Let's Fight Microsoft

[Laukev7]

For that matter, we probably did sound 'radical' to the businesspeople who read the Forbes article that classified Microsuck in a list of 'corporate hate sites'.

BTW, welcome to Microsuck! I fully support your campaign against the Bush regime. And socialism doesn't sound radical to me either! :thumbup:

[DavidB]

I think the death penalty should have no place in any modern civilized country.

The United States isn't a modern civilized country.

[piratePenguin]

That's a gray area. I agree with you to a point. That is, I'm well aware that my ideas and means of expressing them appear "radical" to many people. But let's define radical.

In common usage, I believe it has two meanings:

1) Weird or bizarre.

2) Anything outside the norm.

It's certainly not my intent to appear weird or bizarre. On the contrary, I go out of my way to embrace logic and ethics. But consider the second definition. Imagine an indvidual who preaches brotherly love and world peace. Would he be considered radical?

If he lived in Nazi Germany, the answer would be YES, because peace and goodwill were not the norm in Adolph Hitler's Germany.

I find myself in a simliar predicament. There's nothing more stupid than the average U.S. citizen, whose brain has been pulverized by a lifetime of the most sophisticated propaganda in world history, sensory overload (video games, a complex society, etc.) and terminal apathy.

I'm fascinated by the "socialism" - in the broadest sense of the word. But if I inserted the word "socialism" in a campaign statement, I'd instantly be branded a radical, even here in liberal Seattle. The problem is that Americans have been brainwashed into believing that socialism is - well, radical. They've been brainwashed into believing that anyone who wants to hold corrupt corporations (e.g. Microsoft) accountable is a socialist - in the strictest sense of the word.

In summary, I really don't know how to communicate to the sheeple, and I don't apologize for not knowing how. If you know of anyone who's doing a better job, please let me know.

But I'm certainly not going to practice business as usual and talk about the usual one or two insipid issues while kissing babies and praising voters for their intelligence when they're really dumber than ashtrays.

In some respects, I run futuristic campaigns. My statements may appear radical now, but I think they'll sound more sensible as more and more people get screwed by corporate America. I also know that things will never change until the general public changes its attitude. Voting as usual will only continue business as usual.

Still, the image of George Bush and the swastika is a bit silly because, well, America and Nazi Germany are not even similar. You could keep it if you believed that they are similar however, and stood by that.

I have no problem with the one of the twin-towers and Bush laughing, at least it makes sense.

[DavidB]

For that matter, we probably did sound 'radical' to the businesspeople who read the Forbes article that classified Microsuck in a list of 'corporate hate sites'.

BTW, welcome to Microsuck! I fully support your campaign against the Bush regime. And socialism doesn't sound radical to me either! :thumbup:

Exactly. Many people would consider a name like "Microsuck" childish at best.

Again, this is a gray area; name calling can be both good or bad. On the negative side, it can make the name caller look bad. But, on the positive side, it can also slime the target - and if your target is corrupt, go for it?

Frankly, what weapons do we have besides words? Moreover, I've never been able to figure out why we should stop name calling when it works so well for Republicans. They're the masters of combat politics, and I think it's stupid to not give them a taste of their own medicine.

However, I think name calling should generally be accurate. I make certain that my target is corrupt before I start slinging mud, and I don't call them any specific names that aren't accurate. For example, I'd be reluctant to call Bill Gates a racist because I don't know if he is or not (though he appears to exploit racism).

Of course, words like "pig" and "media whore" can't always be categorized as accurate or not; they're just simple names that can be applied to just about anyone who's corrupt - one size fits all.

[Aloone_Jonez]

The UK isn't either but I think we're more civilized without the death penalty.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Exactly. Many people would consider a name like "Microsuck" childish at best.

Blame our pussy webmaster - this place used to be called FuckMicorsoft.com

[DavidB]

Still, the image of George Bush and the swastika is a bit silly because, well, America and Nazi Germany are not even similar. You could keep it if you believed that they are similar however, and stood by that.

I have no problem with the one of the twin-towers and Bush laughing, at least it makes sense.

There are many similarities between Nazi Germany and the United States. I know - Hitler was elected, he was a good speaker, wasn't into drug abuse, and on and on.

But let's focus on both the leaders and the countries they (mis)lead. Nazi Germany was a fascist dictatorship. The United States' government has become increasingly authoritarian.

The Nazis murdered several million people. Depending on how far back you want to go, our government may have killed a few million people as well. We've certainly killed tens of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our government may not be as overtly racist as Nazi Germany - but Germany was a very homogenous nation. If George Bush started a program to exterminate African Americans, he'd face an unstoppable backlash by Jews, Hispanics, Asian Americans, etc.

Similarly, torture may not be as common in the 21st century U.S. as it was in Nazi Germany. Then again, I don't believe the Germans tortured people in front of ordinary citizens, either. It was generally a private operation. We've probably done more than any other nation since WWII Germany or Japan to promote torture, with other nations copying us.

Nazi Germany had a powerful military and was tyring to make an atomic bomb. We beat them to it - and used thousands of Japanese civilians as guinea pigs. George W. Bush has now started the biggest global arms race in wowrld history, even as the sick bastard plots more wars.

Frankly, I think it's stupid to suggest that we have to equal some score - like 6 million people murdered - before we can be compared to Nazi Germany. Nevertheless, George W. Bush could very well exceed that number. He's got the weapons, and he's proven his willingness to murder children and torture their parents.

Just as Nazi Germany was the greatest evil of that time period, so is the United States presently the greatest evil.

[DavidB]

The UK isn't either but I think we're more civilized without the death penalty.

In general, the death penalty really isn't of major concern to me. I can life with it or without it. My biggest complaint is the corruption that's so pervasive in our legal system; it's scary having the death penalty when there are so many innocent people in prison.

However, I think the death penalty can be appropriate for certain situations. For starters, it's a real shocker - and, let's face it, there are times when people need to be shocked back to reality. Imagine if Americans turned on their TV's one day and saw George W. Bush being strapped into an electric chair. Do you think that might penetrate their incomprehensible stupidity? Do you think they might finally realize that this guy is literally a criminal?

The death penalty also have a lot to do with closure. Saying I don't like the death penalty because it's uncivilized is really very selfish. What about George Bush's greatest victims - the Iraqis? Do they not have a right to justice?

If a vote was taken, I suspect most Iraqis would favor execution as a suitable punishment for Bush's crimes. In fact, if I had the power, I'd simply turn him over to the Iraqis and let them do what they want with him. I'd give them Bill Gates as a bonus, too.

[piratePenguin]

In fact, if I had the power, I'd simply turn him over to the Iraqis and let them do what they want with him. I'd give them Bill Gates as a bonus, too.

DAVIDB FOR PRESIDENT!

[DavidB]

DAVIDB FOR PRESIDENT!

Ha, if I was elected president, I'd trade places with Hugo Chavez. I'd spend my free time chasing beautiful Venezuelan women and let him wrestle with Republicans and Microsoft.

[worker201]

Bush deserves and should receive the death penalty, after the appropriate legal or quasi-legal formalities

Am I the only one who thinks that the phrase "quasi-legal formalities" is ridiculous, especially where the death penalty is concerned.

I'm taking "quasi-legal" to mean "not really legal" or "sorta legal", and "formalities" to mean "something not really necessary, but done only to maintain appearances".

This is, according to Merriam Webster's online dictionary, a classic example of a kangaroo court.  In other words, a mockery of jurisprudence.

[DavidB]

Am I the only one who thinks that the phrase "quasi-legal formalities" is ridiculous, especially where the death penalty is concerned.

I'm taking "quasi-legal" to mean "not really legal" or "sorta legal", and "formalities" to mean "something not really necessary, but done only to maintain appearances".

This is, according to Merriam Webster's online dictionary, a classic example of a kangaroo court. In other words, a mockery of jurisprudence.

It's also an example of "what goes around comes around." I inserted "quasi-legal" as a tongue-in-cheek reference to George Bush's kangaroo military tribunals. Frankly, I think it would be kind of humorous to see him tried in secret by a military tribunal system of his own making and flown to Morocco aboard a secret "torture flight."

But would I really countenance such a sideshow? Well, under certain circumstances, yes.

Did you see the last Star Wars movie? I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, and I didn't think this movie was all that great, but I kind of enjoyed some of the not so subtle references to George Bush and his evil regime.

There was a scene towards the end of the movie where a jedi knight was dueling with the evil emperor. As I recall, the jedi knight gained the upper hand and was arguing with Aniken (sp?) Skywalker, who wanted him to spare the emperor's life and let him stand trial.

The other jedi knight countered that that would be pointless, since the emperor controlled everything - the legislature, the court system, etc.

I thought that was a really chilling scene. It reminded me that George Bush could never get a fair trial because every institution in the U.S. is ultimately run by corporations.

Of course, I'm not going to encourage anyone to revolt against the U.S. government because that might be considered illegal. But if the military did stage a coup and I learned, seven years later, that they spirited George Bush off to some third world nation without the benefit of a trial, I wouldn't shed a tear.

He's obviously guilty of several crimes that each merit the death penalty. And if he gets screwed by the legal system or the military some day, he'll have no one to blame but himself.

[worker201]

You're probably right, that an impeachment trial or a war crimes trial or a criminal trial or even a civil trial would be a joke.  I'm sure they would.  But it is really important that we have them anyway.  Because if consistency is not applied, the legal system falls apart.  What I mean is, that once you try one person in a kangaroo court, then you can try anyone in a kangaroo court.  Once you start down that slippery slope, it's hard to climb out.  And not all cases seem as obvious as this one.  Any procedure that could be used to put an innocent man in jail or to death must be eliminated from our justice system.

[DavidB]

You're probably right, that an impeachment trial or a war crimes trial or a criminal trial or even a civil trial would be a joke. I'm sure they would. But it is really important that we have them anyway. Because if consistency is not applied, the legal system falls apart. What I mean is, that once you try one person in a kangaroo court, then you can try anyone in a kangaroo court. Once you start down that slippery slope, it's hard to climb out. And not all cases seem as obvious as this one. Any procedure that could be used to put an innocent man in jail or to death must be eliminated from our justice system.

If there was a revolution, and I wound up installed as Dictator of the United States, I'd probably keep George Bush's military tribunals and torture centers for a few years. I'd use them against corporate America, THEN reform the system after they'd served their purpose.

Then I'd leave office after allowing the people to elect a new president.

All fantasy, of course, but what a fantasy!

[worker201]

If there was a revolution, and I wound up installed as Dictator of the United States, I'd probably keep George Bush's military tribunals and torture centers for a few years. I'd use them against corporate America, THEN reform the system after they'd served their purpose.

Then I'd leave office after allowing the people to elect a new president.

All fantasy, of course, but what a fantasy!

According to a book I read recently on Fidel Castro, that was his plan too.  Start the revolution, get rid of all the bad guys, and then allow society to return to a somewhat normal state.  But as things progressed, Castro found that he was the only one who could be counted on to do what he thought had to be done.  For starters, the US was pressuring Cuba to have free elections, and having them would have been doing what the US said - something Castro pointedly avoided.  Another president might have bowed to US pressures, and reopened Cuba to exploitation by US corporate interests.  The only way to prevent someone else taking the country in the wrong direction is to make sure there is no one else.

What I'm saying is that you can't just reform the system overnight and then expect it to stay that way after you step down.  Political and social systems have to be installed over time.  Which is why all our bullshit in Iraq is so useless.