Digressions About Fascism

[rick]

For whatever it's worth, I think we may need to come up with a new word for fascism that isn't quite so synonymous with Nazis. Because as it stands, instant Godwin.


Fair point.

And to be clear, I am calling Bush a Fascist, not a Nazi.

They have connections, but are not the same thing.

[StoneGold]

Fascist-lite?

Except that's not the point. There's no genocide inherent in fascism. Which is where most of the Nazi's evil comes from. It's more the genocide, some of the invading Poland, less the political structure. I mean, hell, there are plenty of totalitarian dictators in the world, some with political structures even worse than fascism, and they aren't synonyms for Ultimate Evil.


This is not an endorsement of fascism, but as things go, I'd probably rather take that than some kind of theocratic dictatorship. At least with fascism, the trains run on time.

[hawkeye comeback]

Now, I more then understand the criticism of the current run of FF. You've got a group of supposedly smart people creating what could be seen as an ultra liberal utopia. As part of there groundwork you've got socialized health care, no guns, everyone in a controlled environment with even the economy and what jobs you do being regulated by the super-intelligent who think they know what's best. How do you spot a liberal? When they have a serious debate if public vandalism and graffiti is a benefit to the world but unanimously agree to get rid of the guns. :biggrin:



now i agree with that some graffiti is art although some is vandilism.
no guns = equals no killings with guns

and thier has been no real communist country on the planet nearly anyone with knowledge on the matter of communism knows that russia was not a true communist country

[fred10]

If you break the law, you have no right to criticize others for doing so as well.

If the uS governemtn water boards people, they aren't a position to compalin when water boarding is used against their soliders.

That's why you follow the law, if they don't like these laws, they should say so and opt out, not say they follow the law and then do everything they can to get around it.

I understand that you are a well-meaning person. But you're in your head with this stuff, and aren't being very practical about any of it.

First, there isn't "a" law. There are several. Some I agree with, and some I don't. breaking one of them isn't going to stop me from being critical of someone who breaks another, or the same one for a different reason. Furthermore, IF I were going to be critical of someone else, it would be for their actions or rationalization for their actions, and not for "breaking a law". In the ABSENCE of laws, I would remain just as critical.

The problem with telling people that you are not going to follow the law is that you would never get away with it. duh!

[mikekerr3]

As far as Bush being a fascist who thinks he's above the law... so what? So do I. And, if you're being honest, so do you. How do you prioritize your life? Does 'obeying the law' really come before 'accomplishing your goals/fulfilling your hopes and dreams'? What if the law sucks? What if the legislative body is corrupt (e.g. the UN). And would you honestly hesitate to impose your will if in a position to do so? I wouldn't.

I would your method makes everything that we are fighting for worthless. Bush took an oath to defend the constition, if he didn't have it in him to do so he shouldn't have sworn that oath.

The rule of law is the corner-stone of what the US is.

If the law sucks change itn ignoring it makes you a criminal.

I don't think Bush is a fasicst, he is a Autocratic plutocrat with little respect for the law.

[hawkeye comeback]

more to the point bush goverment is really more corrupt (but then again some people say all politicians are corrupt) than facist.

if u dont think bush is corrupt that watch sicko or fahrenheit 9/11

[mikekerr3]

now i agree with that some graffiti is art although some is vandilism.
no guns = equals no killings with guns

and thier has been no real communist country on the planet nearly anyone with knowledge on the matter of communism knows that russia was not a true communist country

I am a liberal and think graffiti is vandalism and that everyone has the right to own guns without goverment knowledge or registration, with the exception of those who have been convicted of a crime and have had that right removed by the court, and those who a court have ruled incompetent,

No guns means that smart people will start making them and selling them at a premium, swords will become popular though.

[gorthon616]

I am a liberal and think graffiti is vandalism and that everyone has the right to own guns without goverment knowledge or registration, with the exception of those who have been convicted of a crime and have had that right removed by the court, and those who a court have ruled incompetent,

No guns means that smart people will start making them and selling them at a premium, swords will become popular though.

I'm banking that they do. I've been misering my sword collection for ages. When chaos falls, I shall rise to power!

[fred10]

I would your method makes everything that we are fighting for worthless. Bush took an oath to defend the constition, if he didn't have it in him to do so he shouldn't have sworn that oath.

The rule of law is the corner-stone of what the US is.

If the law sucks change itn ignoring it makes you a criminal.

I don't think Bush is a fasicst, he is a Autocratic plutocrat with little respect for the law.

It really doesn't make what we're fighting for worthless, though.

This is the problem with laws. They are constructs that undermine the very behavior they are trying to eliminate or uphold. The reason for doing or not doing something becomes to 'follow the law' or 'stay out of jail', and the intrinsic value of good behavior is lost.

The reason we are fighting is to protect Iraqi people from terrorism until they can protect themselves. The reason we are fighting is to stem terrorism before it gets both feet planted here in the states. Blowing people up sucks. People who do it should be stopped, or blown up themselves, no matter what the 'law' is. My 'method' and this goal are NOT incompatible.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of a lawless society. I'm just not opposed to occasionally being a criminal if it suits my ends, which I deem to be righteous.

[hawkeye comeback]

have u eva seen beautiful grafitti
i have seen graffitti in brighton (south of england) and it is actually art like it or not. there is no other way to describe the drawing of james brown that i saw up there.
art is art no matter where the canvas is.

in terms of mark millars ff story though no guns does work if cap hadn't bleedin malfunctioned
the only part of millars utopia that i dont agree with is the jobs part.

[LawGiver]

more to the point bush goverment is really more corrupt (but then again some people say all politicians are corrupt) than facist.

if u dont think bush is corrupt that watch sicko or fahrenheit 9/11

Oh yea those are great examples.

[hawkeye comeback]

that guy who kept going on about his mother was hilarouis

[gorthon616]

have u eva seen beautiful grafitti
i have seen graffitti in brighton (south of england) and it is actually art like it or not. there is no other way to describe the drawing of james brown that i saw up there.
art is art no matter where the canvas is.

in terms of mark millars ff story though no guns does work if cap hadn't bleedin malfunctioned the only part of millars utopia that i dont agree with is the jobs part.

I always thought of graffiti as being art on a "canvas" that you didn't own, which makes it art + vandalization.

and see there you go. no guns couldn't work in the real worked because we don't even have a cap. so how could it function? it couldn't even malfunction! once we get cap working, then i'll listen to the no guns argument.

[gorthon616]

It really doesn't make what we're fighting for worthless, though.

This is the problem with laws. They are constructs that undermine the very behavior they are trying to eliminate or uphold. The reason for doing or not doing something becomes to 'follow the law' or 'stay out of jail', and the intrinsic value of good behavior is lost.

So... good behavior isn't punished means that the intrinsic value of good behavior is lost? So to maintain the intrinsic value of good behavior... we should punish people? :confused: Must we all be some kind of martyr?

I understand you're point, I've heard it before, it just never made sense to me.


The reason we are fighting is to protect Iraqi people from terrorism until they can protect themselves. The reason we are fighting is to stem terrorism before it gets both feet planted here in the states. Blowing people up sucks. People who do it should be stopped, or blown up themselves, no matter what the 'law' is. My 'method' and this goal are NOT incompatible.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of a lawless society. I'm just not opposed to occasionally being a criminal if it suits my ends, which I deem to be righteous.

I'm not sure what you're saying in that first paragraph, but as to the second. It just sounds like you're saying the ends justify the means. Which I always found funny that people argue against yet still always use. Oh, boo the ends justify the means. So what? Are you saying that you're means lead to global Armageddon? Because if you are... I think I'll go over there now.

[hawkeye comeback]

it worked in britian till kids got influenced by some american (c)rap music
and grand theft auto (i think its a great game and inteligent people can take the game play it and realise ur not supposed to do the stuff that the protaginist cdoes. but retards actually think you can act the way the character does)

[gorthon616]

it worked in britian till kids got influenced by some american (c)rap music
and grand theft auto (i think its a great game and inteligent people can take the game play it and realise ur not supposed to do the stuff that the protaginist cdoes. but retards actually think you can act the way the character does)

::shrug:: yeah. a lot of things work until they don't work.

[hawkeye comeback]

and it could still work with right policing.

there are very small amount of people who own guns in britain all of these are criminals except police with lots of training

[bulbasteve]

"No" is not a sufficient answer in any way what so ever.

Without hijacking the thread, it is obvious from his administrations actions that a Fascist is exactly what he is.

Or are you seriously claiming that he isn't a firm believer in a powerful, centralized government, under the contol of one strong leader, who is above the whims or the rules of the law or the legislature?

How about "Hell no!", would that be enough?

If Bush, I don't know, didn't leave office then ok great total fascist.

Oh shoot let's see, this will be a fun game, let's see how many ways it is wrong.

First of all, strong leader? Practically everything has been delegated during the administration, heck the major example of going above the rules (though of the international community) in the new interrogation rules was literally every major figure in the administration (even Colin freakin Powell) BUT him.

Yeah that was fun, someone else do next one!

(I seriously don't know what is so hard to grasp about neo-cons...guess what it's a big freakin tent...even Ron Paul was running...oh and graffitti totally isn't art)

[The Master Meglomaniac]

I understand that you are a well-meaning person. But you're in your head with this stuff, and aren't being very practical about any of it.

First, there isn't "a" law. There are several. Some I agree with, and some I don't. breaking one of them isn't going to stop me from being critical of someone who breaks another, or the same one for a different reason. Furthermore, IF I were going to be critical of someone else, it would be for their actions or rationalization for their actions, and not for "breaking a law". In the ABSENCE of laws, I would remain just as critical.

The problem with telling people that you are not going to follow the law is that you would never get away with it. duh!

Please don't treat me like a fool, back in college I have taken several courses on international relations, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

The fact is bush and supporters have tried to make what is considered torture murky and other countries can easily take advantage. Criticize them you want al, it will come as shallow and hypocritical.

If there aren't international laws, there are at least international understandings and once someone decides they don't need to follow it anymore, the countries will follow suit.

Like water boarding, China can say in light of recent events , that the Tibetian separatists are terrorists and that they can water board them to get info out of them, because according to Bush that isn't torture. If America doesn't consider water boarding torture, why should other countries?

When you decide to change a law, you a set prescient, you can't say everyone has to follow the rules except for me, people will just think you a hypocritie.

That's why people should follow rules, because if you break them, everyone else has the right to do same and you are not in position to protest when they do.

[rick]

How about "Hell no!", would that be enough?

If Bush, I don't know, didn't leave office then ok great total fascist.

You are starting out with a fallacy, since fascism does not equal dictatorship, although of course dictatorships often rise from fascist states.

Try harder.



Oh shoot let's see, this will be a fun game, let's see how many ways it is wrong.


Cool, you first.




First of all, strong leader? Practically everything has been delegated during the administration, heck the major example of going above the rules (though of the international community) in the new interrogation rules was literally every major figure in the administration (even Colin freakin Powell) BUT him.



First and foremost, even Bush has said that those meeting took place with his knowledge and more importantly, his approval. And on top of that are you honestly going to try to make the case that because the administration worked to make sure that Bush has culpable deniability that we should go ahead and play along?

How about I save you some time and give you a list of just a few of the administrations acts that are clearly fascist, and you can go from there?

1. Let’s begin with something simple, so how about signing statements being used as a way to circumvent or re-write laws passed by Congress and signed by the President? The Supreme Court clearly ruled during the case over the Line Item Veto that the Executive can either approve or veto laws put in front of them and that the Executive does not have the power to amend legislation. The administration however has decided to ignore both the legislature and the judiciary on this matter and still uses signing statements to re-write legislation.

2. Then there is the “Military Commissions Act” that the administration claims gives them the right to use the same kind of interrogation techniques that we hung Japanese solders for back in WWII.

3. The administration arrested at least one American citizen at his home and then held him for more than three years without access to the courts, legal representation, or any of his most basic constitutional right.

4. The administration has ignored the constitutionally mandated requirement of using warrants before performing searches or in this case wiretaps.

5. The administration passed through rules allowing the government access to your most personal information while at the same time making it a felony for anyone to tell you that they have done so.

6. Let’s not forget either the existence of secret CIA operated prisons as well as the use of extraordinary rendition, sending people to other countries to have them tortured.

I could go on, but this seems like a good place to stop.

These actions are not the work of someone with either a liberal or a conservative ideological bent, these are clearly the actions of people who are looking at consolidated power structures.



Yeah that was fun, someone else do next one!

(I seriously don't know what is so hard to grasp about neo-cons...guess what it's a big freakin tent...even Ron Paul was running...oh and graffitti totally isn't art)


Yes, please, do another one, that first one didn’t work out so well for you.

And yeah, graffiti sucks.

[rick]

and it could still work with right policing.

there are very small amount of people who own guns in britain all of these are criminals except police with lots of training


That's not even slightly correct.

There are all sorts of law abiding gun owners in Britain.

They are licencsed and heavily controlled, but they are there and they are certainly not criminals.

[hawkeye comeback]

oh yeah i forgot about farmers but still it is heavly controlled as u said

[rick]

oh yeah i forgot about farmers but still it is heavly controlled as u said

And they have shooting and hunting clubs too.

But yeah, heavily controlled.

[hawkeye comeback]

heavily controlled and we have less problems with guns

[rick]

Fixed.......



Naw, he had it right the first time.

[hawkeye comeback]

oh and about grafitti some is good most is bad. i wouldn't say keep all grafitti i said keep the best ones

[carabas]

As for the Patriot Act, that's National Defense, which falls under the federal umbrella, and it came about as a direct response not only to the threat of terrorism...It did not, actually. It's a piece of legislature that had been around for a while, but until 9/11 was pretty much a far rightwing pipe dream. Terrorism was used as an excuse to push it through, but that is not what it was written for.

[bulbasteve]

You are starting out with a fallacy, since fascism does not equal dictatorship, although of course dictatorships often rise from fascist states.

You are the one making that fallacy, not me. I am simply correcting your mistake. You have not described anything that is uniquely fascist. All you said is that it is "centralized government, under the contol of one strong leader, who is above the whims or the rules of the law or the legislature." There is nothing there that is fascist, nothing about the subservience of the individual to the state, nor anything about nationalism or anything else that makes fascism unique. What you described is a simple dictatorship and not a fascist state, ignoring the rule of law does not make you fascist. But hey...try harder next time!


First and foremost, even Bush has said that those meeting took place with his knowledge and more importantly, his approval. And on top of that are you honestly going to try to make the case that because the administration worked to make sure that Bush has culpable deniability that we should go ahead and play along?

You are giving Bush too much credit. This is the man who just said the Pope's speech was "awesome". His advisors run the show (though there are certainly dictatorships where that has happened...though you know...they tend to care a bit more than Bush does). I do think most any book about his presidency by either his supporters or ditractors show the common thread that he has been the ultimate delegation president. Quite different than your impression that he is laughing maniacally behind the scenes twirling his handlebar moutache.

[rick]

You are the one making that fallacy, not me. I am simply correcting your mistake. You have not described anything that is uniquely fascist. All you said is that it is "centralized government, under the contol of one strong leader, who is above the whims or the rules of the law or the legislature." There is nothing there that is fascist, nothing about the subservience of the individual to the state, nor anything about nationalism or anything else that makes fascism unique. What you described is a simple dictatorship and not a fascist state, ignoring the rule of law does not make you fascist. But hey...try harder next time!


Here it is, right from Websters…



Fascism: 1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition



That really isn’t that different from my…. powerful, centralized government, under the control of one strong leader, who is above the whims or the rules of the law or the legislature?.. statement, so no, I think I tried hard enough.

And hey, at least we both agree that the Bush administration operates in a dictatorial manner.




You are giving Bush too much credit. This is the man who just said the Pope's speech was "awesome". His advisors run the show (though there are certainly dictatorships where that has happened...though you know...they tend to care a bit more than Bush does). I do think most any book about his presidency by either his supporters or ditractors show the common thread that he has been the ultimate delegation president. Quite different than your impression that he is laughing maniacally behind the scenes twirling his handlebar moustache.

While I rather like your description of the twirling mustached Bush, I have no argument with saying that it his administration that is fascist and that while he shares their philosophy and as such is also a fascist, he is too intellectually weak to actually be the one running the show.


By the way, I couldn’t help but notice that you completely skipped over my small list of fascist actions committed by the Bush administration.

Funny that.

[bulbasteve]

Appeal to false authority fallacy. You don't use websters when debating political philosophy...you would think they still taught that in school. Dictionaries do not deal with the complexity of philosophies (or anything else really).

The reason I did not reply to your points is because you still are under the false impression that this is what fascism is. It is not. Hell you just cited in the definition some of the defining features that make fascism what it is.

This is politics my friend, there are different political theories or parties where they disagree on one issue. Just being "close enough" doesn't count. You can't just for example call Bush a traditional conservative because he believes in tax cuts but ignore his foreign policy which makes him a neo-con. The world is not as simple as dictionary definitions make them out to be.

To bring it slightly on topic it was the same thing during CW, you don't just simply slap the fascist on policies you don't like.

[The Xenos]

As Steven Colbert said, Reality has a liberal bias.

Meanwhile, if you're vehemently opposed to 'liberal' ideas, then you better stop reading comics now. It's like going to a play, on or off Broadway, and asking if all plays and theaters have a liberal bias.

Welcome to the world of open minded and creative people. If you want nothing but conservatism, stick to Fox News and the Hallmark channel.

Yet if you can stand some liberal ideas, even if you don't agree with them, stick with comics. Just because you disagree with someone's politics, that doesn't mean you shouldn't read their works.

Lord knows I'm a bit right of center, but I'm still considered left by a number of conservatives I know. Then again comparted to most of Boston, I'd be labeled a fascist like they seem label anyone who's not lefty. Lord knows if I had a McCain button I'd be chased off campus, maybe out of the city.

Off the top of my head there's one openly conservative comic writer. That's Chuck Dixon. I admire his going against the grain in this field even if even I don't always agree with some of his political views.

Meanwhile, avoid Judd Winick, at least his DC work. I don't mind that he's liberal. I do mind that he's blunt and arrogant about it.

[rick]

To bring it slightly on topic it was the same thing during CW, you don't just simply slap the fascist on policies you don't like.


Actually you do "slap" that label on, as long as those policies fit into the definition of, you know, what fascism is.

Also, I rather like that you discount the dictionary as a place to get definitions for words.

That's actually an interesting tact to take.

As for the subject at hand, I agree that it was a mistake to call the actions of the Pro-Registration side "fascist".

While the actions of the Pro side are in the end, from a fictional comic book world perspective, a bad idea, in the real world, having people wth powers register would be the minimum that any responsible government would demand.

[bulbasteve]

This is a political philosophy...not a word. You know, some of us take whole classes on this one issue books are written about it and you think that you or anyone else can just fit it into one sentence and apply to anything you don't like.

[mikekerr3]

Appeal to false authority fallacy. You don't use websters when debating political philosophy...you would think they still taught that in school. Dictionaries do not deal with the complexity of philosophies (or anything else really).

The reason I did not reply to your points is because you still are under the false impression that this is what fascism is. It is not. Hell you just cited in the definition some of the defining features that make fascism what it is.

This is politics my friend, there are different political theories or parties where they disagree on one issue. Just being "close enough" doesn't count. You can't just for example call Bush a traditional conservative because he believes in tax cuts but ignore his foreign policy which makes him a neo-con. The world is not as simple as dictionary definitions make them out to be.

To bring it slightly on topic it was the same thing during CW, you don't just simply slap the fascist on policies you don't like.

You are right he was not a fascist during the civil war, he was a criminal authoritarian Thug but not a fascist. I haves used the term fasist wrong before, but Tony has more in common with the Mafia than the Nazis.

[rick]

This is a political philosophy...not a word. You know, some of us take whole classes on this one issue books are written about it and you think that you or anyone else can just fit it into one sentence and apply to anything you don't like.


Yes, some of us do indeed take classes on the subject of government.

However, many political philosophies can be described in only a few sentences.

It really isn't that hard.

And I have to say that I have not said anything to even slightly indicate that the term "fascism" can be used like a label to describe all the things I don't like.

For example, I don't like Green Beans. Never have and never will, however, this does not make the beans fascist, it just makes them beans.


Same with Commies now that In think about it.

Now locking up American citizens while denying them their constitutional rights, while at the same time rewriting laws that you don’t agree with and refusing to follow the rulings and legislation passed by both the judiciary and the legislative branches, and to follow all of that up by attempting to consolidate all government power into the hands of the executive branch, then it’s perfectly reasonable to label those actions “fascist”, since that is what those actions are.

You’re problem here is that you are making the claim that these acts are in fact not fascist and that I am mistaken to use this term. It seems to me that since you are the one making that accusation, then it is up to you to demonstrate how these actions are in fact not fascist, as well as to give us an explanation of what they actually are instead.

I’ll wait.

[Skytheen]

This thread is becoming less cool.

[rick]

This thread is becoming less cool.


You're right.

This kind of argument is what the Comm Board is for.

[bulbasteve]

Yes, yes it is. So I can end it now.

You decide what political philosophy based on what is UNIQUE to them. As far as I know Bush is not saying that communists are trying to destory the country, we are certainly not in any way totalitarian, as well nothing about a national unity based on race, religion etc.

These are what are makes fascism fascism. Not obeying the law has nothing to do with fascism, having a strong leader or centralized government is not unique to fascism.

Fascism does not just mean a bad government, a repressive government or even something so far as a dictatorship. K?! You can call it a "lousy government which breaks the law and violalate some civil liberties" but it is not, I repeat not fascist. It denegrats what fascism is to call the Bush administration fascist. Excessive executive power and not paying attention to Congress and the Courts does not make you fascist, jesus if that was the case then Lincoln was a fascist.

Now we can get back to how all Marvel writers are all dirty Communists :p

[rick]

Yes, yes it is. So I can end it now.

You decide what political philosophy based on what is UNIQUE to them. As far as I know Bush is not saying that communists are trying to destory the country, we are certainly not in any way totalitarian, as well nothing about a national unity based on race, religion etc.

These are what are makes fascism fascism. Not obeying the law has nothing to do with fascism, having a strong leader or centralized government is not unique to fascism.

Fascism does not just mean a bad government, a repressive government or even something so far as a dictatorship. K?! You can call it a "lousy government which breaks the law and violalate some civil liberties" but it is not, I repeat not fascist. It denegrats what fascism is to call the Bush administration fascist. Excessive executive power and not paying attention to Congress and the Courts does not make you fascist, jesus if that was the case then Lincoln was a fascist.

Now we can get back to how all Marvel writers are all dirty Communists :p

Happy?

Good. :rolleyes:

[Flâneur]

And I'm sure that there are people who send them emails saying that they haven't kissed? So what? Does it say anything about Marvel that all their high profile characters think homosexuality is fine? The only character I can think of that had an issue with it was Ultimate Nightcrawler. And his reaction was pretty aberrational as far as how most characters react.
Those weren't the ones being published so I can't speak to them and I won't make an argument on the basis of well that could happen so it had to have happened. Personally, I think people would have said that but I don't think it would have compared to the amount of dislike generated at the issue. And from where do you get the idea that all of Marvel's high profile characters agree with homosexuality? It generally doesn't blip on their radar so nothing is said by them and you can't say they're all fine with it anymore than I could say, which I haven't and wouldn't, that each character is homophobic.

Like you said, you don't want homosexual sex scenes. So how would putting that in a book "amp up the fan appeal?" Frankly (and honestly I don't like either of the plot points that you are referencing) sex sells. And yes I mean heterosexual sex. I don't think it's a "conservative" idea to blatantly offer sexuality to make a few bucks. And I don't think that the homosexual community (though I could be wrong) would like for their sexuality to be used in the same way. I don't think any of that says conservative (or liberal for that matter), it's just cheap tacky business.
I said the straight sex scenes amped up the fan appeal, never said that about homosexual scenes ... And sex sells is the entire point to that, that heterosexuality is a valuable commodity for a fan base whereas homosexuality is just discomfiting says something.


I don't think either malign nor benign is accurate terminology. It's not indifferent, it effects things, but just because it would doesn't mean that it's "malign." I mean if a comic had a homosexual couple openly kissing, and I asked you "is that malign or benign" I'm sure you would be thinking that's the fallacy of the excluded middle, and say that there is a third option there. So your loading your argument.Benign silence and malign silence are specific terms used in certain areas of humanities, so I probably shouldn't have used them. Basically - saying nothing when there is something to be addressed is considered benign by many because it's supposedly not making things worse whereas others consider it malign because its impeding discussion or representation. It doesn't need to have malign intent, which is what's weird about the term, it simply needs to have a negative effect and the effect in this case is that it makes homosexuality a neutered concept in media, which will remain so.


As far as abortion goes, what liberal point of view needs to be pressed? The first number of a quick Google searched revealed that 1 out of every 5 pregnancies end in abortion (the number was half of all pregnancies are unintended and 4 of 10 of those are aborted). I think the numbers were from 2006.
It doesn't need to be pressed, it needs to be permitted. There are strong character stories that have been written and nixed due to it containing abortion, others which are retconned. Marvel doesn't need to *push* a liberal viewpoint to not be conservative, it just needs to *permit* one, just as it permitted a pro-life stance quite recently.

So who's side does their silence slant people towards? Again, I don't think there silence makes them liberal, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to say that if it was anything it was conservative.
It's flinching from the liberal so as to assuage the conservative, in order to prevent the kind of reaction, along with more extreme reactions, the thread starter had. It shows the conservative nature of a publisher which is filled to the brink with libertarian writers.

[Expletive Deleted]

For those who may be wondering, this thread was lopped off of one on the Marvel Universe forum.

[Chris N]

For those who may be wondering, this thread was lopped off of one on the Marvel Universe forum.

Makes a lot of sense.

[rick]

And definitly better here then there.

[Paul McEnery]

And definitly better here then there.

Oh, I don't know.

Reckon everyone over here has received an education on the subject. Not so much where this came from.

[BlairH]

and it could still work with right policing.

there are very small amount of people who own guns in britain all of these are criminals

Sod off!

------------

[Paul McEnery]

Sod off!

------------

Weeeel now, be fair, there's not a whole lot of difference between a criminal and a lawyer. :evilsmile:

[rick]

Sod off!

------------

I thought you'd like that one.

[BlairH]

I thought you'd like that one.

Yeah, it's not an uncommon point of view in the UK. Most people think that only criminals and "fermers" own guns, and completely ignore the fact that target-shooters and firearms certificate owners are statistically (by the very nature of the beast) the most law-abiding group of people in the country.

It does nothing but demonstrate an ignorance of the issue.

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah, it's not an uncommon point of view in the UK. Most people think that only criminals and "fermers" own guns, and completely ignore the fact that target-shooters and firearms certificate owners are statistically (by the very nature of the beast) the most law-abiding group of people in the country.

It does nothing but demonstrate an ignorance of the issue.

Well of course.

Their dabs are on file.

Mind, you could always file them off....

[fred10]

Please don't treat me like a fool, back in college I have taken several courses on international relations, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

The fact is bush and supporters have tried to make what is considered torture murky and other countries can easily take advantage. Criticize them you want al, it will come as shallow and hypocritical.

If there aren't international laws, there are at least international understandings and once someone decides they don't need to follow it anymore, the countries will follow suit.

Like water boarding, China can say in light of recent events , that the Tibetian separatists are terrorists and that they can water board them to get info out of them, because according to Bush that isn't torture. If America doesn't consider water boarding torture, why should other countries?

When you decide to change a law, you a set prescient, you can't say everyone has to follow the rules except for me, people will just think you a hypocritie.

That's why people should follow rules, because if you break them, everyone else has the right to do same and you are not in position to protest when they do.

I don't think you're a fool, man. I'm sure that you're very intelligent. But you're going to make yourself very unhappy trying to convince people what they "should do" instead of dealing in the currency of what people "do do". :biggrin: