Thursday, August 23, 2012
Which is more intolerant: Britain or Russia?
Most people in the West think that the two-year jail sentence handed down in a Moscow court to the "Pussy Riot" punk band was excessive.
I personally don't think that ANY speech ANYWHERE should earn ANY jail but had I been a worshipper at the Moscow cathedral, I think I too would have seen their actions as "hooliganism" -- which is what they were jailed for.
An interesting comparision, however, is with Britain -- which DOES clearly jail people for speech. A couple of years ago, for instance Simon Sheppard got 4 years jail for holocaust denial. He was jailed simply for what he said on his website.
What Britain and Russia class as unacceptable differs but it seems to me that these days you get a worse deal in Britain than you do in Russia when it comes to disagreeing with the ruling class.
America's Leftist elite is severely inconvenienced by the 1st Amendment but, without that, I have little doubt that they would be as punitive as Britain. I think their all-out attack on Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A shows that. They have attacked him in every way they legally can. They haven't got him thrown into a mental hospital yet but give them time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I have to disagree on no speech being punised anywhere. The definition of free speech has been stretched to ridiculous lengths. The speech isn't the problem or what they are being punished for. It is trespassing upon a church and taking over, though the punishment is a bit harsh. Freedom of speech used to be about expressing ones beliefs. Now it is about supressing and shouting over someone else's. Instead of no one being able to force you to hold your tongue, now it is about forcing others to listen to your blathering.
All of europe has gone wacko as a result of the European(soviet)Union
Bird of Paradise - our loveable resident wacho from the American(soviet)Union.
After a very long and hard-fought campaign, the Left managed to equate speech with actions. Being able to speak freely is one thing. Being able to do anything you want, including criminal acts, and still be protected, is something else. The actions of this "band" is nothing more than anarchy. And, while i'm certainly no fan of the old KGB agent running Russia, he was right to stop it. He knows that not to stop that kind of behavior would cause Russia to end up like the UK and the US, where "anything" goes, and is usually protected.
Unlimited, unchecked, freedom, without some discipline, becomes chaos and anarchy.
"Unlimited, unchecked, freedom, without some discipline, becomes chaos and anarchy"
Yup. But of course that only applies to citizenry, not corporations. The Republicans would have it no other way.
3:43, you've obviously never owned a corporation. I do and it is not unlimited, unchecked or without discipline. Think before you speak.
Anon 5:15, did you expect a troll to figure that out?
"I do and it is not unlimited, unchecked or without discipline."
I guess the great recession was not caused by the banking corporations. Silly me.
Isn't it the Republicans that want to remove regulations so that corporations can operate without the government getting in the way?
In the universal Cabala of the holocaust, the numerological 'answer' is a derivative '42'.
Any questioning of this fact is punishable by imprisonment for those not so enlightened.
Those who ask no questions receive no answers via gnosis. Those who wish no questions asked provide all 'correct' answers.
Anonymous 6:40 AM said...
"I guess the great recession was not caused by the banking corporations. Silly me."
You have that right - silly you, or rather profoundly stupid ignorant propagandized you.
The behavior of the banks was a direct and predictable reaction to very strong regulations put on lenders, most notoriously via The Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 as enhanced by the Clinton administration. It FORCED lenders to drastically modify millennia old lending practices to make sub-prime loans - loans to people they would not have lent to but for the government gun put to their heads.
Banks don't choose to not make loans because they hate making money. They refuse to make loans because they think it's likely they won't get repaid. That's what a "sub-prime loan" is - a loan that a bank would not make but for a government gun to their head. (ie – Make these loans or we will shut you down!)
Banks didn't want those loans, but Congress wanted to social engineer, so Congress regulated banks into making sub-prime loans banks didn't want to make. Then, to stop banks from squawking too loudly Congress gave the banks a new way to dump the trash loans - thus the "derivative" market blossomed. Banks now had a way to dump the trash Congress forced them take. It's a form of the "greater fool" theory: "I can always sell my overpriced crap to somebody who's an even greater fool than me."
Congress had dramatically changed how banks made money. Previously banks made money by making good loans that were repaid with interest – their profit. With the new regulations this millennia old formula was turned on its head. Banks no longer made money by making and servicing good loans. Under the new regulations banks now made their money by making any old crap loan and selling it to some Greater Fool (perhaps the manager of your retirement portfolio) who didn’t understand the new rules.
Motivation is everything! This is important: Motivation is everything! Congress utterly changed millennia old banker motivation. Banks no longer made profit by making and servicing good loans that gave modest returns. Now banks could make more money by following Congress's mandate - to make any old sub-prime loan, no matter how crappy, and sell it to some greater fool for a handsome commission. Since banks no longer owned the loans they could care less if the loans were repaid (anyway, most were government guaranteed – “so what’s the harm?” Obviously the harm is that government gets its money from us at the point of a gun – so it was us who were guaranteeing all those crap loans.)
Given this crazy insane system banks no longer cared that Congress forced them make crap loans - those crap loans would be somebody else's problem. So they made lots of crap loans. Barney Frank & Co in Congress cheered them on. Now we have reaped our just rewards as Congress holds hearings and points fingers everywhere but at themselves. (Wouldn’t you love to see what would happen if bankers could hold hearings and question Barney Frank under oath?)
Yes - the banks behaved irresponsibly, but only because THERE WAS NO RESPONSIBLE WAY TO BEHAVE and legally remain in business. New regulations both forced and motivated bankers to make these sub-prime crap loans. Bankers were exactly following the mandate of Congress - and got rich doing it. So who’s to blame - the leaders making the laws or the citizens following those laws?
(Actually I ponder whether banks acted irresponsibly. Ponder this: If you are standing in the Louver Museum and someone puts a loaded gun to your head and says "toss this acid on the Mona Lisa" are you acting irresponsibly if you do so?)
It is a little known fact that bankers are actually human beings who live, breath and fornicate just like the rest of us. Like most people, human cogs in the wheel, individual bankers only see their small piece of the big picture. They were happy making money by following the new rules. After all, the eggheads in Washington said this is what the country needed. Like other folks, they follow the rules and do their job. Their job was not to watch the big picture. Like the rest of us, they looked to the egos in Washington for that.
The job of watching the big picture belonged to Congress. They totally changed the millennia old rules of the game, initially to the great resistance of bankers. Congress, led by Barney Frank, was fully apprised of the dangers and still went down this utterly reckless path. Utterly disdainful of the warnings of those who understood the banking business, these uber-egos of the liberal intelligentsia in considered themselves such a superior class to mere business folk that they need not consider the concerns of "the nasty little money grubbers." There was social engineering to be accomplished, egos to be inflated and votes to be bought. Just ignore the warnings of “the nasty little money grubbers” – they are such morally inferior people they can’t possibly know what they are talking about. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead over the cliff.
If Congress had kept their egos in check and out of the lending business, a business they were utterly clueless about, there would have been no huge bubble and no collapse. But given the choice between either pumping up their egos by pushing business-folk around or keeping the economy safe theses folk will choose ego and power over country every day.
Tidford Tatt - banking apologist = scum
Tidford - he did refer to 'the great depression'.
I took that to mean the depression of 1929, not the most recent one (which I most often hear referred to as 'the GFC').
Even still, to blame the banks for either is clearly simplistic.
"he did refer to 'the great depression'."
Read it again, dipshit.
And the US banks passed on their toxic assets to the rest of the world and caused a global financial crisis, that will rebound to hit the American tax-payers once again - it's like the "Sourcer's Apprentice"!
6:40 don't you read ANY news?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-18/obama-orders-regulation-review-to-boost-growth-wsj-reports.html
Obama knows regulations can hurt too.
Anonymous 1:03 PM - I thank you for your clear and thorough explication of the full extent of your obviously profound intellect and depth of understanding of the issues. It is clear that your intellect, depth of knowledge and courtesy makes you an excellent standard bearer for the OWS branch of the Democratic party. The Brown Shirts look forward to your enrollment application.
---------------
Anonymous 7:06 PM - Perhaps you share my dyslexia. I thought you were correct until I double checked. Sorry about the rudeness of 1:37.
---------------
Anonymous 3:28 AM said... "And the US banks passed on their toxic assets to the rest of the world and caused a global financial crisis, that will rebound to hit the American tax-payers once again - it's like the "Sourcer's Apprentice"!"
Which is why, in a just world, Barney Frank and Co., the architects of this disaster, would be arrest, tried and convicted for Crimes Against Humanity. They were fully apprised by many voices of the risks of changing millennia old banking rules, but weighing those risks against the power to be gained they, as they always will, jumped to grab and exercise power rather than to protect the people.
it matters not
"6:40 don't you read ANY news?"
I guess a sample of one proves your point, eh?
9:18, it was well reported. Google it if you dare. My point is made. Pwnage.
11:07 made the silly-ass comment, "it was well reported. Google it if you dare. My point is made. :
So according to you, a sample of one does prove your point. Just wanted to clear that up.
It is really great that there are so many retarded right wingers here. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. The trolls own you guys. LOL
Post a Comment