead friends, and family, and black friends. I
don't hate them individually. BUT as a whole I consider them lower class.
That isn't because of their color it's because of the majority of them that are
criminals, homeless, jobless, uneducated, can't speak english (95%), etc...
They've proven that they cannot deal with civilized life as well as whites.
Again, this is a huge generalization, but I'm sure the numbers support it.
>Racism doesn't have to wear a neon swastika to be racism!!!
That's a gem.
Funky Donny
>
>I said that in response to your saying how many blacks are in jail. All you
>did was prove they commit more crimes. That was your data, not mine.
What you infer is not the only hypothesis available, so let me bring in a mind
which is capable of critical thought for you, mine, since you seem to be
sorely lacking this quality.
Here is what I said:
Over 40% of people on death row are black males, where the percentage of
black males in society is 6%.
This doesn't prove that black males commit a disproportionate amount of
capital crimes. It WOULD prove this if the US Justice System was never
wrong. However, judging by the findings of the International Court of Justice,
the United Nations, and Amnesty International, the US Justice system is FAR
from infallible, and has been upbraided time and time again for it's complete
unfairness, and guess what else? Yeah - its institutional racism.
Over 40% of people on death row are black males. This shows ONLY that
over 40% of people who are sentenced to death are black males, not that
black males are committing a disproportionate amount of crimes.
It shows the focus of the legal system, not the concentration of the race of
the offenders. If you, a white guy, commit precisely the same crime as a
black guy, you are far and away more likely to receive the death penalty. This
means the justice system is racist.
This is not just my opinion - it is enshrined in International Law. The UN also
labels the US justice system as a thoroughly racist institution.
And furthermore, Amnesty is more specific - it labels the police departments
from these US locales as institutionally racist:
ATLANTA, BOSTON, CHICAGO, DETROIT, INDIANAPOLIS, LOS
ANGELES, MINNEAPOLIS, NEW ORLEANS, NEW YORK,
PHILADELPHIA, PORTLAND, PROVIDENCE, SAN FRANCISCO,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
And of course, lets not forget the legal dept's of the states run by the
murdering BUSH brothers, Jeb and George.
Not just my opinions, but the opinions of the international community, and of
human rights activists the world over.
So you get the point yet? The blacks aren't doing the majority of the crime,
but the cops are arresting more blacks. This is because that is where they are
LOOKING for them.
I guarantee you, if the Po-leese took their phoney 'war on drugs' into Wall
Street, they would be filling the jails up with white middle class coke-heads
instead of poor black dudes. If the SWAT teams staked out Harvard they
would fill the jails with preppies.
But they go out hunting for prey in the ghettoes, which is logically where they
find them.
See my point yet Ay-dolf?
>
>I will agree. I am racist. I'm proud to be white. I'm not a bigot though (by
>your defenition).
Of course you're a bigot, because you generalise about people because of
the colour of their skin, and you elevate people with the same colour skin as
yours above them. By my definition (and of course the one in the dictionary)
that makes you a bigot.
Look, if it walks like a duck and says 'quack', then it's a fucking duck.
So in conclusion, you're a racist bigot and therefore you're just plain wrong.
So do yourself and all of us a favour: instead of trolling in NGs, why don't
you just sit back and play with your hair, there's a good lad.
Funky Donny
Captain Misfit
>over 40% of people who are sentenced to death are black males, not that
>black males are committing a disproportionate amount of crimes.
Aside from your useless date, use some fuckin common sense if you have any. Do
you honestly think that blacks don't commit a disproportionate amount of crime?
Do you honestly think that the majority of the crime in the US is not caused
by them? You're writing out of your ass. People are convicted by juries.
Juries that are not all white. On the flipside of what you're saying, look at
the OJ trial. They overcompensated for the race thing, and his murdering ass
is free. That's what happens when people bring up race as an issue in a trial.
It THEN becomes unfair.
>If you, a white guy, commit precisely the same crime as a
>black guy, you are far and away more likely to receive the death penalty.
What does that prove? The justice system is against whites? What the fuck are
you talking about? Which side are you on?
>This is because that is where they are
>LOOKING for them.
That's because they cause more crime. That's obvious.
>I guarantee you, if the Po-leese took their phoney 'war on drugs' into Wall
>Street, they would be filling the jails up with white middle class coke-heads
>instead of poor black dudes.
Maybe they don't do that because white middle class cokeheads aren't pushing
drugs to suburban kids. Some yuppie on wallstreet sniffing coke is not quite
the problem that a black guy pushing to 13 year old kids. If you think that
isn't true you are fucked. Every drug I've ever done has come from the hands
of some black guy in the city.
>See my point yet Ay-dolf?
See mine Jesse?
>therefore you're just plain wrong.
That's usually what someone says when their argument is full of shit and they
can't carry it any further without sounding more ridiculous.
Funky Donny
>>Over 40% of people on death row are black males. This shows ONLY that
>>over 40% of people who are sentenced to death are black males, not that
>>black males are committing a disproportionate amount of crimes.
>
>Aside from your useless date, use some fuckin common sense if you have any.
Data is data, and since I am using it isn't useless.
And the kind of common sense you mean - would that be the common sense
of someone like George Bush? Or maybe that of your dad? Whose opinions
are you plagiarising? Whose learned responses are you parroting? Surely it's
their common sense rather than yours?
> Do
>you honestly think that blacks don't commit a disproportionate amount of crime?
Do you honestly think that poverty has nothing to do with crime? According
to data produced by the National Criminal Justice Commission, people in
areas which suffer similar levels of poverty have the similar crime rates -
whether poor black areas, poor Hispanic areas or poor white areas.
Crime is related to poverty. Not to race. That is a fact.
The fact is that there happen to be MORE poor black areas. Why? Ask your
Senator. Ask your state governor. Ask the President.
Look at the situation: some black kid in East St. Louis would be a fucking
dumbass not to try to survive any which way he can. It ain't a race thing, it's
a survival thing. Maybe if the system didn't kick the poor in the teeth from
birth, they wouldn't need to rob.
> Do you honestly think that the majority of the crime in the US is not caused
>by them?
Do you honestly think the system in the USA is fair and NOT racist? You're
writing out of your ass. Most robberies and burglaries are crimes against
poverty. These crimes account for the loss of some 4 Billion dollars each
year. And since the harshest levels of poverty in society are
disproportionately suffered by Hispanics and blacks, we see crime figures
which reflect this. Poverty - not race.
Conversely, look at white collar crime - corporate rip-offs, embezzlement,
electronic crime, you get the picture. This type of crime results in the loss of
some 200 billion dollars each year. And of course, the VAST majority of this
type of crime is perpetrated by - you got it - WHITE people.
So, 4 billion lost through robbery.
200 billion lost through white collar crime.
So, let's use YOUR logic and extend a theory from this - white people are
racially VERY much greedier. Is that a fact?
Of course it isn't. It just shows that rich people rip off a lot more money
because they have access to more money and the means to rip it off. They
happen to be white - which is purely irrelevant.
Race is not the variable you need to be looking at here, so you have got to
spin different hypotheses, until you reach a level of consistency.
> You're writing out of your ass. People are convicted by juries.
>Juries that are not all white. On the flipside of what you're saying, look at
>the OJ trial. They overcompensated for the race thing, and his murdering ass
>is free.
No, OJ is free because he was RICH. It is horribly difficult to convict
someone in an American courtroom who has more money than you have.
The US system of justice is not about having a level playing field - which is
why we hear the old standard 'capital punishment means those without the
capital get the punishment'.
And since the poorest are the black population, this is reflected in the stats.
> That's what happens when people bring up race as an issue in a trial.
> It THEN becomes unfair.
I agree - when race is an issue, the truth becomes clouded, (unless the issue
IS race, such as in the Rodney King case).
But in OJ's case the issue wasn't race, it was originally whether he killed a
couple of people, and he bought his way out of the rap using millions of
dollars.
>
>>If you, a white guy, commit precisely the same crime as a
>>black guy, you are far and away more likely to receive the death penalty.
>
>What does that prove?
Oops - my apologies. I meant if you are a black guy you are far and away
more likely to receive the death penalty than a white guy who committed the
same crime (about thirteen times more likely, apparently).
I didn't proof read my post diligently enough, but I trust you get the idea of
what I am saying now.
>
>>This is because that is where they are
>>LOOKING for them.
>
>That's because they cause more crime. That's obvious.
Okay - an argument about causality here. Do they cause more crime, or do
the po-po target ethnic minorities specifically? Well, except for noted racist
organisations such as The Fraternal Order of Police Officers, the KKK and
the right wing, the accepted view is that the police targets ethnic minorities.
Here's how MUCH they target these groups. The crime rate hasn't gone up
significantly since the 70's. Here's the figures:
The murder rate dropped a full 9% between 1980 and 1992 aloneand is now
at almost the same level as it was in the 70's.
The serious violent crime rate for the US stands 16% below its peak level of
the mid 70's.
Crime rates overall have remained stable since the early 70's.
Judging by these figures, you would therefore expect that the prison
population would remain static - since the crime rate hasn't significantly
changed since the mid 1970's.
>
>>I guarantee you, if the Po-leese took their phoney 'war on drugs' into Wall
>>Street, they would be filling the jails up with white middle class coke-heads
>>instead of poor black dudes.
>
>Maybe they don't do that because white middle class cokeheads aren't pushing
>drugs to suburban kids.
Of course they aren't. And millionaires aren't going around stealing food in
order to eat. Can you work out why?
> Some yuppie on wallstreet sniffing coke is not quite
>the problem that a black guy pushing to 13 year old kids.
Or a white guy pushing to kids?
Actually, there is blood on the hands of anyone who uses coke - if you look
at where it came from, and how it got to the USA. The Colombian military
and militia groups are murderous - and they are paid for by the us state. (1.6
Billion dollars is being sent by the US directly to the Colombian state, 1.3
Billion is going direct to the military, whose death squads ensure a total lack
of opposition to the profit of cocaine! This of course eventually finds its
bloody way to the corporate parasite on Wall Street.)
> If you think that
>isn't true you are fucked. Every drug I've ever done has come from the hands
>of some black guy in the city.
Here's something for you then:
"The wave of crack addiction that crippled inner-city neighborhoods across
the country in the '80s had its roots in the CIA's efforts to fund the secret
contra war against Nicaragua, according to an investigative report by the San
Jose Mercury News' Gary Webb (8/18-20/96)."
"Exhibit A is Oscar Danilo Blandon, a cocaine trafficker and federal
informant who told a federal courtroom that " whatever we were running in
L.A., the profit was going to the contra revolution." Blandon's claim is
backed up by an L.A. Sheriff's Department affidavit, a federal parole report,
an FBI memo and other official documents."
"Law enforcement agents told the Mercury News (8/18/96) that the CIA
squelched investigations against the Meneses/Blandon operation in the name
of "national security." Federal prosecutors who used the trafficker as an
informant obtained a court order preventing defense attorneys from inquiring
about Blandon's ties to the CIA."
"But even more startling are the revelations about Blandon's distributor,
"Freeway" Ricky Donnell Ross. Ross was no minor drug pusher, but the
main supplier of crack for the Crips and Bloods gangs in L.A. "If there was a
criminal mastermind behind crack's decade-long reign, if there was one
outlaw capitalist most responsible for flooding Los Angeles' streets with
mass-marketed cocaine, his name was Freeway Rick," the L.A. Times
reported two years ago (12/20/94)."
"Ross became the dominant supplier in L.A.--and much of the country--
because of his ability to undersell other dealers. "Whathe had, and they
didn't," Webb reported (8/19/96), "was Danilo Blandon, a friend with a
seemingly inexhaustible supply of high-grade cocaine.""
Okay - so even if the little acts of retail cocaine selling come from the local
black dealer, even US Law Enforcement agencies agree that the
WHOLESALE distribution is actually a state run thing.
Then we have the Irangate scandal, during which Heroin from South East
Asia was being ferried to the American continent by the USAF among other
State forces, to pay for the US State's illegal warfare in Nicaragua.
And of course - the race of most of the CIA operatives involved in flooding
the USA with crack? And the race of the US State forces involved in
flooding the US with heroin?
MOSTLY WHITE.
Does that fit into your race-hate theories?
NOW please go and play with your hair.
Funky Donny
Ian
any other language APART from english, but that doesn't make me lower class.
You know, this same subject had an equally lengthy thread on
alt.music.the-doors a month back.
Its nothing to do with Slipknot, so lets discuss it elswhere.
Ian
Captain Misfit <tremt...@aol.com.funbags> wrote in message
news:20000625230349...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
BUT as a whole I consider them lower class.
> That isn't because of their color it's because of the majority of them
that are
> criminals, homeless, jobless, uneducated, can't speak english (95%),
etc...
> They've proven that they cannot deal with civilized life as well as
whites.
> Again, this is a huge generalization, but I'm sure the numbers support it.
> ~ Captain Misfit ~
Ian
detrimental effect on society. They do not commit crime to fund their habit,
whereas ghetto kids (black white, brown or whatever) do.
THAT may be a good reason for targeting such areas.
Ian (still posting to this thread despite my last post!!)
Funky Donny <e...@billhicksrules.net> wrote in message
news:cMdnMDAK...@heavymetal.demon.co.uk...
> I guarantee you, if the Po-leese took their phoney 'war on drugs' into
Wall
> Street, they would be filling the jails up with white middle class
coke-heads
> instead of poor black dudes. If the SWAT teams staked out Harvard they
> would fill the jails with preppies.
>
> But they go out hunting for prey in the ghettoes, which is logically where
they
> find them.
>
> Funky Donny
Funky Donny
>I agree, they would, but these people are not, by taking cocaine, having a
>detrimental effect on society.
Okay - nothing happens in a vacuum. Just because you SEE the direct effect
ghetto drug taking has (and in actual fact, alcohol is far more rapacious in the
ghetto), doesn't mean that middle class drug abuse doesn't ramify or have a
history itself.
Just as there is nothing you are directly doing to hurt people by wearing your
sweatshop-labour Nikes, doesn't mean they weren't treated like shit in order
to make them for you.
And just because the guy snorting coke in the executive toilet of the Chase
Manhattan bank didn't see the villagers being rounded up and executed by the
Colombian Military to warn others not to interfere with their cocaine supply
monopoly doesn't mean it didn't happen, and it doesn't mean he had nothing
to do with it.
Adolf Eichmann was only scheduling railway timetables.
Never forget that everything came from somewhere, and everything goes
somewhere. The right wing refuses to acknowledge the responsibility of the
ramifications of their actions. Pontius Pilate would be proud of today's right.
> They do not commit crime to fund their habit,
>whereas ghetto kids (black white, brown or whatever) do.
So it isn't a crime to buy coke then? I thought it was, so there you have it -
middle class people possessing and using coke IS a crime.
>
>THAT may be a good reason for targeting such areas.
No, most of those imprisoned for drugs in the USA are imprisoned for
possession, not for dealing. The dealers aren't the target, because the cops
need a constant supply of prison fodder - the biggest industry in the US is
human storage and slave labour - despite the fact the crime rate has stayed
the same for twenty years plus, the prison population has gone up from
300,000 in 1980, to 2,000,000 today. With no crime rate increase, why are the
jails filling up?
Simple - ask Spalding, Microsoft, Starbusck, Toys R Us, TWA, etc. etc., -
all of whom employ non-union slave labour for less than a fifth of the cost of
regular labour - they hire out prison slaves - the biggest growth industry in the
USA. That is the real reason this phoney 'war on drugs' is being fought, and
then the media and state propagandise us into thinking there is a 'race
problem' - no there isn't, there is a poverty problem, and a police problem,
and a prison problem, which all stem from the fact there is a government
problem.
You are ALL being shit on by your 'elected' representatives. Wake the fuck
up.
Funky Donny
Funky Donny
writes
>I'm agreeing with lots of what you say, but this, come one. I can't speak
>any other language APART from english, but that doesn't make me lower class.
>
>You know, this same subject had an equally lengthy thread on
>alt.music.the-doors a month back.
>
>Its nothing to do with Slipknot, so lets discuss it elswhere.
Yeah - Misfit - why don't you take your views to alt.nazi.bastard where they
will agree with you, and where as a result you can be made to feel more
powerful.
>
>Ian
>
>Captain Misfit <tremt...@aol.com.funbags> wrote in message
>news:20000625230349...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
> BUT as a whole I consider them lower class.
>> That isn't because of their color it's because of the majority of them
>that are
>> criminals, homeless, jobless, uneducated, can't speak english (95%),
>etc...
>> They've proven that they cannot deal with civilized life as well as
>whites.
>> Again, this is a huge generalization, but I'm sure the numbers support it.
>
>> ~ Captain Misfit ~
>> For all the good you've done gone done I've done gooder.
>>
>> FUNBAGS: They're what's for dinner.
>>
>> Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws.
>
>
Funky Donny
MeInside1
no money=no means to gain in social class to which you would even attain enough
to live on
no money=no lawyers=go to jail for the same crime a rich person who can afford
aka. Johnny Cochrane...go free on
FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL
if anyone would like to see what racism can do in the court room i highly
suggest looking into the case of Mumia abu-Jamal.
He sits on death row..blatently innocent...i could go on for hours...but im
only gonna drop a couple facts......he has been on death row for almost 19
years now for the murder of a police officer.....the bullet fragment
responsible for the death of the officer was identified to be from a .44 and
the gun that was Mumia's was obviusly a .38........on that fact alone it should
be case closed.....and there is a mountian of evidence beyond
that..........::::mumia is now on a stay of execution until his habious corpus
runs through...and if denied this time he will be sent to lethal injection
therien.....sorry i will not ramble on ablout anymore socio-political topics
but this Misfit troll is just so retarded that i had to make an
example.::::...to..Funky Donny
mad props on your rant..nail on the head in every corner of the
game......revolution is the only solution........>Yeah - Misfit - why don't you
take your views to alt.nazi.bastard where they
>will agree with you, and where as a result you can be made to feel more
>powerful. ...you must be very insecure...maybe lack of genitals?????
www.mumia.org
::::::::::::::JIM::::::::::::::
check the work of howard zinn,emma goldman,mumia abu-jamal,leonard chompfski
etc........
BBB!!!!!!
Funky Donny
>no money=no power
>no money=no means to gain in social class to which you would even attain enough
>to live on
>no money=no lawyers=go to jail for the same crime a rich person who can afford
>aka. Johnny Cochrane...go free on
Yep. And guess who has the least money? Yeah - ethnic minorities. So, no
power for the ethnic underclass, and so we see poor people in jail, and poor
black people in disproportionate numbers...
>
>FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL
Free Mumia. Free the MOVE.
Mumia is in jail because he KNOWS the real deal, and shouts about it. They
are SO desperate to shut him up, because we haven't seen a black
consciousness like his since Malcolm X or Dr. King.
This man is not only a man who cares enough about his brothers and sisters -
from ALL races - to tell the truth, he is a man who can actually communicate
it clearly to everyone.
I abjure everyone on this NG to read his book 'Live From Death Row', and
get some insight into this system which is insidiously fucking us all over.
>if anyone would like to see what racism can do in the court room i highly
>suggest looking into the case of Mumia abu-Jamal.
And of course, check out the murderous campaign by the Philly Police
Department against the peaceful people of MOVE.
Go to www.mumia.org.
>He sits on death row..blatently innocent...i could go on for hours...but im
>only gonna drop a couple facts......he has been on death row for almost 19
>years now for the murder of a police officer.....the bullet fragment
>responsible for the death of the officer was identified to be from a .44 and
>the gun that was Mumia's was obviusly a .38........on that fact alone it should
>be case closed.....and there is a mountian of evidence beyond
>that..........
Witnesses were threatened and bribed. Mumia was refused legal
representation, and removed from the courtroom at his own trial for a capital
offence. Amnesty International have never seen such a clear cut case of a
government trying to murder a man for his views.
The American government is illegitimate, and defies international standards of
human rights every single day.
Did you know the USA is one of just two countries which still executes
people for crimes committed when they were children? (The last was Shaka
Sankofa only three days ago). Did you know that the US Government is one
of the only two states which refuses to sign the UN treaty on the rights of the
child?
What kind of government refuses to guarantee children's rights?
It isn't a racism problem we are looking at - racists are created by state
originated propaganda. Among Machiavelli's basic principles is the concept
of 'divide and conquer', which of course is why states LOVE to perpetuate
racial disharmony. It distracts, and it marginalises. It prevents us from getting
together to fight the one true enemy.
The USA is the wealthiest country in the world, and it is a country where 50
million people cannot afford health care, where 7 million are without a home,
where 2 million are in prison (the vast majority for non violent offences),
where 30 million children are severely malnourished.
Obviously the government propagates racism through its legislature, through
law enforcement, through the media and through education in order to
distract attention away from its own failings in order to get people fighting
each other instead of the real enemy of the people.
The Declaration of Independence states the following, in its second sentence:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these
Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of those Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it..."
You see that? Firstly, the government MUST secure Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness. This is what the state is FOR. Not selling guns to
dictators, or shipping coke to Miami. Not imprisoning millions in a phoney
drug war. Not executing those who dissent.
The State is meant to be securing your happiness, your freedom, and
protecting your lives. This means that per the Declaration of Independence
they aren't allowed to ship all the worthwhile jobs to Mexico and Poland, and
leave only McJobs - this is not our idea of the Pursuit of Happiness.
And as for deriving their powers from the consent of the governed, right
now, the consent comes only from the corporate elite. Most Americans don't
even bother to vote - they know there is no real choice. Dole? Bush? They're
the same corporate shill in a different fucking suit.
And the last bit of the excerpt - where the government DOESN'T secure
these things, then you the people have the right to abolish it.
See - I am not being subversive here - I am using the Declaration of
Independence as MY guideline. The Government of the USA is not in the
slightest bit patriotic, otherwise they wouldn't be fucking with the lives of so
many of the good American people.
Here is a brief summary of the state of the union today - you tell me whether
this is the State securing Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If you
DON'T think the State IS securing this for you, then you must abolish the
state if you don't want this sorry story to continue.
Every Year:
· 27,000 Americans commit suicide.
· 5,000 attempt suicide; some estimates are higher.
· 26,000 die from fatal accidents in the home.
· 23,000 are murdered.
· 85,000 are wounded by firearms.
· 38,000 of these die, including 2,600 children.
· 13,000,000 are victims of crimes including assault, rape, armed robbery,
burglary, larceny, and arson.
· 135,000 children take guns to school.
· 5,500,000 people are arrested for all offenses (not including traffic
violations).
· 125,000 die prematurely of alcohol abuse.
· 473,000 die prematurely from tobacco-related illnesses; 53,000 of these are
non-smokers.
· 6,500,000 use heroin, crack, speed, PCP, cocaine or some other hard drug
on a regular basis.
· 5,000+ die from illicit drug use. Thousands suffer serious debilitations.
· 1,000+ die from sniffing household substances found under the kitchen
sink. About 20 percent of all eighth-graders have "huffed" toxic substances.
Thousands suffer permanent neurological damage.
· 31,450,000 use marijuana; 3,000,000 of whom are heavy users.
· 37,000,000, or one out of every six Americans, regularly use emotion
controlling medical drugs. The users are mostly women. The pushers are
doctors; the suppliers are pharmaceutical companies; the profits are
stupendous.
· 2,000,000 nonhospitalized persons are given powerful mind-control drugs,
sometimes described as "chemical straitjackets."
· 5,000 die from psychoactive drug treatments.
· 200,000 are subjected to electric shock treatments that are injurious to the
brain and nervous system.
· 600 to 1,000 are lobotomized, mostly women.
· 25,000,000, or one out of every 10 Americans, seek help from psychiatric,
psychotherapeutic, or medical sources for mental and emotional problems, at
a cost of over $4 billion annually.
· 6,800,000 turn to nonmedical services, such as ministers, welfare agencies,
and social counsellors for help with emotional troubles. In all, some
80,000,000 have sought some kind of psychological counselling in their
lifetimes.
· 1,300,000 suffer some kind of injury related to treatment at hospitals.
· 2,000,000 undergo unnecessary surgical operations; 10,000 of whom die
from the surgery.
· 180,000 die from adverse reactions to all medical treatments, more than are
killed by airline and automobile accidents combined.
· 14,000+ die from overdoses of legal prescription drugs.
· 45,000 are killed in auto accidents. Yet more cars and highways are being
built while funding for safer forms of mass transportation is reduced.
· 1,800,000 sustain nonfatal injuries from auto accidents; but 150,000 of these
auto injury victims suffer permanent impairments.
· 126,000 children are born with a major birth defect, mostly due to
insufficient prenatal care, nutritional deficiency, environmental toxicity, or
maternal drug addiction.
· 2,900,000 children are reportedly subjected to serious neglect or abuse,
including physical torture and deliberate starvation.
· 5,000 children are killed by parents or grandparents.
· 30,000 or more children are left permanently physically disabled from abuse
and neglect. Child abuse in the United States afflicts more children each year
than leukemia, automobile accidents, and infectious diseases combined. With
growing unemployment, incidents of abuse by jobless parents is increasing
dramatically.
· 1,000,000 children run away from home, mostly because of abusive
treatment, including sexual abuse, from parents and other adults. Of the many
sexually abused children among runaways, 83 percent come from white
families.
· 150,000 children are reported missing.
· 50,000 of these simply vanish. Their ages range from one year to mid-teens.
According to the New York Times, "Some of these are dead, perhaps half of
the John and Jane Does annually buried in this country are unidentified kids."
· 900,000 children, some as young as seven years old, are engaged in child
labor in the United States, serving as underpaid farm hands, dishwashers,
laundry workers, and domestics for as long as ten hours a day in violation of
child labor laws.
· 2,000,000 to 4,000,00 women are battered. Domestic violence is the single
largest cause of injury and second largest cause of death to U.S. women.
· 700,000 women are raped, one every 45 seconds.
· 5,000,000 workers are injured on the job; 150,000 of whom suffer
permanent work-related disabilities, including maiming, paralysis, impaired
vision, damaged hearing, and sterility.
· 100,000 become seriously ill from work-related diseases, including black
lung, brown lung, cancer, and tuberculosis.
· 14,000 are killed on the job; about 90 percent are men.
· 100,000 die prematurely from work-related diseases.
· 60,000 are killed by toxic environmental pollutants or contaminants in food,
water, or air.
· 4,000 die from eating contaminated meat.
· 20,000 others suffer from poisoning by E.coli 0157-H7, the mutant bacteria
found in contaminated meat that generally leads to lifelong physical and
mental health problems. A more thorough meat inspection with new
technologies could eliminate most instances of contamination--so would
vegetarianism.
At present:
· 5,100,000 are behind bars or on probation or parole; 2,700,000 of these are
either locked up in county, state or federal prisons or under legal supervision.
Each week 1,600 more people go to jail than leave. The prison population has
skyrocketed over 200 percent since 1980. Over 40 percent of inmates are
jailed on nonviolent drug related crimes. African Americans constitute 13
percent of drug users but 35 percent of drug arrests, 55 percent of drug
convictions and 74 percent of prison sentences. For nondrug offenses,
African Americans get prison terms that average about 10 percent longer than
Caucasians for similar crimes.
· 15,000+ have tuberculosis, with the numbers growing rapidly; 10,000,000 or
more carry the tuberculosis bacilli, with large numbers among the
economically deprived or addicted.
· 10,000,000 people have serious drinking problems; alcoholism is on the
rise.
· 16,000,000 have diabetes, up from 11,000,000 in 1983 as Americans get
more sedentary and sugar addicted. Left untreated, diabetes can lead to
blindness, kidney failure and nerve damage.
· 160,000 will die from diabetes this year.
· 280,000 are institutionalized for mental illness or mental retardation. Many of
these are forced into taking heavy doses of mind control drugs.
· 255,000 mentally ill or retarded have been summarily released in recent
years. Many of the "deinstitutionalized" are now in flophouses or wandering
the streets.
· 3,000,000 or more suffer cerebral and physical handicaps including
paralysis, deafness, blindness, and lesser disabilities. A disproportionate
number of them are poor. Many of these disabilities could have been
corrected with early treatment or prevented with better living conditions.
· 2,400,000 million suffer from some variety of seriously incapacitating
chronic fatigue syndrome.
· 10,000,000+ suffer from symptomatic asthma, an increase of 145 percent
from 1990 to 1995, largely due to the increasingly polluted quality of the air
we breathe.
· 40,000,000 or more are without health insurance or protection from
catastrophic illness.
· 1,800,000 elderly who live with their families are subjected to serious abuse
such as forced confinement, underfeeding, and beatings. The mistreatment of
elderly people by their children and other close relatives grows dramatically
as economic conditions worsen.
· 1,126,000 of the elderly live in nursing homes. A large but undetermined
number endure conditions of extreme neglect, filth, and abuse in homes that
are run with an eye to extracting the highest possible profit.
· 1,000,000 or more children are kept in orphanages, reformatories, and adult
prisons. Most have been arrested for minor transgressions or have
committed no crime at all and are jailed without due process. Most are from
impoverished backgrounds. Many are subjected to beatings, sexual assault,
prolonged solitary confinement, mind control drugs, and in some cases
psychosurgery.
· 1,000,000 are estimated to have AIDS as of 1996; over 250,000 have died
of that disease.
· 950,000 school children are treated with powerful mind control drugs for
"hyperactivity" every year--with side effects like weight loss, growth
retardation and acute psychosis.
· 4,000,000 children are growing up with unattended learning disabilities.
· 4,500,000+ children, or more than half of the 9,000,000 children on welfare,
suffer from malnutrition. Many of these suffer brain damage caused by
prenatal and infant malnourishment.
· 40,000,000 persons, or one of every four women and more than one of
every ten men, are estimated to have been sexually molested as children,
most often between the ages of 9 and 12, usually by close relatives or family
acquaintances. Such abuse almost always extends into their early teens and is
a part of their continual memory and not a product of memory retrieval in
therapy.
· 7,000,000 to 12,000,000 are unemployed; numbers vary with the business
cycle. Increasing numbers of the chronically unemployed show signs of
stress and emotional depression.
· 6,000,000 are in "contingent" jobs, or jobs structured to last only
temporarily. About 60 percent of these would prefer permanent employment.
· 15,000,000 or more are part-time or reduced-time "contract" workers who
need full-time jobs and who work without benefits.
· 3,000,000 additional workers are unemployed but uncounted because their
unemployment benefits have run out, or they never qualified for benefits, or
they have given up looking for work, or they joined the armed forces because
they were unable to find work.
· 80,000,000 live on incomes estimated by the U.S. Department of Labor as
below a "comfortable adequacy"; 35,000,000 of these live below the poverty
level.
· 12,000,000 of those at poverty's rock bottom suffer from chronic hunger
and malnutrition. The majority of the people living at or below the poverty
level experience hunger during some portion of the year.
· 2,000,000 or more are homeless, forced to live on the streets or in makeshift
shelters.
· 160,000,000+ are members of households that are in debt, a sharp increase
from the 100 million of less than a decade ago. A majority indicate they have
borrowed money not for luxuries but for necessities. Mounting debts threaten
a financial crack-up in more and more families.
So what are you doing about this? Letting the government get away with it?
Or worse? Voting for one or another of the criminals who perpetuate this for
their own gain?
If you love America, ABOLISH THE STATE - the Declaration of
Independence asks you to.
>::::mumia is now on a stay of execution until his habious corpus
>runs through...and if denied this time he will be sent to lethal injection
>therien.....sorry i will not ramble on ablout anymore socio-political topics
>but this Misfit troll is just so retarded that i had to make an
>example.::::...
Sadly he is retarded, but don't be too hard on him. He is an example of how
well propaganda works on some people.
It's sad, but some people, like Misfit, are just far more gullible than others.
>to..Funky Donny
>mad props on your rant..nail on the head in every corner of the
>game......revolution is the only solution........>Yeah - Misfit - why don't you
>take your views to alt.nazi.bastard where they
>>will agree with you, and where as a result you can be made to feel more
>>powerful. ...you must be very insecure...maybe lack of genitals?????
>www.mumia.org
>::::::::::::::JIM::::::::::::::
>
>check the work of howard zinn
Read Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States of America' - and find
out the reality of American history. The guy is seriously clued in. Also, read
Zinn's 'You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train', which will open your eyes
as to the nature of the US legal system and its politicos... Or you could
always start with a website dedicated to his works: Howard Zinn online:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sachs/Zinn/
>emma goldman,
A wonderful woman! A brilliant place to start is with her book 'Anarchism'.
Or you could browse through her collected works at this URL:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/GoldmanCW.html
>mumia abu-jamal,
Of course, read Live From Death Row, and Death Blossoms. But first, you
MUST visit www.mumia.org, and see what you can do to prevent a judicial
murder of an innocent man. Also on the site is a massive archive of Mumia's
articles - which are lucid and a MUST for anyone who ever reads anything!
>leonard chompfski
Chomsky is just awesome - but you will need a lot of background knowledge
to get into what he is saying, he is a professor, and in my opinion, he sounds
like he is talking to professors when he writes - so start with Mumia, and
gradually read your way around to Chomsky...
Or you could always read his interviews - there are loads of his interviews
with David Barsamian available on the net, so check it out.
The best place to start is Z Magazine, at www.zmag.org
Good luck!
Solidarity!
Ed
Funky Donny
Harvey Dagworthy
>
> So what are you doing about this? Letting the government get away with it?
> Or worse? Voting for one or another of the criminals who perpetuate this
for
> their own gain?
>
some of theses problems would only become worse without a goverment in
control....Without the Goverment who would be in control???
Cheers,
Harvey.
Funky Donny
>Hey Ed.
Hey Harvey! 'Sup!
>>
>>
>Ed, are you saying that the goverment CREATED ALL these problems?
Well, they are either created by or exacerbated by the government. They are
NOT helped by those in power.
Regardless of the origination point of the problems in society - the
government is NOT solving them. And of course, the Declaration of
Independence enshrined the duty of the State firstly to secure Life, Liberty
and the Pursuit of Happiness for ALL of the people. As you can see by the
LONG list of problems in society, the government is failing dismally to these
unalienable rights. This is because the government is not interested in solving
them. Politicians are interested in their own interests.
Here is where the taxpayers money goes:
Environmental Protection.................$7.2 BILLION
NASA.............................................$13.8 BILLION
Justice.............................................$18.4 BILLION
Housing & Urban Development........$28 BILLION
Education........................................$34.7 BILLION
Health & Human Services................$43.4 BILLION
(are you ready for this one?)
Military............................................$308.5 BILLION
(pause to let it sink in...)
THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHT FUCKING BILLION BUCKS FOR
WEAPONS...??????????????????????????????????
And with at least one fifth of Americans in dire poverty?
Who the fuck is the government working for?
And maybe you knew this, but half of the defence budget goes on corporate
bribes, kickbacks and corruption anyway.
(A horrifying fact is that the top ten weapons contractors have ALL been
done for major-league fraud involving hundreds of billions of dollars over the
past few years. And nobody from these corporate robber companies went to
jail.
Whereas some poor fucker in the ghetto goes to prison for LIFE for stealing
five dollars worth of food under Clinton's 'three strikes and you're out' clause
of his Crime Bill of 1994. Imagine that - this guy got hungry three times, and
got sent down for EVER for it.)
And there's no fucking enemies! What the fuck? Wake the fuck up, people.
> Surely
>some of theses problems would only become worse without a goverment in
>control....
Which ones?
>Without the Goverment who would be in control???
Okay Harvey, before I answer that, let's make sure we understand the
parameters of the debate, in your opinion, what does the government
actually do that is positive, and for the benefit of the population?
How does the government exercise the 'control' or 'power' it has?
>
>Cheers,
>Harvey.
>
>
Funky Donny
Harvey Dagworthy
> Hey Harvey! 'Sup!
> >Ed, are you saying that the goverment CREATED ALL these problems?
> Well, they are either created by or exacerbated by the government. They
are
> NOT helped by those in power.
++We don't **really** know that without a goverment life would be any better
though....do we?++
> Regardless of the origination point of the problems in society - the
> government is NOT solving them. And of course, the Declaration of
> Independence enshrined the duty of the State firstly to secure Life,
Liberty
> and the Pursuit of Happiness for ALL of the people. As you can see by the
> LONG list of problems in society, the government is failing dismally to
these
> unalienable rights. This is because the government is not interested in
solving
> them. Politicians are interested in their own interests.
++I suppose that you have a point about their 'own interests', however it is
only an assumption right? Well, we could go by statisitcs but isn't it only
an assumption. Surely we cannot put EVERY single politicain and
govermentarian (whatever they be called) in the same barrel, can we? I mean
there must be the odd politicain who is ACTUALLY trying to do something
about it...maybe?....would it be....well.....maybe....in a way prejudice to
say to EVERY politician and goverment member "if you are in the goverment
you are only out for yourself"?++
> Here is where the taxpayers money goes:
>
> Environmental Protection.................$7.2 BILLION
> NASA.............................................$13.8 BILLION
> Justice.............................................$18.4 BILLION
> Housing & Urban Development........$28 BILLION
> Education........................................$34.7 BILLION
> Health & Human Services................$43.4 BILLION
>
> (are you ready for this one?)
>
> Military............................................$308.5 BILLION
>
> (pause to let it sink in...)
>
> THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHT FUCKING BILLION BUCKS FOR
> WEAPONS...??????????????????????????????????
++I knew this SHOCKING fact....and it is exactly that - Fuckin SHOCKING++
>
> And with at least one fifth of Americans in dire poverty?
>
> Who the fuck is the government working for?
++Good question....I would presume either 1. Themselves, or 2. The
President++
> And maybe you knew this, but half of the defence budget goes on corporate
> bribes, kickbacks and corruption anyway.
>
> (A horrifying fact is that the top ten weapons contractors have ALL been
> done for major-league fraud involving hundreds of billions of dollars over
the
> past few years. And nobody from these corporate robber companies went to
> jail.
>
> Whereas some poor fucker in the ghetto goes to prison for LIFE for
stealing
> five dollars worth of food under Clinton's 'three strikes and you're out'
clause
> of his Crime Bill of 1994. Imagine that - this guy got hungry three times,
and
> got sent down for EVER for it.)
++I hear you on that point, and it makes me cringe++
> And there's no fucking enemies! What the fuck? Wake the fuck up, people.
>
>
> > Surely
> >some of theses problems would only become worse without a goverment in
> >control....
>
> Which ones?
++Well, we don't know, because America has never been without
Goverment...but I feel that PERHAPS, crime and murder would rise, because
the rules and laws of the US would disintegrate, because they[Goverment]
have made and enforced most laws after alll. and people would be allowed to
go around fucking shit up. I mean it would take FOREVER to re-adjust
lifestyles - the people who are rich would become the most powerful and the
people who are poor would just stay poor.
>
> >Without the Goverment who would be in control???
>
> Okay Harvey, before I answer that, let's make sure we understand the
> parameters of the debate, in your opinion, what does the government
> actually do that is positive, and for the benefit of the population?
>
> How does the government exercise the 'control' or 'power' it has?
++The Goverment isn't using it's power in the right ways, they are buying
guns for Columbia and themselves and, appear to be 'ignoring' the serious
issues. they abuse their power. are you saying that the goverment controls
nothing properly? Perhaps the idea of a goverment is not SO absurd.......I
know you'll be grinding yout teeth about now....but would a goverment of
people who aren't rich, who aren't out for power and who have experienced
first-hand what it's like for people with these problems? A total
abolishment of the goverment seems like something that could end in complete
chaos:-
The police/army would become the most powerful people around wouldn't they?
they would be able to threaten people to do what they want, they would end
up taking over the world surely? You can almost guarentee that without any
sort of goverment 'in charge', there would be someone who would attempt to
take over the world, someone like ADOLF HITLER?
So my basic point is, underneath all that BS writing crap, is that the
goverment, some how, some way, must be doing something right to keep America
in some sort of order. They are making a big fucking hash of it, to put it
mildly, but they are somehow keeping US from complete chaos.....I mean if
the goverment is SO fucked up in what they are doing, why are they still
here?
Basically, I CANNOT SEE WHAT THE GOVERMENT IS DOING RIGHT, BUT! They must
suuuurely be doing something right if they haven't been done away with yet?
{just for the record, I am kind of confused by all this and what I wrote
probably makes no sense}++
>
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Harvey.
> >
> >
>
>
> Funky Donny
Harvey Dagworthy
>
> ++The Goverment isn't using it's power in the right ways, they are buying
> guns for Columbia and themselves and, appear to be 'ignoring' the serious
> issues. they abuse their power. are you saying that the goverment controls
> nothing properly? Perhaps the idea of a goverment is not SO absurd.......I
> know you'll be grinding yout teeth about now....but would a goverment of
> people who aren't rich, who aren't out for power and who have experienced
> first-hand what it's like for people with these problems "be a goverment
which could work, a goverment which could focus on the more serious
problems"?? A total
> abolishment of the goverment seems like something that could end in
complete
> chaos:-....
>
Funky Donny
<limpb...@webtribe.net> writes
>> >Hey Ed.
>> Hey Harvey! 'Sup!
>
>
>> >Ed, are you saying that the goverment CREATED ALL these problems?
>> Well, they are either created by or exacerbated by the government. They
>are
>> NOT helped by those in power.
>
>++We don't **really** know that without a goverment life would be any better
>though....do we?++
How do you know that? Governments have existed for less than four thousand years,
and thinking man has been around for fifty thousand.
There are LOADS of examples of societies working perfectly well without
governments.
There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to show you that my ideal is NOT a belief system.
Whereas on the other hand, there is only propaganda to show that governments are
necessary.
You want some evidence? Well, read Paul Avrich. Read Howard Zinn, Noam
Chomsky, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman. Look at the histories of
Krondstadt, the Paris Commune, the Seattle Revolution of 1907, Gandhi, in fact just
read some history which isn't government approved!!
>
>
>> Regardless of the origination point of the problems in society - the
>> government is NOT solving them. And of course, the Declaration of
>> Independence enshrined the duty of the State firstly to secure Life,
>Liberty
>> and the Pursuit of Happiness for ALL of the people. As you can see by the
>> LONG list of problems in society, the government is failing dismally to
>these
>> unalienable rights. This is because the government is not interested in
>solving
>> them. Politicians are interested in their own interests.
>
>++I suppose that you have a point about their 'own interests', however it is
>only an assumption right?
Of course it isn't.
> Well, we could go by statisitcs but isn't it only
>an assumption.
How so? How much of an assumption is it when we show that the laws favourable to
business are passed after LOTS of money finds its way into government hands? How
about the funding for election campaigns? There is even a law passed by the US
Government in the thirties which specifically says movie producer Sam Mayer must be
taxed at a lower rate than everyone else, after he bribed his congressman to enact this
into law!
Lobbying is where a corporation gives large sums of money to politicians in order to
affect changes in the law favourable to the corporation. This is technically a bribe, but
for some weird reason, being a lobbyist is regarded as a respectable job.
You buy changes in the law these days. And so the people who have the most
purchasing power affect the law the most, and to their benefit. Now, who has the most
money? That's right - the multinational corporations. That is a fact. Not an assumption.
You can even ask Clinton, and he won't deny it.
So why do you assume that I am making an 'assumption'? I only ever use arguments I
can fully document and back up. I don't 'believe' stuff, I have evidence to prove stuff.
You stick to your assumptions, and I shall stick to my evidence!!!!!!!
>Surely we cannot put EVERY single politicain and
>govermentarian (whatever they be called) in the same barrel, can we?
Why not? Name me a government which is working in the interests of its people rather
than itself.
Which government do YOU see around this world which is working for the people?
Name me one.
All governments are liars and murderers.
>I mean
>there must be the odd politicain who is ACTUALLY trying to do something
>about it...maybe?....would it be....well.....maybe....in a way prejudice to
>say to EVERY politician and goverment member "if you are in the goverment
>you are only out for yourself"?++
There are principled politicians. They don't make it into the cabinet. You will only rise
in a corporate hierarchy if you internalise the views of the guy above you - he won't
promote someone who works against his interests.
This is why we have a 'party whip' in the UK. The party whip is there to shut people up
who disagree with the boss. That is their job - to prevent 'dissent', and enforce the
party line. Which is basically, what Tony Blair wants. And what Tony Blair wants is
what Clinton wants. And what Clinton wants is what Nike, TWA, Coca Cola, Adidas,
Starbucks, McDonalds, etc. etc. want - because they PAY him good money for their
views to be the only ones he respects. FACT. I have the evidence (for a lot of the
evidence, go back over this thread...)
>
>
>> Here is where the taxpayers money goes:
>>
>> Environmental Protection.................$7.2 BILLION
>> NASA.............................................$13.8 BILLION
>> Justice.............................................$18.4 BILLION
>> Housing & Urban Development........$28 BILLION
>> Education........................................$34.7 BILLION
>> Health & Human Services................$43.4 BILLION
>>
>> (are you ready for this one?)
>>
>> Military............................................$308.5 BILLION
>>
>> (pause to let it sink in...)
>>
>> THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHT FUCKING BILLION BUCKS FOR
>> WEAPONS...??????????????????????????????????
>
>++I knew this SHOCKING fact....and it is exactly that - Fuckin SHOCKING++
>
>>
>> And with at least one fifth of Americans in dire poverty?
>>
>> Who the fuck is the government working for?
>
>++Good question....I would presume either 1. Themselves, or 2. The
>President++
Which is really just 1. all over again.
>
>
>> And maybe you knew this, but half of the defence budget goes on corporate
>> bribes, kickbacks and corruption anyway.
>>
>> (A horrifying fact is that the top ten weapons contractors have ALL been
>> done for major-league fraud involving hundreds of billions of dollars over
>the
>> past few years. And nobody from these corporate robber companies went to
>> jail.
>>
>> Whereas some poor fucker in the ghetto goes to prison for LIFE for
>stealing
>> five dollars worth of food under Clinton's 'three strikes and you're out'
>clause
>> of his Crime Bill of 1994. Imagine that - this guy got hungry three times,
>and
>> got sent down for EVER for it.)
>
>++I hear you on that point, and it makes me cringe++
>
>
>> And there's no fucking enemies! What the fuck? Wake the fuck up, people.
>>
>>
>> > Surely
>> >some of theses problems would only become worse without a goverment in
>> >control....
>>
>> Which ones?
>
>++Well, we don't know, because America has never been without
>Goverment...
There have been many societies without government. So we can make very good cases
for what America would be without a government.
>but I feel that PERHAPS, crime and murder would rise, because
>the rules and laws of the US would disintegrate,
Do you behave yourself because of the law? Or because of respect, and compassion
for your fellows?
Not so. In 1907, when the government was booted out of the city, and the police
weren't allowed to come in by the people, the crime rate sank to an all-time low.
Why do you not commit murders? Is it because the law says you shouldn't? If it is,
then you are very irresponsible. I don't commit murderers because I have compassion.
If the government didn't impoverish the people by wasting their money on weapons,
and by shipping all the jobs worth doing to places like China, Mexico, Indonesia and
Poland, then crimes against poverty would virtually disappear.
Why don't you steal? Because of the law, or because you aren't a thief?
In any case, are the police there to solve crime? I have never had anything stolen from
me returned yet - there has been no such clear up rate in my experience. In fact, less
than one in fifty crimes are solved by the police, and where they are, informants are the
key. So the police use criminals to catch criminals - when they should be arresting
them! They HAVE to keep the big crack dealer in operation to catch the little ones!
Informants have to be criminals or they wouldn't know who to inform on!!
As many people die on London's roads due to police car chases as from speeding
civilians, so they are as lethal. Did you know that most unlawful shootings in the UK
are from police weapons?
But - in case you think this is an assumption - lets take the words of the top policeman
himself - this is from a speech by Sir Robert Mark, the old Chief of the Metropolitan
Police... Here ihe is speaking at the Metropolitan Police Conference:
'...the belief that the state can, or even wishes to, protect people
effectively from burglary, breaking offences and theft should be
abandoned, at least in the great cities, where inadequate numbers of
police have other and more demanding priorities. We have lived for too
long in a world of pretence for which the entertainment industry is
partly responsible'...
Okay, get that? Let me translate what he just said:
" We can't, and we don't even WANT to solve the majority of crimes. And if you
thought that is what we are there to do, then you watch too much TV..."
This is precisely the essence of what he said.
So since IN THEIR OWN WORDS the police aren't there to uphold law and order,
how come we don't have everyone running around madly robbing and raping? (At least
my mates don't...)
> because they[Goverment]
>have made and enforced most laws after alll. and people would be allowed to
>go around fucking shit up.
I just proved that the police DON'T enforce anything of the sort., They are there to
protect the elite from the poor. That is all. That is why they were founded in the first
place.
Again, here are the words of the father of the police force, Magistrate Patrick
Colquhoun, writing in 1795, This is an excerpt from his treatise 'Police of the
Metropolis':
"Poverty...is the most necessary and indispensible ingredient of
society...It is the lot of man...it is the source of wealth since without
poverty there would be no labour and without labour there would be no
riches, no comfort and no benefit to those who may be possessed of
wealth"
This is why the police force was actually founded - to protect the haves
from the have-nots. The media then convinced us the police was there to solve crime.
What is YOUR personal experience of the cops? Good? Bad? Did they come quickly?
Did they solve anything for you?
> I mean it would take FOREVER to re-adjust
>lifestyles - the people who are rich would become the most powerful and the
>people who are poor would just stay poor.
Excuse me Harvey - but haven't you described the world today here?
>>
>> >Without the Goverment who would be in control???
>>
>> Okay Harvey, before I answer that, let's make sure we understand the
>> parameters of the debate, in your opinion, what does the government
>> actually do that is positive, and for the benefit of the population?
>>
>> How does the government exercise the 'control' or 'power' it has?
>
>++The Goverment isn't using it's power in the right ways, they are buying
>guns for Columbia and themselves and, appear to be 'ignoring' the serious
>issues.
Look through history. Which government HAS used its power in the 'right way'.
> they abuse their power. are you saying that the goverment controls
>nothing properly?
Pwer is not something you can abuse - it IS abuse. Lord Acton was never so right
when he said 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Power is the
abuse.
> Perhaps the idea of a goverment is not SO absurd.......I
>know you'll be grinding yout teeth about now....but would a goverment of
>people who aren't rich, who aren't out for power and who have experienced
>first-hand what it's like for people with these problems?
Are you talking about organisation here? We can get together and organise without the
need for power. Look at when you and your mates go out. Who is the boss? Nobody
- together, you decide what to do, you know what you want to achieve, and you all
work for that goal. Never confuse organisation and co-operation with power. If I drive
the car to the pub, and I the leader? No, I am the driver. We can work together, and we
don't need to be controlled to do it.
You tell me when YOU need to be controlled. When do you need to be told what to
do for your best interests? Or can you work it out with your mates, or your family.
> A total
>abolishment of the goverment seems like something that could end in complete
>chaos:-
Why - are we incapable of organising without politicians and police? They were VERY
capable of organising in Spain in 1936, when the people organised and threw the
government out. In fact, they were so well organised that the Fascists couldn't
disorganise them they killed half a million of them and terrorised them into submission.
Anarchism is about co-operation, not chaos.
>
>The police/army would become the most powerful people around wouldn't they?
Sorry but I thought they were a part of the government... If you throw out the
government , then what are you doing keeping their boot boys in power?
>they would be able to threaten people to do what they want, they would end
>up taking over the world surely? You can almost guarentee that without any
>sort of goverment 'in charge', there would be someone who would attempt to
>take over the world, someone like ADOLF HITLER?
Hitler would have never risen to power if it hadn't been for the rich capitalist
investors in Germany. The media contributed big time to the rise of Nazism, and the
west, including the UK and the USA funded him to the hilt. They also funded Pol Pot
in Cambodia, Zia in Pakistan, Suharto in Indonesia, etc., in fact if you look at all the
great dictators of this century, you will find that they could never have risen to
prominence without the help of western capital. Check their bank balances!!!
Dictators cannot get a hold on power unless they are supported by our governments.
See how governments are VITAL in building up dictatorships...
American companies built Hitler's trucks. They built the Focke Wulfs which bombed
London. They shipped the oil to keep the German war machine mobile. The Chase
Manhattan Bank helped bankroll Hitler's war effort. (Why oh why don't we learn this
in school? Any guesses?!)
History shows that a genocidal dictator is always brought into power AGAINST the
will of the people, but with the POWER and the WEALTH of capital.
Look at Saddam Hussein. Our governments would like us to think of him as a loose
cannon endangering the security of the world. In actual fact, the British sold him the
weaponry he used to kill tens of thousands of Kurds. The British and the Americans
then provided him with the war machine necessary to wage war against Iran,
Kurdestan and Kuwait, and intervened to assist in the precipitation of those conflicts.
If you look at the Blackshirts in London - there was a guy called Oswald Mosley, who
was a fascist Hitler supporter back in the thirties, and the British found his fascism
objectionable. Londoners in Millwall where Mosley had his stronghold, treid to throw
him and his nazis out, but who protected him from the anti-fascists? Yes, of course,
the forces of the crown - the police.
The National Front were a prolific racist group, who were doing their objectionable
thing back in my childhood, and I remember police beating people up who were
peacefully protesting against the NF. The police are good at protecting those who
would make us fight each other, it is part of their make-up, part of the reason they
exist. Just last month, a huge inquiry found that the police force in the UK is
institutionally racist. Since this is a crime, what are the police doing being criminals?
And so it goes - dictators are supported by our governments. They wouldn't stand a
chance otherwise - because the people tend to get together and throw them out. Pol
Pot was supported and funded by the US Government - they gave him over 80 million
dollars. His armies were trained by the SAS. At the end of this posting, I shall give
you a partial list of dictators who our governments have supported. Remember, if our
governments hadn't bigged them up, they wouldn't be a problem...
>
>So my basic point is, underneath all that BS writing crap, is that the
>goverment, some how, some way, must be doing something right to keep America
>in some sort of order.
What kind of order? What is orderly in the US, and what part did the government play
in that order? Please give me examples.
And to say they 'must be doing something right' - Harvey, that wouldn't be an
assumption would it?
>They are making a big fucking hash of it, to put it
>mildly, but they are somehow keeping US from complete chaos.....I mean if
>the goverment is SO fucked up in what they are doing, why are they still
>here?
So what kind of chaos would you see in the absence of the government then? Give
examples.
>
>Basically, I CANNOT SEE WHAT THE GOVERMENT IS DOING RIGHT, BUT!
>They must
>suuuurely be doing something right if they haven't been done away with yet?
What they are doing 'right' is they are controlling the free flow of information, and the
access to it. This means they are making us ignorant of the idea of any alternative to
THEM. What they are doing 'right' is in the field of propaganda. And also they are
doing things very right indeed, if you happen to be part of the power elite - they are
laughing all the way to their Swiss banks...
>
>{just for the record, I am kind of confused by all this and what I wrote
>probably makes no sense}++
No it doesn't make sense, when you break it down and cross reference it, but it is what
you have been channelled into believing.
You have to question everything, especially authority. If you think the police are there
to solve crime, ask yourself what they are doing to combat it. Look at the crime
figures. Read what the police themselves say. Analyse your own experiences of the
law.
If you think the prisons are there to deter criminals, try to find out who is actually
deterred, or indeed if anyone is deterred at all. If you think prisons are there to reform
people, look at the rate of recidivism - ask yourself if anyone IS actually reformed. If
you think the army is there to protect your country, then ask yourself who is attacking
us.
Anyway, Harvey - try to answer the questions I put to you earlier on, and for now, here
is the proof of how dictators need governments to succeed.
>
>
>
Here's something about how dictators come about...
Many of the world's most repressive dictators have been friends of
America. Tyrants, torturers, killers, and sundry dictators and corrupt
puppet-presidents have been aided, supported, and rewarded
handsomely for their loyalty to US interests. Traditional dictators seize
control through force, while constitutional dictators hold office through
voting fraud or severely restricted elections, and are frequently puppets
and apologists for the military juntas which control the ballot boxes. In
any case, none have been democratically elected by the majority of their
people in fair and open elections.
They are democratic America's undemocratic allies. They may rise to
power through bloody ClA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture.
Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other US
agencies. US military aid and weapons sales often strengthen their
armies and guarantee their hold on power. Unwavering "anti-communism"
and a willingness to provide unhampered access for American business
interests to exploit their countries' natural resources and cheap labor
are the excuses for their repression, and the primary reason the US
government supports them. They may be linked internationalIy to
extreme right-wing groups such as the World Anti-Communist League,
and some have had strong Nazi affiliations and have offered sanctuary
to WWll Nazi war criminals.
They usually grow rich, while their countries' economies deteriorate and
the majority of their people live in poverty. US tax dollars and US-
backed loans have made billionaires of some, while others are
international drug dealers who also collect CIA paychecks. Rarely are
they called to account for their crimes. And rarely still, is the US
government held responsible for supporting and protecting some of the
worst human rights violators in the world.
Friendly dictators
Abacha, General Sani ----------------------------Nigeria
Amin, Idi ------------------------------------------Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo ---------------------------Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio --------------------------------Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal ----------------------------Brunei
Botha, P.W. ---------------------------------------South Africa
Branco, General Humberto ---------------------Brazil
Cedras, Raoul -------------------------------------Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio -----------------------------------Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek ---------------------------------Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo ------------------------Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo -------------------------------El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn ---------------------------------Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel ----------------------------Liberia
Duvalier, Francois --------------------------------Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude-----------------------------Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King ---------------------Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco -----------------------Spain
Hitler, Adolf ---------------------------------------Germany
Hussan II-------------------------------------------Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand -------------------------------Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez ---El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko -------------------------------Zaire
Noriega, General Manuel ------------------------Panama
Ozal, Turgut --------------------------------------Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza ---------------Iran
Papadopoulos, George --------------------------Greece
Park Chung Hee ---------------------------------South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto ---------------------Chile
Pol Pot---------------------------------------------Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni ------------------------Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios ---------------------Guatemala
Salassie, Halie ------------------------------------Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira --------------------Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. --------------------------Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. -------------------------Nicaragua
Smith, Ian ----------------------------------------Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo -----------------------------Paraguay
Suharto, General ---------------------------------Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas -----------------------Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael ------------------Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed ----------------------Pakistan
Funky Donny
Ian
The US Government spend that money to protect their people. No one will
attack the US.
And who helped the Kosovans? It may not have been a 100% succesful mission,
but is Milosovic not a facist. The type you wish to eliminate for
society.........
Funky Donny <e...@billhicksrules.net> wrote in message
news:T8qkwCAb...@heavymetal.demon.co.uk...
>
> (are you ready for this one?)
>
> Military............................................$308.5 BILLION
>
> (pause to let it sink in...)
>
> THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHT FUCKING BILLION BUCKS FOR
> WEAPONS...??????????????????????????????????
>
Funky Donny
>To ensure peace you must prepare for war.
Ridiculous. Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, MOST of the countries in the
world have no enemies. They have peace. They have no preparations for war
either.
Ian - with respect, avoid using clichés to do your thinking for you, and
instead of parroting what the press tell you to think, look around the world in
which you live!
This is precisely why the right is called 'reactionary' - because they use
reaction rather than reason.
Think about what you say - and if you enlist your power of critical thought,
you will try to disprove theories as well as prove them.
>
>The US Government spend that money to protect their people. No one will
>attack the US.
No one WOULD attack the US if the defence budget was 50 billion, six
times less than it is today. Look at the next biggest defence budget after the
US - Russia which spends 50 billion dollars. The UK spends 40! Who is the
threat?
And if the US spends so much money to protect the people, then they must
really care about Americans. But this doesn't add up - if the US State loves
the people SO much that they are willing to spend 300 billion every year to
defend them, then why don't they defend the health of the fifth who can't
afford any health care? Why don't they defend those who can't nourish
themselves? Why don't they defend the homeless?
Why do they spend billions on a Stealth Bomber, but ignore school lunches
for the poor?
You tell me Ian - because this is a fatal flaw in your argument. The US
politician has FAR more in common with someone like Milosevic than a poor
Joe from Flint, Michigan.
>
>And who helped the Kosovans?
WHAT? Help? You call high level carpet bombing HELP? You call a low
intensity nuclear war HELP? You know they use depleted uranium there don't
you?
You really bought the press lies hook line and sinker! Do you believe
EVERYthing you read in the tabloids, Ian?
Here is the story they didn't print, and therefore you didn't read.
Firstly - in the year prior to the NATO onslaught, there were 2000 people
killed in Yugoslavia. A tragedy - but hardly the 'mass exterminations'
assumed by Jamie Shea, the NATO press officer who was the chief
propagandist for NATO's debacle. The illegal occupation force has yet to
uncover evidence of even ONE mass grave.
By comparison, Yugoslavia was as bloody as, say, Atlanta. And was there an
aerial bombardment of Atlanta? Nope!
And if you look at the body count, there were at least as many people killed
by the KLA as by the Serbian paramilitaries. (And in fact, the KLA were a
front for the CIA anyway)...
Secondly, three times as many civilians were killed by NATO bombs as by
the Serbs. And far more Kosovans are dying each day today than were ever
being killed by paramilitaries on either side by tens of thousands of NATO
mines and unexploded cluster bombs, which litter the country (which are
themselves totally against international law, as a weapon of indiscriminate
lethal effect).
Thirdly, was the US ethnic cleansing of 400,000 Serbs in conjunction with
the Croat paramilitaries in 1994 also a 'humanitarian involvement'? Where
were the USA's cries of 'bomb them' then? The largest act of ethnic cleansing
Yugoslavia has ever seen was perpetrated by the USA!!!!!
Fourthly - this is the phrase our media used every day of the 'conflict' - say
this phrase to yourself until you understand it: 'humanitarian bombing'. Now
can you tell me how you bomb a country in a humanitarian way?
Hey, George Orwell, come here and explain this to Ian...
How did the USA help the Kosovans? By dropping Depleted Uranium
bombs on them - to the effect that the area is poisoned for decades now.
There are already hundreds of birth defects being reported as a result of this
nuclear bombing. Is that humanitarian?
And of course, you are being very selective in your memory - just to remind
you that Clinton, Blair, Albright, Cook, Robertson et al, have ALL been
indicted by the Greek government, and are in the process of being indicted
by the International Court of Justice as WAR CRIMINALS, for waging an
act of war, and for crimes against humanity.
> It may not have been a 100% succesful mission,
Yes it was, if you look at WHY NATO got involved, rather than the
'humanitarian' reasons claimed by our weasel rulers - because their goal was
to make the place safe for people like Wal Mart.
In Texas recently, I spoke to many US servicemen who were in Kosovo,
who said they were ordered to exterminate civilians, as a matter of course
and routine. This was confirmed when I spoke to returning UK servicemen.
The American GIs I spoke to said when they returned that they couldn't get
out of the army quick enough, because it was abundantly clear that they were
there on behalf of the western corporations, and they didn't want to kill
people on behalf of McDonalds.
>but is Milosovic not a facist.
Is he? What is your definition of a fascist? I am not standing up for Milosevic
here, because I don't like the guy, but I want you to tell me which specific
policies he implemented which are fascist - or are you just taking what the
press said about him on trust? I can tell you why I think he is a rotten leader.
Can you tell me why you think he is a fascist?
In any event, I don't actually care because I know the people of Yugoslavia
are PEOPLE, who bleed, and feel, and love their wives, husbands and
children.
Like us, they scream when they burn, and they were burned - massacred - by
Clinton's and Blair's bombs, in defiance of the Geneva Convention, and in
defiance of International Law.
If you think the wholesale massacre of civilians is acceptable, then stay a
Tory, but personally, I find it abhorrent.
And if you want to repeat what the papers say, you are welcome to do that,
but I will shoot your arguments down, using evidence, and data, faster than
you can copy them word for word out of the Sun.
>The type you wish to eliminate for
>society.........
Milosevic is a thug. But this does in no way detract from the fact that Clinton
and Blair, and their cronies, are murderers. And even if Milosevic IS the 'New
Hitler', does that mean the people who live in Yugoslavia should be burned to
death with NATO's fire?
Don't forget that since the US Military 'helped' the Iraqi people who were
suffering under their 'New Hitler' back in 1991, by unleashing total
destruction of the civilian infrastructure of the country, over one and a half
million people have died as a direct result. That is a quarter of a holocaust -
against civilians, by a military which was purported to be HELPING them.
Here are the words of the US Secretary of state when asked if the deaths of
half a million children were an acceptable price to pay:
"Yes. I think it is worth it".
So - how do YOU help your friends?
Funky Donny
Ian
I have to admit it, you are much more 'well read' than me and I can't
compete. The 'prepare for war to ensure peace' cliche IS something I read
(not in the Daily Mail - my choice of tabloid - though, I hasten to add) and
I thought it made sense, hence the quoting of it. I'm not the only one
quoting though. Where do all your figures come from?
What I DO know though is that in a lot of our recent discussions, many of
the arguments come to down to our individual trails of thought and political
beliefs.
I admit to being a capitalist (not to the point of making of making money
from selling Live CD's though - even capitalism has its place :)) and a
Conservative. Maggie Thatcher is the best thing that ever happened to this
country. Its the way i've been brought up and its the system I believe is
the right way. I own two houses (that I worked hard to pay for I might add),
a nice car and I have a secure job that pays me well. I know I have done
enough already (at the age of 26) to provide ME with a comfortable
retirement. (as my grandad, who lives rent free in one of my houses, is
having now that he has no rent to worry about).
Its not everybodys preferred 'life route', but it is mine.
On the other hand, your political beliefs are exactly the opposite. You are
what I call a 'lefty'. Its what you believe in and no one can take that away
from you. Its your right to hold your own views and I respect you for your
conviction in them.
Because of this differential, we are never ever going to agree on many of
the matters raised and for us both to continue making our points at,
effectively, brick walls is totally pointless. We will never agree.
Respect to you though.
Ian
Funky Donny <e...@billhicksrules.net> wrote in message
news:2U2t6RAr...@heavymetal.demon.co.uk...
blinkbo...@yahoo.co.uk
> >Has Slipknot ever spoke out about their feelings on other races?
Well, lets face it, even if they arent they wouldnt shout about it
would they?!
To go back to a point raised by the nazi fuck head guy tho, I do think
the fact that words like "blackboard" have to be changed
to "chalkboard" you know.......dont you think in that instance its
becoming pedantic......that aint gonna stop racism really is it?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Captain Misfit
>are you plagiarising?
That's an excellent cop-out. Can't keep up, can you?
>Do you honestly think that poverty has nothing to do with crime?
No one is stopping them from getting off of welfare, getting real jobs, and
making honest money.
>It ain't a race thing, it's
>a survival thing.
So you're trying to rationalize crime being necessary? Anarchy isn't exactly
an acceptable alternative to societies candy coated debauchery.
>And of course, the VAST majority of this
>type of crime is perpetrated by - you got it - WHITE people.
And how much of that is violent crime?
>200 billion lost through white collar crime.
I don't give a fuck about corporate dollars. What about people getting robbed,
raped, and shot because someone needed money to buy crack.
>white people are
>racially VERY much greedier. Is that a fact?
No. We have a higher standard of living. We want money to buy cars, boats,
audio equipment, etc... They need to buy crack.
>Does that fit into your race-hate theories?
Again, you are resorting to blunt overstatements to prove your point. This
argument is going nowhere.
>NOW please go and play with your hair.
>
That was intelligent.
The Cokewhore,
~ Captain Misfit ~
I'm a Nazi.
Attle155
NOT......HEAR ME NOW AND UNDERSTAND ME LATER....
Funky Donny
writes
>Hey Eddie,
>
>I have to admit it, you are much more 'well read' than me and I can't
>compete. The 'prepare for war to ensure peace' cliche IS something I read
>(not in the Daily Mail - my choice of tabloid - though, I hasten to add) and
>I thought it made sense, hence the quoting of it. I'm not the only one
>quoting though. Where do all your figures come from?
A variety of sources. From the government itself. From Hansard. C-Span in
the US is a good source, as are newspapers and magazines such as New
Internationalist, The Nation, Z, and a whole bunch more from the left, and I
get some comedy from Rush Limbaugh, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, you know, the usual shit.
I also make sure I get feeds from Amnesty, from FAIR, and from a number
of other sources, just to balance my reading out, and make sure I am not
being over partisan.
And when I find something which damns a politico thoroughly, I look for
their words too, and usually, I am, backed up.
Now you said something curious: You said you can't 'compete' with me.
What the fuck are you on about?
This isn't some contest about being right - I am NOT interested in being right
- if you show your views to be BETTER for SOCIETY then I shall concede,
and you will be right - because your plan will be shown to be better than the
plan of those who give a fuck about people before profits. This is not about
who looks the best in some futile and pointless intellectual sparring match -
don't insult me by thinking you are playing some kind of 'who's the brightest
lad' game here, I am not arguing for the sake of argument. This isn't about
WHO is right, it is about what IS right. And I have no beliefs. I have a
working knowledge of history, and I back up every view I have with facts
and information which you can - and should - check out. I have no beliefs.
Beliefs are things you hold to be true without proof - now you tell me which
points raised I haven't yet proven? See? No beliefs. The beliefs are YOURS.
Here are some of the things you believe: You are a racist, ('proud' of being
white, with a dour view of the 'black mindset') and you are class conscious
to a fault. You believe Thatcher is the best thing to ever happen to this
country - why do you believe this?
Let's give you some facts you probably don't have - I say probably, because
if you DID have these facts, she wouldn't be your heroine any more unless
you were a right evil bastard, and I know you ain't evil. Just misled by the
press, and just trained to justify your wealth. Here are some of her words and
policies for you to REALLY see how right your object of desire is -
Here is Thatcher's education policy from her earliest days in power:
1979:
"We cannot afford to have an educated, idle population..." (they knew of
course that with their total embrace of Milton Friedman's economics, they
were going to be creating a huge army of unemployed people!) "...therefore,
the thrust of education must be to teach people
their place."
Now do you really have any idea what Thatcher actually did for this country
(or for other countries) or are you blindly accepting the Yuppie myth of the
80's here? Since of course, you weren't actually of voting age when she was
in power.
Here is something I want you to look at, maybe you will change your
alliegences...
On 6th October last year, Ex-Prime Minister Lady Thatcher attended a dinner
where she gave a speech about her good friend and frequent dinner guest, the
war criminal, murderer, devastator of Chile, and all round torturer, the
Dictator Augusto Pinochet, to assembled Tory dignitaries, and over 100
specially invited members of the Chilean elite.
She told how Britain's "true friend", Pinochet, was there for us during our
'hour of need', in 1982, when we were faced by the big bully of Argentina!
Those of us who were watching the news back in 1982 can remember very
well that this was far from being Britain's "hour of need", the Argentinean
forces were actually mostly teenage conscripts, and our professional armed
forces routed and destroyed them within a matter of weeks.
Thatcher went on to say that the trial he was facing for crimes against
humanity was a 'leftist conspiracy', which was actually in contradiction of all
the evidence, and her comments were actually also in contravention of the
law!!!
She also said that the hounding of Pinochet was "cruel and unjust", and his
arrest for crimes against humanity amounted to an 'extrajudicial kidnap'.
According to Thatcher, Pinochet was Britain's only "political prisoner". She
then expressed "deep shame at his treatment", and said that it brought "great
dishonour upon Britain", and those responsible should be "publicly shamed
and brought to account".
We must not forget that as soon as Pinochet was installed as the Dictator of
Chile, he murdered ove3r thirty thousand people, within the first few months.
And lest we forget this also - his troops and torturers were bought and paid
for by the US and the UK, and his torturers trained by our forces.
Now, I am not 'being right' here. These are undisputed facts. That'w why
PInochet was sent back to Chile because of medical technicalities, and not
on a successful defence of the charges brought against him (by no less than
four separate countries)... And this brutal, obscene, murdering, torturing
dictator was one of Thatcher's best friends?
Of course, this is not an uncommon thing - I have long list of other friends of
hers, who just HAPPEN to be ruthless fascistic cidtators who imposed a
reign of terror on their people so the West could gain economically from the
repression of cheap labour in other countries...
Well we know people by the company they keep don't we?
I suggest that you stop regarding this as some kind of clever-clever
intellectual one-upmanship, and maybe if you DO read around the issues, you
will find that you aren't 'competing' with me any more. When you read stuff,
you are getting more data, more info, more proof. This is an antidote to
belief. You have beliefs, and so I say read, and this will act to either turn your
beliefs into knowledge, or it will disabuse you of your beliefs, and you will
see the real deal instead of the one you have been propagandised into
believing.
The former head of the CIA once said 'education makes people more
socialistic, and more anarchistic'. He then destroyed the mobile library
system in the US, because education got people to see the reality of what the
state actually does...
Empower yourself Ian - information is power, so get some. Not so you can
beat people in debates - that is just juvenile. But get some knowledge into you
so you personally are enhanced, and so your curiosity is stimulated. Then it
won't be all about who is right, it will be about what is right.
But you know what? You know what is right. But - BUT - There is a point at
which people stop caring - that point is at precisely the mark where the
necessity of paying your mortgage outstrips the necessity of listening to your
conscience.
Some people already know what is right, but they have it all justified out so
they never have to acknowledge the truth, because to actually say 'yes, that is
true' would cost them MONEY...
And that, Ian, is the exact point at which someone has sold out.
Funky Donny
Ian
> Now you said something curious: You said you can't 'compete' with me.
> What the fuck are you on about?
You misunderstand my use of the word compete. I did not mean compete in the
manner of competing *against* you to win an argument. I meant 'compete' as
in I can't compete with you in terms of my volume of reading. I wish I had
the time, but I don't. When I capitalise on my opportunities in the free
market and reap my rewards to take an early retirement (complete with
Company pension) then, hopefully, I will be able to read. Who knows, maybe I
will see the error of my ways.
> Here are some of the things you believe: You are a racist, ('proud' of
being
> white, with a dour view of the 'black mindset')
You are mistaking me with captain misfit. I am not a racist, I believe in
equality in *opportunity*. Its just that I do not feel this includes the
scourge of so called positive discrimination. If I were given special rights
as a minority, I would be offended by them special rights. I believe that
the young black ghetto kid should have the same opportunity as a white
middle class suburb kid to go to University and make something of himself. I
do not believe he should go there just to satisfy a government quota.
>and you are class conscious to a fault.
Maybe so, but not to the point of discrimination.
> You believe Thatcher is the best thing to ever happen to this country -
why do you believe this?
Again, this takes onto political beliefs which differ at some point in all
people.
From my capitalist viewpoint, Maggie was the saviour. She cleared beurocracy
out of the utilities by privatising them (Cost's to the public reduced in
real terms since privatisation), and she reduced the tax burden on companies
to enable them to thrive, laying the foundations for the period of economic
stability that we currently enjoy.
If it wasn't for the spongers, that stability would be even greater. For
instance, how many girls have babies JUST to get a free council house. Why
should I pay for a little tart who can't keep her legs shut and her 5 kids,
all by different fathers, to live? My Conservative view, I daresay yours is
different. Personally, I'd rather that money were spent on hospitals.
Tell me, whats your opinion of tax incentives to encourage the provision of
private healthcare?
Ian
John Savory
"Ian" <stit...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8jqq79$soj$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
>
> If it wasn't for the spongers, that stability would be even greater. For
> instance, how many girls have babies JUST to get a free council house. Why
> should I pay for a little tart who can't keep her legs shut and her 5
kids,
> all by different fathers, to live? My Conservative view, I daresay yours
is
> different. Personally, I'd rather that money were spent on hospitals.
Sorry Ian, but that's a little bit too 'red neck' for my liking!
Whilst Funky Moped is prone to spout a bit and overawe everyone with 'facts'
(bloody hell he can read and remember the words - he'll be singing songs
next:-))
Whilst I am sure there are some 'tarts' abusing the benefits system, this
doesn't really impact on you at all! Just how much of your taxes goes
towards this 'cause'? Probably a fraction of what it has cost to establish
a European Parliament, Scottish and Welsh Assemblies etc. etc. You
probably spend more on the lottery than to some poorly educated, abused bit
of totty who gets some pathetic hand-out, rather than taking her place in
life - oh, but she's not actually qualified for anything so maybe you would
prefer to see her in some government run brothel?
Sure we would all prefer more money to be spent on hospitals and other
'good' stuff, but the government is trying desperately trying to off-load
the 'welfare' burden to spend money on............more wallpaper, your
honour? Trouble is that just like the dome we tax payers will still be
propping up private health schemes for many years to come.
We can't win - but we knew that anyway!
John
Ian
John Savory <jsa...@alden.co.uk> wrote in message
news:962699393.26476.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> Whilst I am sure there are some 'tarts' abusing the benefits system, this
> doesn't really impact on you at all! Just how much of your taxes goes
> towards this 'cause'? Probably a fraction of what it has cost to
establish
> a European Parliament, Scottish and Welsh Assemblies etc. etc.
I merely chose this 'spongers department' as an example. I could mention the
fit and well who sit at home watching television all day rather than search
for a job, I could mention the above waste of money and I could also mention
*economic* immigrants, those who are here purely for our abused benefits
system.
Why is it that in this country that we fall over ourselves to provide for
the spongers and irresponsible (not to mention the hideous compensation
being paid for 'hurt feelings' - GET A GRIP), yet we are unable to afford to
give our pensioners what they have paid for all their lives. That is, a
decent pension. After all, they kept our country free..............
My job is in an insurance company working in the department that administers
company pension schemes making sure our computers do all the calculations
that they should do and within National & European (I could start another
thread with europe) law. If we treated our pensioners the way the government
does (i.e. not giving them what they have paid for) we would be shut down by
the relevant governing bodies.
>Trouble is that just like the dome we tax payers ........
With regard to the dome (and awaiting flames) if that had not been put down
so much by the media, the money that it would have generated would have far
outweighed its cost. There has been jobs created (there would have been
more) and there is the tourism it attracts (all those japanese snapping away
at it), which in turn creates jobs.
All these jobs earn people a wage in which they have to pay tax. The
negative British media ruined what should have been an outstanding success.
Ian
Funky Donny
>I merely chose this 'spongers department' as an example. I could mention the
>fit and well who sit at home watching television all day rather than search
>for a job, I could mention the above waste of money and I could also mention
>*economic* immigrants, those who are here purely for our abused benefits
>system.
Now I KNOW you are a troll.
Since you obediently import, and then repeat, every opinion you have
wholesale from the Daily Mail, you either have to be such a foolish, gullible
dupe that you would believe them if they said Hitler was a right good lad
(which of course they DID back in the mid 30's); OR you have to be a troll.
I think you are too bright to believe the Mail's calumny and propaganda. This
means you are trolling us all with these neo-fascist ramblings.
Stop wasting our time with your little troll jokes.
>
Funky Donny
Ian
I am neither a facist nor a troll and I resent you referring to me as such.
I agree that there are deserving immigrants that come here to work and
contribute to our society, but please do not try to deny that there are also
those that come here to take advantage. There are two sides to every coin (I
hope thats not TOO much of a cliche) and I look at both of them. Perhaps you
should try flipping it too.
Ian
Funky Donny <e...@billhicksrules.net> wrote in message
news:dTJXLCAu...@heavymetal.demon.co.uk...
>
> Now I KNOW you are a troll.
>
Captain Misfit
I'm both, and I resent being left out.
>I agree that there are deserving immigrants that come here to work and
>contribute to our society
Lol. Funky was right, you are gullible. You honestly think that there was
ever some Mexican sitting at the border saying to himself "Heey, I looove
Mehico, but I'd really like to cross the border so I can contribute to the
American society." Come the fuck on. They come here because they are lazy
oppurtunists that will take advantage of a system that sucks. Not unlike the
ghetto vermin that won't lift a finger to get a job and stop leeching off of
welfare. Our supporting social parasites is why this country is the crumbling
piece of shit that it is.
I'm a Nazi.
The Cokewhore,
Captain Misfit.
Ask not what the Funbags can do for you...
ask what you can do for the Funbags.
Funky Donny
writes
>Eddie,
>
>I am neither a facist nor a troll and I resent you referring to me as such.
Well then don't troll me then with directly plagiarised Daily Mail rightist shite,
designed to do nothing for the progression of intelligent debate, and indeed
all it will do is inflame people who think equality is actually a good thing. By
repeating a memorised tabloid propaganda opinion wholesale, you are
actually trolling whether you like it or not.
And when you come out with fascistic (and plagiarised) opinions like 'tarts
getting pregnant for council flats', then I call what I see - neo-fascism.
It is quite simple - if you resent being called a duck, you have to stop
quacking.
Funky Donny
John Savory
"Funky Donny" <e...@billhicksrules.net> wrote in message > It is quite
simple - if you resent being called a duck, you have to stop
> quacking.
>
> Funky Donny
Woof!
J
Ian
Funky Donny <e...@billhicksrules.net> wrote in message
> Well then don't troll me then with directly plagiarised Daily Mail
rightist shite,
> designed to do nothing for the progression of intelligent debate, and
indeed
> all it will do is inflame people who think equality is actually a good
thing. By
> repeating a memorised tabloid propaganda opinion wholesale, you are
> actually trolling whether you like it or not.
I'm repeating MY opinion. Perhaps my reason for reading The Mail is because
it represents my views.
> And when you come out with fascistic (and plagiarised) opinions like
'tarts
> getting pregnant for council flats', then I call what I see - neo-fascism.
If thats neo-fascism then I think you'll find a majority of this country are
neo-fascists.
I sit on the middle right. To quote Phoney Blair I am 'Sierra Man'. I
believe that my family and I come first in my list of priorities and that
doesn't make me a fascist.
You, on the other hand, are sitting on the very far left. YOU are the
extremist. The opposite end of the political spectrum to Captain Misfit who
seems to sit on the very far right. None the less, you have common ground in
your extremism.
And BTW, congrats on your 5K Kerrang rating for TLW!!
Ian
Funky Donny
>rightist shite,
>> designed to do nothing for the progression of intelligent debate, and
>indeed
>> all it will do is inflame people who think equality is actually a good
>thing. By
>> repeating a memorised tabloid propaganda opinion wholesale, you are
>> actually trolling whether you like it or not.
>
>I'm repeating MY opinion. Perhaps my reason for reading The Mail is because
>it represents my views.
Hmm. Life imitating art or is it vice versa... did they propagandise you, or do
they copy your theories on life. Man, it's just so hard to tell, but it could just
be coincidence that your 'views' on society are views which are enshrined in
the realms of the learned response... You didn't come up with the 'teenage
tart getting pregnant to get a council flat'. You nicked that line - so you can't
tell me the Mail 'agrees' with your reasoned viewpoint, because it is evident
that you didn't develop your views yourself...
Which first? Chicken or egg? Daily Mail or Ian's mindset? Well, it ain't hard
to tell, do the maths: The mail has been doing stuff like decrying fictitious
teenage tarts who 'get pregnant to get a council flat' since before you were
born! So I vote the MAIL gave you your views, along with your folks, your
school, and the mass media. You just failed to question the truth in the
hackneyed, tired old stereotypes you were sold. And still you stick by them.
>
>> And when you come out with fascistic (and plagiarised) opinions like
>'tarts
>> getting pregnant for council flats', then I call what I see - neo-fascism.
>
>If thats neo-fascism then I think you'll find a majority of this country are
>neo-fascists.
Nope - the majority of this country are not shouting about teenage tarts
getting pregnant for council flats. Your mates maybe, but mine, no. And I
talk to a LOT of people, as you can appreciate, and so I believe my finger to
be pretty much on the pulse. They are not upset by so-called 'welfare
spongers', but they ARE offended by 40 billion quid going to the military, to
blow up little brown people. They are VERY pissed off at the state building
white elephants to the glory of the government when millions go hungry.
They are not blaming the poor. You are in the minority.
Think about where the majority of your tax goes - not to welfare, not to
health care, but to increases in paramilitary policing, to the military, and to
corporate subsidies. Look at the rich-poor divide, bigger now than ever
before, as a direct result of Thatcherism, which is so well applied by Blair
today - yes, still the income gap widens, and it accelerates under Blair. You
are paying far more for fat cat salaries than for piddling welfare payments.
Most people are actually more upset by unnecessary nukes being bought
(over 85% of people in the UK don't want them; but the government does.
Wha? Democracy anyone?), and paying directly for arms for the genocidal
Indonesian army than for some recovery program for a smack addict - and
you will find that most people WANT recovery programs for junkies in
place.
What kind of extremist prefers school lunches for poor children than buying
guns for right wing paramilitaries? Thatcher sent the SAS to train Pol Pot's
Khmer Rouge, who killed two million; and I just want the poor fed. Who is
an extremist Ian?
If the welfare system is so open to abuse, then how come it isn't being
abused by the 1 million homeless people in this 'economically stable' (as you
put it) country? How come they can't get provision for housing?
Why is it that the DSS fraud department costs ten times more to administer
than the amount it recovers? Where is your money really being spent? Who is
the real extremist here? Me? Or the centre-right?
>
>I sit on the middle right. To quote Phoney Blair
Who is considered to be, funnily enough, 'centre right' - so what's going on
when you call a bed-fellow a phoney?
> I am 'Sierra Man'. I
>believe that my family and I come first in my list of priorities and that
>doesn't make me a fascist.
No that doesn't make you a fascist, you are quite right. It is perfectly natural
to want the best for you and yours. But this is not what I am talking about.
How can demonising a teenage girl living in poverty be protecting you and
your family? How is attacking the poor wanting the best for you and your
folks? Of course it isn't.
I want the best for myself and my family too, and I want the best for
everyone else too. We can achieve this without the necessity of fucking
anyone else over to do it. That is what separates the right from the left.
Machiavelli is the deity of the right - the end justifies the means. Those with a
social conscience are commonly referred to as the left.
A notable clergyman once said 'When I feed the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask WHY the poor are hungry, they call me a communist'.
Fascists traditionally scapegoat the underclass, who have been forced into
poverty by the greed and rapaciousness of the elite. Check out some
history...
When we attack single parents, and those on welfare, we are flying VERY
close to fascistic social ideology. If you actually look at Hitler's economic
policies, you will see this theme repeated again and again. Because he spoke
in German, we find it difficult to draw parallels, but I have translations of
many of them, and he sounds very centre right...
Hitler's ideals are what today we would call 'third way' politics - or the
politics of Clinton or Blair - 'centre right' in today's parlance, or 'far right' in
the parlance of the 1940's. Just look at Robertson's defence policies. Look at
Straw's Immigration and Asylum Bill. Look at the new Anti-Terrorism Bill.
Our freedoms are being eroded faster than you can enumerate them, and they
are being eradicated with carbon copies of Third Reich economic and social
legislation, to a greater or lesser degree.
Now look at the standpoints of the Mail. Hitler's was the party of private
enterprise. The Mail is the paper of private enterprise.
Fascism isn't about wearing swastikas and walking with no knee movement.
Look at what makes a fascist state fascistic. Here are some of the criteria of
fascism: the worship of capital - the bending over backwards to subsidise
and court corporate elites, the demonisation of immigrants (look at the Mail's
recent attacks on refugees from countries our forces bombed!), a rabid and
unwarranted emphasis on 'law and order', fierce nationalism, militaristic
fervour and the desire for 'defence' despite there being no perceivable
attacker, the glorification of warfare and victory, the persecution of the under
classes, the hounding of those guilty of victimless crimes.
All of these are standpoints taken by the Mail, and the other right wing
newpapers in this country, which is, well, nearly ALL of them!
>
>You, on the other hand, are sitting on the very far left.
No, I am staying in the same place as I always was, which is on the side of
democracy and equality. That is not 'far left' - it is only perceived as far left
because all the politicians in our countries have sprinted to the far right over
the last two decades. I know because I watched them run.
> YOU are the
>extremist.
These days, to be considered 'extreme' is to fight against poverty, to combat
racism, to speak out against police brutality, to protest against the enrichment
of the state at the expense of the poor, to decry warmongering. Those are
what I hate more than anything else.
Lookit, even Greenpeace have jumped on the right wing corporate
bandwagon - they would peg me as an extremist, and I am by comparison to
their current corporate toadying - here is what I am compared to - recently,
Greenpeace banned the publication of a report because it contained a
'subversive' term. Guess what this term was? 'Democracy'.
In a political environment where saying 'democracy' is seen as a loony lefty
outburst, then of course I am an extremist. I want redistribution of wealth,
and I want the state murderers who sell weapons to people like Suharto
brought to book. If that makes me an extremist, then all who want an end to
poverty and violence are pretty extreme.
Personally I see this as being an equalitarian, and anyone who ISN'T an
equalitarian is extreme.
> The opposite end of the political spectrum to Captain Misfit who
>seems to sit on the very far right. None the less, you have common ground in
>your extremism.
Nonsense. He is a bigot, and I am an equalitarian. No common ground
except for your shaky definitions. I have a reasoned standpoint, he is a knee-
jerk reactionary. I would like to see a true democracy, which is defined as a
system in which we ALL have an equal say on the individual issues and
policies which affect our lives. Until that is a fact, we have no democracy.
What is it about democracy that is offensive and extremist?
Never forget that two parties is only one more than one. And two parties with
identical policies is no democracy at all. That doesn't make me an extremist.
It makes me observant.
>
>And BTW, congrats on your 5K Kerrang rating for TLW!!
Yeah - a bit good that weren't it! Cheers Ian! Mind you, the pit went off big
time, and so it isn't hard to put your back into it when you see that
happening...
Mwahahaha!
Respect!
Ed
Funky Donny
Ian
hard
> to tell, do the maths: The mail has been doing stuff like decrying
fictitious
> teenage tarts who 'get pregnant to get a council flat' since before you
were
> born! So I vote the MAIL gave you your views, along with your folks, your
> school, and the mass media. You just failed to question the truth in the
> hackneyed, tired old stereotypes you were sold. And still you stick by
them.
I had my views before I started reading the Daily Mail (at about 14 yrs
old). The Mail may have been publishing them prior to me reading it, in fact
its almost certain that they were. My point was that I read the mail cos it
shares my views.
Not all of them, I hasten to add. I don't see why a politician should deem
me a criminal for smoking a reefer, taking a trip or doing a bag of billy,
although I think coke, heroin and crack et al (the harder stuff) should be
regulated properly. How? Good question! Perhaps de-criminalisation, but not
legalisation is the answer
> >I sit on the middle right. To quote Phoney Blair
>
> Who is considered to be, funnily enough, 'centre right' - so what's going
on
> when you call a bed-fellow a phoney?
No no NO!! <in distress>! I'm not a bed fellow of that chameleon.
All the rest really comes into what I said last week sometime. political
views. I am not going to agree with you and you ain't with me. Not worth
further discussion.
> Yeah - a bit good that weren't it! Cheers Ian! Mind you, the pit went off
big
> time, and so it isn't hard to put your back into it when you see that
> happening...
Sureley not as mad as Portsmouth when you supported Slipknot? Crazy pit!
Glad us 'oldies' (Me - 26 and mate Dave -31) were up in the balcony. A few
years ago maybe, but football has destroyed my right ankle (so why do I
still play?), it would have been murder........ and I had a game the next
day!
Ian
Captain Misfit
>system in which we ALL have an equal say on the individual issues and
>policies which affect our lives.
Who's definition is that? Is that the definition of the people who created the
foundation of this country? The white males that constructed our government,
society, civilization, and democracy itself? Do you think they had their
slaves in mind when they formulated the ideals of "true" democracy. I'm not
the bigot you make me out to be. I've jumped on an extremist angle because you
wanted me to be there. I simply said I was proud to be white and that I
support my race. Never did I say anything about blacks until you gave me a
reason to start thinking about why I feel they are inferior in a white society.
That's what you have to realize: This always was and will always be a white
society. America is white. I'm not saying that to sound like an ass, and I'm
not even supporting it, I'm just stating the obvious. The way I look at it is
if they want to be integrated, they need to stop bitching. Get jobs. They
have the upper hand with affirmative action. It's easier for them to get the
same job as an equally qualified white man. So why don't they take advantage
of that instead of taking advantage of public aid? And if they don't like it
here they can pack their shit and ship off to a huge continent where they will
be accepted, and allowed to live in the barbaric manner they seem to enjoy.
shawda...@gmail.com
> Has Slipknot ever spoke out about their feelings on other races?
who is the one slipknot member that has aids????????????????