ELF

[wfinley]

The topic seems to have drifted... but I have a question about ELF. I seem to recall that after the Oregon trial the decision read that acts against property could not be considered terrorism - whereas acts against the state or people (i.e. the person who firebombed the SUVs and left targets messages against the police) could be considered terrorism.

 

Is this correct? I'm having a hard time finding a record of the decision.

[ivan]

 

were abolotionists terrorsts? was john brown?

 

 

You mean like when he and his sons hacked to death 5 fellow human beings in Pottawatomie, Kansas? Yes; I would say that made him a terrorist--which is why he was hung.

funny - just read a book called "lies my teacher told me" that contains a chapter that examines the evolution of history textbooks treatment of brown - it notes that the very verb you used "hacked to death" was universally adopted by all high school textbooks in the '20s as textbook companies bowed to southern pressures and began transforming the protrayal of brown common in the 19th century as a martyr and "freedom fighter" to a crazed, murderous lunatic who "hacked to death" the apparent good guys, who wished the terrorism of slavery to be further propagated throughout the union

 

brown's attack was a tit-for-tat response to a much worse raid and act of butchery on the part of pro-slavery forces just days earlier - you might recall kansas was having its own mini-civil war then and its wrong to consider brown's killings outside of the larger pattern of chaos and murder that embroiled the entire territory. history acutally appears to indicate that the majority of the bloodshed in the conflict was on the side of the pro-slavery types, not brown and the other anti-slavery men, though the harsh depiction still is heaped on brown.

 

how was brown not a martyr and freedom fighter? he was strongly opposed to a far more clearly evil thing than urban sprawl or deforestation. he was a hero of the civil war, and union men marching into battle all knew and sung "john brown's body." do you disagree with his view of slavery? do you really think his plan at harpers ferry to incite a regional slave insurrection was wrong, given the political reality that slavery could not be abolished using the political process, but only through killing and bloodshed? if you do agree that he though was right, and he was doing it correctly, are you saying then that "terrorists" can be GOOD guys, and if so, where does that leave the word?

[ivan]

I just want to know why someone who claims to be so educated--like our proletariat friend--is so willing to digest the "400 million" dead Africans pap. Tell me, Prole, did the Atlantic turn red and the entire ecosystem therein change as feeding sharks doubled, tripled, and quadrupled in number, such a ready source of food now at hand?

uh, am i missing your point? is your dithering over a # of africans actually killed being done b/c you actually thought slavery was okay? are you one of my sunny southern friends from the old days, raised on gone w/ the wind and the uncle remus stories who actually think the "peculiar institution" WASN'T a monstrous wrong?

[sexual_chocolate]

yeah, yeah, Marxists had a good idea, it's the application that failed. But Prole wants to try again. Just one more time.

 

The experiment has been tried enough, as documented in the reference above. Only a moron like Prole fails to see that. Unfortunately the world is full of Proles.

 

yer seemingly a pretty smart fellow, so i don't understand why you are missing the point so badly.

 

Marx didn't so much have a good idea (as if his thoughts might be reduced to one idea); he had many ideas, and even more, he had many observations, ones that were cogent, perspicuous, insightful, and quite telling.

 

again, try not to simply view marxism as a prescription to a malady, but rather an observation of events, for admittedly, it falls terribly short as a guide to behaviour.

 

 

[rob]

Regardless of if it is classified terrorism or not (I think thats way over the top), the main point Robert, is this:

 

You are walking away from the rule of law, and saying that this is OK for an individual to make a choice to arbritarily decide, because they are offended, to torch and destroy another's property because of any perceived real or imagined offense.

 

By accepting that this is OK, you are saying it is fine for any other another with some perceived real or imagined offense to arbitrarily torch your car. If it happens to spread to your home, well, thats probably offensive as well to that person for some similar reason so thats fine with you.

 

You understand, of course, that only rich folks like those in this country drive cars, and you are offending some random dickhead by owning a car, so if it's OK for the rule of any random dickhead to prevail over there and burn those homes down, then YOU are OK having a guy burn your car and house up some night.

 

Your insurance will cover it. All you homeowners car owners are rich.

 

 

That is the difference between us, you somehow think its OK to ruin a mans life who's been struggling to be a builder and build nice homes that are needed and wanted. Well, it also means that it's OK for that same dickhead to target you and yours next.

 

I find that abhorrent to me Rob, and it makes me sick, angry and against everything I know about truth and justice.

 

Just so you know - I hate urban sprawl, hate it. By way of backing up my words and thoughts, I have personally put more time and money into increasing density - in my backyard, not in another mans, than you could imagine.

 

BTW, in case anyone gives a rats ass what I drive, last car, Civic, got traded in on a CR-V as I needed the extra room to make deliveries for my company. It's been getting 23-28 MPG, less than the civic, which had 180,000 miles on it....and I still miss it.

 

My point is, lets see if you can cheer so lustily and so loudly when they come some night and burn up all your shit.

 

nah, you're right, I was out of line. Shit, your bustin my balls over here, and we haven't even had a date yet

[olyclimber]

[KaskadskyjKozak]

yeah, yeah, Marxists had a good idea, it's the application that failed. But Prole wants to try again. Just one more time.

 

The experiment has been tried enough, as documented in the reference above. Only a moron like Prole fails to see that. Unfortunately the world is full of Proles.

 

yer seemingly a pretty smart fellow, so i don't understand why you are missing the point so badly.

 

Marx didn't so much have a good idea (as if his thoughts might be reduced to one idea); he had many ideas, and even more, he had many observations, ones that were cogent, perspicuous, insightful, and quite telling.

 

again, try not to simply view marxism as a prescription to a malady, but rather an observation of events, for admittedly, it falls terribly short as a guide to behaviour.

 

 

There's a profound difference between you and Prole.

 

Your post indicates intelligence and critical analysis.

 

He's just a fucking Marxist, which has less to do with a study of what Marx actually wrote and meant, and more to do with establishing a form of government which we've seen many times.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Regardless of if it is classified terrorism or not (I think thats way over the top), the main point Robert, is this:

 

You are walking away from the rule of law, and saying that this is OK for an individual to make a choice to arbritarily decide, because they are offended, to torch and destroy another's property because of any perceived real or imagined offense.

 

By accepting that this is OK, you are saying it is fine for any other another with some perceived real or imagined offense to arbitrarily torch your car. If it happens to spread to your home, well, thats probably offensive as well to that person for some similar reason so thats fine with you.

 

You understand, of course, that only rich folks like those in this country drive cars, and you are offending some random dickhead by owning a car, so if it's OK for the rule of any random dickhead to prevail over there and burn those homes down, then YOU are OK having a guy burn your car and house up some night.

 

Your insurance will cover it. All you homeowners car owners are rich.

 

 

That is the difference between us, you somehow think its OK to ruin a mans life who's been struggling to be a builder and build nice homes that are needed and wanted. Well, it also means that it's OK for that same dickhead to target you and yours next.

 

I find that abhorrent to me Rob, and it makes me sick, angry and against everything I know about truth and justice.

 

Just so you know - I hate urban sprawl, hate it. By way of backing up my words and thoughts, I have personally put more time and money into increasing density - in my backyard, not in another mans, than you could imagine.

 

BTW, in case anyone gives a rats ass what I drive, last car, Civic, got traded in on a CR-V as I needed the extra room to make deliveries for my company. It's been getting 23-28 MPG, less than the civic, which had 180,000 miles on it....and I still miss it.

 

My point is, lets see if you can cheer so lustily and so loudly when they come some night and burn up all your shit.

 

nah, you're right, I was out of line. Shit, your bustin my balls over here, and we haven't even had a date yet

 

We all say crazy shit here - it's Spray.

[ashw_justin]

Ah god dammit, Rand claims another victim.

[sexual_chocolate]

 

There's a profound difference between you and Prole.

 

Your post indicates intelligence and critical analysis.

 

He's just a fucking Marxist, which has less to do with a study of what Marx actually wrote and meant, and more to do with establishing a form of government which we've seen many times.

 

 

do you really think he is a "marxist" who wants to establish a "marxist" government?

 

i'm not so sure....

 

maybe we can ask him:

 

hey prole, are you a "marxist" who wants to establish a "marxist" form of government here in the US?

[Fairweather]

I just want to know why someone who claims to be so educated--like our proletariat friend--is so willing to digest the "400 million" dead Africans pap. Tell me, Prole, did the Atlantic turn red and the entire ecosystem therein change as feeding sharks doubled, tripled, and quadrupled in number, such a ready source of food now at hand?

uh, am i missing your point? is your dithering over a # of africans actually killed being done b/c you actually thought slavery was okay? are you one of my sunny southern friends from the old days, raised on gone w/ the wind and the uncle remus stories who actually think the "peculiar institution" WASN'T a monstrous wrong?

 

Gimme a break, Ivan. I hope you know better. I just think it's outrageous that anyone could buy into such an absurd number. Especially someone who claims to know Jack Shit personally. BTW: "Hacked to Death" is still in use--"The American Pageant"--Kennedy/Cohen/Bailey--a 200-300 level college textbook, 13th ed. 2007.

[prole]

 

There's a profound difference between you and Prole.

 

Your post indicates intelligence and critical analysis.

 

He's just a fucking Marxist, which has less to do with a study of what Marx actually wrote and meant, and more to do with establishing a form of government which we've seen many times.

 

 

do you really think he is a "marxist" who wants to establish a "marxist" government?

 

i'm not so sure....

 

maybe we can ask him:

 

hey prole, are you a "marxist" who wants to establish a "marxist" form of government here in the US?

 

Oh hey, thanks for asking! No, I am not a Marxist. I think Marx had some very good ideas and many bad ideas. In particular, he had a very powerful understanding of capitalism as a unique and historical system with a logic quite different from previous economic forms with class relations and the struggle between classes as a driving force in history. Giving capitalism and class relations primacy in analyses of contemporary societies provides some very good (but not the only) tools for understanding how the world actually works. It's a materialist and empirical position, meaning it takes the world as it is as we can see it. Many philosophers and political actors have elaborated on Marx's understanding of capitalist society as experienced, some good, some bad. Sorry to disappoint but all I can really say is that I find many of the marxian contributions to the study of contemporary political economy pretty compelling.

As far as my own prescriptive politics are concerned, I think Marx's recognition that social outcomes are not determined through utopian visioning or the implementation of blueprints for social engineering but rather through the process of political struggle for justice, dignity, and the realization of human potential itself, is really all one needs. Such ideas run counter to what the mainstream thinks Marx actually said and thought and I think many would be surprised to learn that what was done in his name is contradictory to much of his philosophical thought and political advocacy. These were positions Marx was already dealing with with his "followers" when he famously said, "I am not a Marxist." I really can't say I'm much for anything that's passed for Marxist thus far much less anything Communist. My own political sympathies trend more toward anarchism as far as political organization and praxis is concerned.

[billcoe]

 

nah, you're right, I was out of line. Shit, your bustin my balls over here, and we haven't even had a date yet

 

Well, thats unexpected, this being spray and all. Welcome back to humanity:-) I'll give you a solid belay anytime you show up in these parts for a first date. My last regular partner was 2 steps this side of an environmental freak (read that ELF member) but we got along great even in the darkest of times. It made for some spirited discourse (like 12 hour argument on government policies concerning water resources and allocation in the western US on a trip to Yos once), but it was all good.

[ivan]

Gimme a break, Ivan. I hope you know better. I just think it's outrageous that anyone could buy into such an absurd number. Especially someone who claims to know Jack Shit personally. BTW: "Hacked to Death" is still in use--"The American Pageant"--Kennedy/Cohen/Bailey--a 200-300 level college textbook, 13th ed. 2007.

i assumed you weren't pro-slavery. my pt is, why argue over the #? it's the idea that's important, at least in terms of evaluating john brown (and yeah, i know the "hacked" is still in use, it's in my high school text too). the fact is, millions of africans endured a nightmare of slavery very much like the jewish holocaust, and for much longer. therefore, slavery was a system to be justly destroyed. further, in the USA, it was not a system that could be peacefully destroyed. finally, any person who undertook its destruction (like brown) can not justly be described as a terrorist w/o distorting the meaning of the word such that its unuseful in conversation. it's the old "insurgent" vs "freedom fighter" debate.

[minx]

what was this thread about it?

[olyclimber]

Marxism

 

9JDTAqsMNEM

[Jim]

Branding the ELF "eco-terrorists" is a thought-out strategy. Same as branding the name "narco-terrorist" or the "war on terror". Rather than treating these elements for what they are, criminals, and using sophisticated investigative tools, invoking "terrorist" is just another way to keep the masses on edge and from looking behind the curtain.

 

It gives false legitimatecy to a gang of thugs, and provides cover for spending oh so much more on "needed" tools to fight terror. How else can we explain Homeland Security (another great name) providing a $2 million grant to Oklahoma City for a couple of terrorist-proof armored vehicles?

 

Look, there's universal disapproval of the ELF's actions except for a handful of wackos. But what those McMansions stood for - the "green washing" of the all too common suburban enclave is emblematic of American consumption. No need to make any changes in your lifestyle (to accommodate a war, global warming, etc). I know, we can use recycled materials, put a waterfall in the 4,500 sq ft house and call it sustainable development!

[Bug]

Branding the ELF "eco-terrorists" is a thought-out strategy. Same as branding the name "narco-terrorist" or the "war on terror". Rather than treating these elements for what they are, criminals, and using sophisticated investigative tools, invoking "terrorist" is just another way to keep the masses on edge and from looking behind the curtain.

 

It gives false legitimatecy to a gang of thugs, and provides cover for spending oh so much more on "needed" tools to fight terror. How else can we explain Homeland Security (another great name) providing a $2 million grant to Oklahoma City for a couple of terrorist-proof armored vehicles?

 

Look, there's universal disapproval of the ELF's actions except for a handful of wackos. But what those McMansions stood for - the "green washing" of the all too common suburban enclave is emblematic of American consumption. No need to make any changes in your lifestyle (to accommodate a war, global warming, etc). I know, we can use recycled materials, put a waterfall in the 4,500 sq ft house and call it sustainable development!

Yeah.

What he said.

And another thing, you poo-heads, The entire debate between Marxism, capitalism, democracy,,,etc., is very narrow. It all comes from the period we refer to as the "Enlightenment" when all European scholars were reading each other's work for the first time. Wow. Imagine that. So they came up with a whole list of theories that were germain to Western European industrialized 18th century culture. What was Africa up to? South America? What was left of the Aztecs? How about those savages on the plains of north america? Our world is so limited by what we think we know - which is really so little of what man has learned in the last 100k years. Now we are on the verge of destroying our only planet and we still think we are in a position to look down on previous societies.

We have information but lack wisdom.

[ivan]

what was this thread about it?

were galadriel and arwen whores? if so, what does this indicate about the socio-political values of the late third age of middle earth from a marxist perspective? to what extent are the opinions of raging queers pertinent in the overall dichotomy?

[sexual_chocolate]

ugh. overweight show car. i guess that fits right in with your urban sprawl (although a TT might fit even better!).

 

Get an M3. Or at that price point, consider a porche 911. or the friggin nissan skyline gt-r. yeah it doesn't have the ostentation of the other imports, but yer not buying for the ostentation, right?

 

Check out the Top Gear comparison of the Audi and the Porsche (you can find it on YouTube). They said the Audi is superior in almost every way. The 911 is a nice car and great fun to drive, but I like the looks of the Audi better, it gets better mileage, and it's easier to drive. I'm hoping that it will be cheaper to maintain, as well, which is the only reason I'm not going to get a V8 Vantage.

 

dude, i assume yer plunking down 100 k for a friggin sportscar (that you'll get to push hardly ever), and yer worrying about mileage and maintenance? wow.

 

ok let's assume yer for real, and these are the actual considerations whirling through this little middle-age crisis brain of yers: get a fucking Tesla.

 

 

 

seriously. it's a real car that blows away yer perty ego show car.

[sexual_chocolate]

oh, it's electric, goes over 200 miles per charge, 0-60 under 4 secs, yadda yadda. check the specs.

[minx]

what was this thread about it?

were galadriel and arwen whores? if so, what does this indicate about the socio-political values of the late third age of middle earth from a marxist perspective? to what extent are the opinions of raging queers pertinent in the overall dichotomy?

 

oh that's easy. that was a question on one of my history finals in college.

 

yes, they were whores. it was important to have a viable skill in order to provide for yourself. if you're going to do something you might as well be good at it.

 

it says that the socio-political values haven't changed much at all. you can still sell sex for money in damn near every culture. and regardless of the particular dogma, politicians are generally whores that will sell themselves to the highest bidder. the currency for the transaction isn't always cash.

 

the opinions of raging queers is just as pertinent as serene queers to the overall dichotomy.

[ivan]

what was this thread about it?

were galadriel and arwen whores? if so, what does this indicate about the socio-political values of the late third age of middle earth from a marxist perspective? to what extent are the opinions of raging queers pertinent in the overall dichotomy?

 

oh that's easy. that was a question on one of my history finals in college.

 

yes, they were whores. it was important to have a viable skill in order to provide for yourself. if you're going to do something you might as well be good at it.

 

it says that the socio-political values haven't changed much at all. you can still sell sex for money in damn near every culture. and regardless of the particular dogma, politicians are generally whores that will sell themselves to the highest bidder. the currency for the transaction isn't always cash.

 

the opinions of raging queers is just as pertinent as serene queers to the overall dichotomy.

nice n' concise. so how come it took 8 pages to get to it then?

[minx]

b/c people were blinded by smoke from the fire?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

There's a profound difference between you and Prole.

 

Your post indicates intelligence and critical analysis.

 

He's just a fucking Marxist, which has less to do with a study of what Marx actually wrote and meant, and more to do with establishing a form of government which we've seen many times.

 

 

do you really think he is a "marxist" who wants to establish a "marxist" government?

 

i'm not so sure....

 

maybe we can ask him:

 

hey prole, are you a "marxist" who wants to establish a "marxist" form of government here in the US?

 

Cocoa, why are you trying to ruin my fun?