Cynical Nation

OK. It was a circus. The sign "Justice is served by prison. Only vengeance is served by death" does represent a valid point of view that was pertinent to the event. One may not agree with the man's sign, but I have no problem with his bringing that sign to this event and his being photographed doing so.

I am personally opposed to capital punishment, but I don't condemn people who support it. That said, there are people who feel strongly about the issue of capital punishment, just as there are those who feel strongly about abortion. I don't condemn anyone who feels strongly about human life.

Yeah well I condemn that stupid-ass chant.

And on that we part, Ortho.

Of course people are free to express their opinions. My opinion of that chant is that it was bratty and bullying. You can feel strongly about something and protest without making such an ass of oneself.

The guy's sign made his (valid) point. Had someone come up and shoved their "KILL TOOKIE" sign in his face, ya know, would you get mad?

that sad guy looked like the only sane person at the protest. Why is there no effort to get these people on track with A COHERENT MESSAGE if they're so serious about these issues.

ya maybe zombie picked out the worst of the bunch for these photos, but the actions of that stupid mob are just wrong, and they're getting more and more common lately.

Seriously why doesn't someone on the left tell the kaffiyeh'ed ISO socialists to just piss off? give 'em 50 bucks and send em out for beers.

You know what those pictures from the vigil/protest showed?

Only that there are a lot more executions that need to get done. Personally, I'd support the eradication/execution of such socialists, merely for BEING socialists.

They are despicable people, abject cowards who lionize murderers, useless eaters who aspire to a society where "people are valued, and not solely for their work," as opposed the one system that DOES WORK, people being valued due almost entirely to the work they perform.

At this moment at least, we are still, as a nation, a bit too squeamish to do what must ultimately be done.

There is no way that real, hardcore socialists can live peacefully within a Capitalist society and there is no way for pro-Capitalists to live peacefully with socialists for very long.

JMK, are you joking or are you nuts?

Are you saying that Joan Baez can not live peacefully within a Capitalist society? Many of these so called socialist are actually capitalists who occasionally give socialist speeches. Hypocrites, yes. Dangers to society, no.

Furthermore, you are calling for the execution of people based on their BELIEFS and their IDEAS. I believe that our constitution prohibits that.

"Many of these so called socialist are actually capitalists who occasionally give socialist speeches." (PE)

Neither. Not to put to fine a point on your statement, but "socialist who are actually capitalists" are NOT "commited or "hardcore" socialists, nor according to your statement above "socialists" of any kind, at all.

My statement, "There is no way that REAL, HARDCORE (ie. committed) socialists can live peacefully within a Capitalist society and there is no way for pro-Capitalists to live peacefully with socialists for very long," is not in any way incompatible with sparing those kooks who act and live comfortably as Capitalists and occasionaly "speak like socialists."

The real, "hardcore" and committed socialists, the America-hating goons who blame America for the world's ills and who look to stifle those they disagree with are as anathema to this culture as are Islamo-cultists/Islamo-fascists.

So you want to execute them for their beliefs?

"So you want to execute them for their beliefs?"

The First Amendment protects certain speech, some, even most ideological speech, but not slander, incitment to riot and not terroristic threats.

The real question is, "Are beliefs like Socialism and Islamo-cultism (Wahhabism) merely "belief systems," or are they they themselves support for and generators of terrorism?"

I'd claim they are the latter and that spewing such views is, in effect, making terroristic threats, which of course is not protected by the Constitution, nor, so far as I know, any part of modern American law.

Now you can disagree, of course, despite the fact that people have been happily killing each other over such "ideological differences" for millenia, yes even here in America at different times, BUT, then your view states that should a charismatic nazi or white supremacist go around advocating the murder of blacks and Jews and certain of his followers went around doing just that, your view would be that, "We can't make the spouting of those 'beliefs' illegal?"

Is that your viewpoint?

My answer would be "Au contraire, we could and in fact, SHOULD make the spewing of such terroristic threats illegal and punishable by law. Certainly we can also quibble over the severity and extent of that punishment.

Criminalizing "terroristic threats" (yes, I enlarge that a bit by including calls for "nationalizing industries and calls for a guaranteed income as terroristic threats as well) is NOT abridging anyone's freedom of speech. Libel, incitement, terroristic threats, even reckless speech (the classic "crying fire in a crowded movie theater") are all illegal and yet, no one's freedom of speech is violated by those particular sanctions.

I'm not even adding any sanctions, I'm merely including two particular rancid and odious ideologies within the "terroristic threat" box, if advocating Islamo-fascism (the generator of the bulk of the international terrorism today) and Socialism(the bloodiest ideology that has ever existed (Stalin - Over 50 million murders, Mao- 0ver 75 million murders, Polt Pot, Castro, etc) does not rise to the level of a "terroristic threat," than virtually nothing does.

Just for the sake of argument, had some nefarious "pro-death penalty advocate showed up and when confronted, pulled out a gun and shot a number of the pro-Tookie folks to death and was later convicted and sentenced to death himself, would you expect the same outpouring of sympathy and outrage over his execution by these goons?

Hint: The answer isn't "I don't know," (surely we don't, as we can't get into all their heads), but we'd expect the truth to be, "Of course not!"

Most of these people have a very specific agenda...among other things, a very anti-American agenda.

There are people who truly believe in socialism who don't advocate violence to achieve socialism. They are loonies perhaps, but we don't advocate the execution of peaceful loonies.

Furthermore, there is a tradition in this country of religious groups creating communities that used "socialist" principles in their community even though the larger community was not socialist. Of course, in those communities, any individual could choose to be part of it or leave whenever he/she wanted, but still a "socialist" could attempt to spread socialism through these peaceful means.

So, while I am not a socialist myself, I disagree with the notion that a socialist by definition has a propensity towards slander, incitment to riot or terroristic threats.

Seriously, I wonder if there is one supreme court justice in the history of our nation who would agree with the notion that, in the case of socialism, that "spewing such views is, in effect, making terroristic threats."

It is a real jump from an advocation of socialism to an advocation of murder or of violent overthrow.

"There are people who truly believe in socialism who don't advocate violence to achieve socialism. They are loonies perhaps, but we don't advocate the execution of peaceful loonies." (PE)

"JMK, to be fair, you've pulled a fast one equating socialism with communism. I'm not a socialist myself, as you well know, but some of my friends are, and I'd hate to see them executed." (Barry)

There are, indeed some professed "non-violent Socialists" PE, BUT that ideology has never been introduced anywhere without extreme violence...and please don't say something like, "What about Sweden?"

Sweden doesn't have and never actually had Socialism, it's had Corporatism, with companies like Volvo, Erickson, etc all privately and not state owned. Surely it is a more redistributive form of Corporatism, but it is Corporatism and there IS private peoperty in Sweden.

Any society that has ever sought to eradicate property rights and nationalize its individually formed and founded commercial enterprises, has encountered strong resistance on the part of the people and had, in the end to resort to mass murder to carry out the transfer to a state run economy.

That is why Socialism is the bloodiest, most murderous ideology on earth.

That's why I must disagree to this extent with you Barry, the question, "What is the difference between Socialism and Communism," puts that into some perspective.

Both seek to eradicate private property, both seek to nationalize all industry ("the means of production"). Perhaps the best answer I've heard to the question I posed, is, "Communism is revolutionary, while Socialism is evolutionary."

In either case, Barry, I'd argue that the only way those aims can ever be enacted is through massive violence, the wholesale murder that the likes of Stalin and Mao engaged in.

Ultimately advocating the nationalization of industry, the eradication of private property, even a guaranteed wage, is advocating the violence necessary to get there.

Are there a lot of so-called "Socialists" who either aren't serious, or simply misunderstand what Socialism really is?

Of course and those people are not "real" or "hardcore" or committed Socialists.

That's why I made that distinction in my first post, with "There is no way that REAL, HARDCORE socialists can live peacefully within a Capitalist society."

Does that include anyone who says things that are foolish?

Of course not.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Ted Turner said something like, "I felt like I'd lost my big brother."

Was that stupid, even incredibly insulting to the families of the millions of people murdered under Soviet Socialism?

Yes.

Does that make uber-Capitalist Ted Turner a "committed (or "real, hardcore") socialist?"

Of course not.

Are people like that real threats?

Most likely not.

But what of those who are committed socialists, willing to engage in violence, like many in the pro-Tookie crowd and many more in some of the other pro-Socialist and anti-American groups?

If you accept that wholesale carnage is necessary to implement Socialism, then a committed Socialist is certainly a committed terrorist as well.

Is execution a bit too harsh and extreme a way to deal with people, even people that might be considered terrorists?

Perhaps, but I'd say just "a bit."

Heh, I knew if you poked past the fly covered crust, you would find a soft stinky little Nazi inside JMK.

So socialism = terrorism, and therefore promoting socialism is not legitimate free speech. Ah, the slippery slope, Mr. McCarthy.

YOU are exactly the reason why we have a first amendment. Exactly.

Uhhhh Barely Hanging?

You're aware of that pesky little fact that the nazis WERE/are Socialists, aren't you? Yes "National Socialists" are as much "Socialists" as are "Soviet Socialists" and "Democratic Socialists."

In America, we close down mosques that preach hatred, we've arrested and convicted members of groups as diverse as The Nation of Islam, the Aryan Nation and the Black Panthers for "incitement" and "making terroristic threats, and will, in all likelihood, continue doing those things as libelous, slanderous, reckless, inciting and threatening speech are NOT protected by the First Amendment.

A member of al Qaeda can certainly freely express his hatred for America and incite violence within a mosque on American soil.

It's just that there are consequences to that action/speech. That mosque will probably be shuttered, he will be arrested, probably detained for many weeks, perhaps months without any visitors or even access to legal counsel and will probably ultimately be either convicted of incitement and making terroristic threats, or deported back to whence he came with the insinuation that he cooperated with the Americans.

Check the law Barely, there are a lot of "loopholes" in that First Amendment and there have to be, slanderous, libelous, even reckless ("yelling fire in a crowded venue"), and threatening speech cannot be protected and, in fact, they never were.