Prince_of_Stars wrote:

*Prince's words here*

*big applauds*

However, i understand what satyr says....

I am all PRO-George Washington.... when he said No partys! i hate the two-party system and think its utterly stupid... men should be voted for based on character, not what initial is before their name.


But i could go on for hours...

once again, i don't get too involved.. i get too upset

it didnt submit correctly so i edddididiidididitited it.

Last edited by KissFromARose (03-30-2010 07:53:30 PM)

Prince, I just got out of the army... have you gone through MEPS and the like? id love to talk to you and give you some advice and pointers before you ship out.

I agree with you though, that church is ridiculous. I wouldn't even call it a church.... i wouldn't even call them christians. sad to say. Thanks to those marines and soldiers they have the ability to do and say those things.

DerJakob wrote:

That aside, I'm not sure if any of you keep up on other European politics, (I only do a little because I study German), but in Germany a similar nationalist party has been on the rise. The NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands / National Democratic Party of German) is a far-right nationalist party that actually succeeded the Deutsche Reichspartei (scary stuff srsly), and has been gaining popularity in certain parts of Germany, namely the former East. Being that the German constitution was modeled rather closely after the American in the late 1940s, freedom of speech is a general tenet. Problem is, because of Germany's tumultuous past, there are laws concerning certain types of speech (namely Nazi phrases, gestures, and Holocaust/Shoah denial) that forbid and have criminalized them.The NPD has thus come under a lot of fire for its racist and almost neo-Nazi rhetoric, and because of the laws (and their semi-vague wording) the NPD has been excluded from all sorts of public forums. I don't on any level support the NPD, although I support its legal right to exist considering freedom of speech, however this whole situation is incredibly problematic mostly because of Germany's very unique and horrible history. Thoughts? Feelings?

I lived in Berlin for awhile, so I know what you're talking about. This was a big story, especially when Thor Steinar stores started popping up in trendy parts of Berlin. Thor Steinar is basically a nazi sympathetic brand, which neo-nazis use as a not-so-coded signal that they agree with National Socialism. Since it's illegal to wear a swastika or an ss symbol they wear coded symbols, like "18" (AH are the first and eighth letters of the alphabet) or "88." Everybody knows what it means, but the police can't do anything about it.

I really wonder what the German police are going to do about this. In 2008 there was a raid on some neo-nazi compound and they had weapons, bomb materials, all sorts of scary stuff. I know that Germany has some outreach programs for "at risk" youths. The only problem is a lot of these Neo-Nazis are just really, really dumb. As in, their shoe size is higher than their IQ dumb. They like having a simple black and white solution as to why their life sucks. Some of them are also probably psychopaths, so I don't know how the government is going to deal with that.

Speaking only from anecdotal experience, i.e. reading the paper, talking to people and seeing signs, stickers etc., I know that the anti-fascist movement seemed a lot stronger than the fascist movement; in 18 months I saw a thousand antifa stickers and maybe three swastikas. Doesn't mean they're not there, they're just less visible.

Honestly, I'm more worried about the influx of Muslim immigrants (to Germany and the rest of Europe) than Neo Nazis. Many people believe that, because all the Muslims they personally know are good or okay people, then there's no problem. But that's usually comes from attributing the characteristics of one person or a few people to an entire group, instead of thinking in probabilities. There really is a culture clash between Islam and secular democracy, and this clash exists regardless of how racist Europeans are. Germany should be especially concerned because some Muslims are very anti-semitic, even to the point of murder. And I find it improbable that a majority of Germans will become neo-nazis , whereas the threat of a terrorist attack or a religious war is very real indeed.

Last edited by minervana (04-14-2010 11:46:40 AM)

Asfalolh wrote:

Believe me when I say that the few neo-Nazis around are way more scary and threatening to the liberal democracy I live in than the 15% of Muslim inhabitants.

Okay... So I'm not a politically-aware person and I don't know the situation in Vic other than the info you've just outlined, but I'm wondering out loud how true is that. I'd think neo-Nazis would be easier to take care of because there's so few of them and it's clear to the majority of people that they're a bunch of raging lunatics with extremist opinions no one believes to be true but them. It's easy to dismiss someone with such aggressive tactics. "Oh. Never-mind them. They're just crazy." Not to mention they'll probably never get any significant political power.

I think a larger minority would be much more influential. They've successfully integrated themselves into the culture and community of the majority. They've adopted some of the opinions and feelings surrounding it and have become friends with the locals. It's much harder to dislike people like that and sometimes there is no reason to dislike them. But if such a minority would one day feel threatened by the majority for some reason, you bet they would team up. And they'd be difficult to deal with. And some people wouldn't want to deal with them "because they're so nice and friendly and just yesterday used to be my neighbour."

I'm not saying the Muslims are dangerous or suspicious. I have no insight in that and the idealist in me would like to believe we're capable of accepting every good person regardless of cultural background. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be discussing this at all. We'd be defining ourselves simply as 'people', but... It's not a perfect world and people feel very passionate about their own culture, to a point where it comes before the lives and feelings of actual human beings. And for what little I know about history, the minorities have usually been fighting for better recognition of their uniqueness in comparison with the majority, while the majority was concerned how the minority's influence is having a bad effect on the pureness of their own culture.

Arki wrote:

Okay... So I'm not a politically-aware person and I don't know the situation in Vic other than the info you've just outlined, but I'm wondering out loud how true is that. I'd think neo-Nazis would be easier to take care of because there's so few of them and it's clear to the majority of people that they're a bunch of raging lunatics with extremist opinions no one believes to be true but them. It's easy to dismiss someone with such aggressive tactics.

Maybe I didn't understand this paragraph well, but your wording seems to imply that you think that we should "take care of" (your words) of Muslims in the same way we "take care of" neo-Nazis. With this comparison, you are saying that one random Muslim is as threatening as a neo-Nazi; that each Muslim is as extremist as a neo-Nazi. In my opinion, this is a simplistic point of view, since it overlooks the fact that not all Muslims share the same ideology, or the same political opinions, or the same views on religion. Being a much larger group (if it's a group at all), Muslims are much more diverse than neo-Nazis, and judging all of them as a whole is quite unfair.

I think a larger minority would be much more influential. They've successfully integrated themselves into the culture and community of the majority. They've adopted some of the opinions and feelings surrounding it and have become friends with the locals. It's much harder to dislike people like that and sometimes there is no reason to dislike them. But if such a minority would one day feel threatened by the majority for some reason, you bet they would team up. And they'd be difficult to deal with. And some people wouldn't want to deal with them "because they're so nice and friendly and just yesterday used to be my neighbour."

The prospective of a country-wide Islamic rebellion is non-existent at the moment, I'd say (irresponsible in-joke: I'll eat up my words the day they ask for the independence of the Islamic Republic of Vic. ). There's no point in starting to dislike them now just in case at some point they happen to team up and conspire against (how to put this) alabaster-white, Catholic-backgrounded Catalans. They might have some political power and influence, yet statistics right now show that their vote is divided between a few parties (mostly leftist, but not exclusively).

The point is that, as Stormcrow says, this 15% of integrated Muslim inhabitants are as Catalan as anyone else (or, in his example, as American as any other American). If they do get integrated (I don't really like this word, actually) and feel included in our society, in my opinion the only problem comes from those who are not willing to accept them and the potential changes and different values they bring. I'm not saying there aren't any tensions nor that discussion is not necessary (take the French case as an example being carried to the extreme: they started with head-coverings and now are discussing halal food, which is apparently discriminatory). There's a proportional connection between the percentage of Muslim immigrants in a town and the electoral results of far-right parties in that town, and this calls for discussion. It's important to know what triggers this reaction and what can be done. But considering them "forever foreigners" (or incompatible with secular democracy, even) only because of their religion is a mistake.

Stormcrow wrote:

Just some more numbers here: In the Netherlands, the anti-Muslim PVV party is expected to win 27 of the 150 seets in the Dutch parliament. The anti-Jewish party FN can call up 15-20% of votes in France. In Italy, the anti-immigrant Northern League captured 12.7% of the vote last year. The anti-Gypsy party Jobbik won about 15% of the votes in Hungary. And even in Germany, where people should know better if they know anything at all, the neo-Nazi NPD party is able to poll close to 10% in places. I couldn't find any good info about the far right in Croatia or Spain.

I accept the (worrying) numbers you provide, but yet, I must point out that not all the votes to the Italian Northern League (for instance) are anti-Muslim votes, since the Lega Nord is also known for their autonomist (call it nationalist if you wish) ideology. Of course, it's also worrying that some North Italy nationalists have nothing against voting such a party in spite of its blatant racism; but it's a little more difficult to tell apart which votes come from actual people who want nothing to do with non-white folk (I'm copying your expression in lack of a better one) and, in their case, nothing to do with Italian southerners either, and which come from people who are asking for a better control on their taxes or a stronger link between Catholic Church and State. I'm sure that this is not the single case.

Just to provide some more information, the far right in Spain is almost non-existent as a party: the right party (Partido Popular or PP, in case someone cares) swallows anything that gets righter than them. This has proven useful to avoid blatantly racist parties at a country level, but instead these far-right parties have appeared at local and regional level. My hometown has the honor (erm, wait) of being the origin of one of these far-right parties, which is just now trying to get some seats in the regional Parliament. The next elections are in a few months (June, I believe), and they expect getting around 4 seats out of 135. I'd say that if this is all they can get, well, it's not much. Fingers crossed: I'm afraid that a good portion of those who are disenchanted with the 'regular' parties (and it's no wonder there are so many of these) might end up voting for these and other extremist options.

Asfalolh wrote:

Maybe I didn't understand this paragraph well, but your wording seems to imply that you think that we should "take care of" (your words) of Muslims in the same way we "take care of" neo-Nazis. With this comparison, you are saying that one random Muslim is as threatening as a neo-Nazi; that each Muslim is as extremist as a neo-Nazi. In my opinion, this is a simplistic point of view...

I also think it's simplistic and I have no idea where you got the impression I was saying what you think I was saying. I was simply saying that someone who actively throws hate-speech in your face (neo-Nazis) isn't going to be as much of a threat as someone who is wearing gloves and pretending to be your friend as long as it suits them. I'm not saying Muslims are the glove-wearing villains. I'm saying that a large minority that hasn't really integrated or accepted part of the majority's culture (thanks Stormy for pointing the specifics out) will have more influence than a few random skinheads.

Actually, it's a hypothetical minority. None in particular. Just a possible one.

Way to go Arizona, you just made racial profiling compulsory for law enforcement!

Law enforcement in AZ now has the green light to ask you to produce "your papers" at any time if they suspect you of looking like an illegal immigrant. This is fabulous news for all non-caucasians (especially those of Mexican or Hispanic heritage) who wish to visit Arizona now. And those that live there. And those who have been US citizens for generations but are of Latino descent.

Got vacation plans for AZ? Are you a citizen of the United States? Don't forget to bring your birth certificate and passport! Everyone in AZ is presumed illegal unless they can prove otherwise, now.

Last edited by Imaginary Bad Bug (04-23-2010 08:24:50 PM)

Imaginary Bad Bug wrote:

Law enforcement in AZ now has the green light to ask you to produce "your papers" at any time if they suspect you of looking like an illegal immigrant. This is fabulous news for all non-caucasians (especially those of Mexican or Hispanic heritage) who wish to visit Arizona now. And those that live there. And those who have been US citizens for generations but are of Latino descent.

It's not illegal for a police officer to ask you for identification. It's not a human right to break immigration law, even if you've had tough breaks in your life. And most illegal immigrants in Arizona are from Central America. If illegal immigrants were mostly from Sweden, you'd have racial profiling of Swedes, or anyone with fair skin and light hair. If they were Scottish, anyone with a Scottish accent would be under greater scrutiny. Is that fair? No, but neither is life.

I don't think the problem with illegal immigration is violent crime, so much as increased competition for resources and decreased compensation for work, especially blue collar work. Nobody likes seeing their paycheck go down, especially while housing and rental prices go up. And when you're lax on illegal immigration, big businesses (agro business for example) can keep their workers in slave-like conditions, because they know that anyone who complains can be replaced by someone willing to work even harder for even less. It's not as simple as "sweet-natured abuela vs. racist cop."

minervana and Imaginary Bad Bug wrote:

Stuff about Arizona law enforcement thingy

Okay, I've heard the defenders' side of the argument. What it boils down to, if memory serves, is that the Border Patrol is severely understaffed, underfunded AND underappreciated. If you give the Border Patrol the money they need to do their job and enough manpower in the form of individuals who spend easily 12+ hours in the middle of 110+ degree Fahrenheit conditions just waiting on human and drug smugglers, you just might have brought about immigration reform.

People who work for the Border Patrol are seen as the bad guys by Latino immigrants (both legal and not) because they're challenging the immigrants' right to make a new life for themselves in America. They are seen as the bad guys by non-Latino Americans who either don't live in a place where drug wars are frequent on American soil or think that all people have a right to live however they choose in America as it is often touted as "the land of the free" (this last bulletpoint not directed at anybody on IRG, but I've known a few people from my past who thought along those lines).

Frequently these same people, hired to protect our national borders from such crimes as drug smuggling and human trafficking, are wounded or killed by return fire from the people involved in ensuring said crimes go unpunished. As I am given to understand, a fair number of these criminals happen to be American themselves.

I see no right or wrong in this law and the political situation that surrounds it, as I see no right or wrong in a soldier sent to Iraq or Afghanistan on the orders of a higher ranking official (another kettle of blue and red fish altogether, but I was generally mindful of the ancient code "never discuss race, religion or politics in mixed company" as I've gotten enough angry glares from people in high school before 9/11). All I see is a pitch black sea of dry kindling and tinders. I am not one to envy the position of a Border Patrol officer or an active duty military person. Too often those who fight on the front are scorned for their actions as ordered by others. As a general message, remember well the trials of Vietnam and those who fought for a war they did not believe in (being the son of a man who lived 21 years under the yoke of the military but never lost his civilian identity, and being a very mimicky person will make one say stuff like that).

The gunfire happens because addicts are trying to steal pot

Marijuana isn't addictive.

Hedgehogey wrote:

The gunfire happens because addicts are trying to steal pot

Marijuana isn't addictive.

Fair enough.  Opportunists, then.

Stormcrow wrote:

Our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence, and this law destroys that. To me, this is outrageous, and if it remains in place, it is the end of our free society. Requiring citizens to carry papers identifying themselves to move around is something that happens in police states.

Like Satyr says, lots of other problems, but that's the one that bothers me the most.

Exactly. In Arizona, everyone is now presumed guilty of being illegal unless they can prove otherwise, and the only probable cause needed for them to ask for your papers is that they think you look like an illegal alien. If you're walking down the street to 7-11 to get a Slurpee, and a police officer decides that something seems odd about the way you're walking, they are permitted to stop you mid-stride and ask for your proof of US residency. You don't need to be engaging in suspicious behavior for them to stop you and ask. That's the most offensive part of the new law.

Last edited by Imaginary Bad Bug (04-27-2010 11:36:18 AM)