|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 22, 2019 15:10:00 GMT -5
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 5:32:33 GMT -5
Very good, you finally found out about Traiskirchen.
Are you going to argue again that I am not allowed to criticize American concentration camps?
(By the way, at the time of the report, the facility was being managed by a private company.)
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 23, 2019 9:57:17 GMT -5
Very good, you finally found out about Traiskirchen. Are you going to argue again that I am not allowed to criticize American concentration camps? I never said that. This is what I actually wrote: "I just don't get it McAnswer. Why are you posting about how terrible America's immigration policies are when your own country seems to have the same sort of problems and is dealing with them in the same manner?"Where did I say that "you are not allowed?" So if Hitler had hired private companies to run his gas chambers, that would have proved conclusively that he wasn't a racist mass-murderer, right? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 11:59:58 GMT -5
So if Hitler had hired private companies to run his gas chambers, that would have proved conclusively that he wasn't a racist mass-murderer, right? Bob You tell me, Bob. Is it still bad when a private company does it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 12:01:11 GMT -5
Very good, you finally found out about Traiskirchen. Are you going to argue again that I am not allowed to criticize American concentration camps? I never said that. This is what I actually wrote: "I just don't get it McAnswer. Why are you posting about how terrible America's immigration policies are when your own country seems to have the same sort of problems and is dealing with them in the same manner?"Well, then, why do you think I am posting about American concentration camps, hm? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 23, 2019 13:50:28 GMT -5
So if Hitler had hired private companies to run his gas chambers, that would have proved conclusively that he wasn't a racist mass-murderer, right? Bob You tell me, Bob. Is it still bad when a private company does it?
Yes. It's still bad.
But if a person hires a killer to murder someone, that person is still guilty of murder.
A government that hires a private company to commit a crime is still guilty of that crime. The Austrian government is still guilty here.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2019 0:01:22 GMT -5
You tell me, Bob. Is it still bad when a private company does it? Yes. It's still bad. But if a person hires a killer to murder someone, that person is still guilty of murder. A government that hires a private company to commit a crime is still guilty of that crime. The Austrian government is still guilty here. Bob
This is what you posted in defense of the American concentration camps: The system has been overwhelmed by the great number of people trying to get into the USA. There are not enough facilities available. People are being transferred to other facilities around the country ( full link here) Do you think the same defense is valid to justify Traiskirchen? If not, please explain why not. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 24, 2019 10:57:28 GMT -5
Yes. It's still bad. But if a person hires a killer to murder someone, that person is still guilty of murder. A government that hires a private company to commit a crime is still guilty of that crime. The Austrian government is still guilty here. Bob This is what you posted in defense of the American concentration camps: Hold on. Why are you likening a center that temporarily holds people until their cases can be heard to a Nazi Death Camp? Is Traiskirchen also like a Nazi Concentration Camp? Are you calling the Austrian government "Nazis?" Yes, I do think the same defense is valid. Both governments are simply overwhelmed. Right?  Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2019 6:14:27 GMT -5
Do you think the same defense is valid to justify Traiskirchen? If not, please explain why not. Yes, I do think the same defense is valid. Both governments are simply overwhelmed. Right? Bob Wrong. The Austrian government was (and is) dominated by the desire to appeal to a substantial racist minority that clamors for the abuse of immigrants. In the case of the Austrian government, they were unsuccessful, as the then-ruling centrist coalition (Conservatives and Social Democrats) was toppled and replaced by a right wing coalition (Conservatives and Xenophobic Populists) which would then double down on their bigoted and abusive policies towards immigrants and refugees, cutting welfare payments and services to registered asylants and immigrants on welfare (which should make you happy, fewer government handouts means less money towards undeserving moochers isn't it?). Obviously, things are very different in America, where the government run concentration camps apparently popped up completely by accident.
Of course, you don't give a single shit about immigrants, and the reason why you brought this up in the first place, is because you were wrongly expecting me to defend this in some way, so you could then paint me as a hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 25, 2019 11:28:38 GMT -5
Yes, I do think the same defense is valid. Both governments are simply overwhelmed. Right? Bob Wrong. The Austrian government was (and is) dominated by the desire to appeal to a substantial racist minority that clamors for the abuse of immigrants. In the case of the Austrian government, they were unsuccessful, as the then-ruling centrist coalition (Conservatives and Social Democrats) was toppled and replaced by a right wing coalition (Conservatives and Xenophobic Populists) which would then double down on their bigoted and abusive policies towards immigrants and refugees, cutting welfare payments and services to registered asylants and immigrants on welfare (which should make you happy, fewer government handouts means less money towards undeserving moochers isn't it?). Obviously, things are very different in America, where the government run concentration camps apparently popped up completely by accident. Nice fantasy you have there. The problem with your explanation is that most of these immigration centers were started over a decade ago. Many were set up by Bush, but several more were opened during the "progressive" Obama administration (which opened several more).
Check out the dates these centers opened.
Does my motivation in making the post mean that what I said is false? Obviously not. Again you are resorting to personal attacks. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2019 12:30:52 GMT -5
Wrong. The Austrian government was (and is) dominated by the desire to appeal to a substantial racist minority that clamors for the abuse of immigrants. In the case of the Austrian government, they were unsuccessful, as the then-ruling centrist coalition (Conservatives and Social Democrats) was toppled and replaced by a right wing coalition (Conservatives and Xenophobic Populists) which would then double down on their bigoted and abusive policies towards immigrants and refugees, cutting welfare payments and services to registered asylants and immigrants on welfare (which should make you happy, fewer government handouts means less money towards undeserving moochers isn't it?). Obviously, things are very different in America, where the government run concentration camps apparently popped up completely by accident. Nice fantasy you have there. The problem with your explanation is that most of these immigration centers were started over a decade ago. Many were set up by Bush, but several more were opened during the "progressive" Obama administration (which opened several more). Check out the dates these centers opened.
And? Who gives a shit which one of your mass murdering war criminals put up the concentration camps? Do you have an actual argument to present in defense of these places? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 25, 2019 12:46:28 GMT -5
Nice fantasy you have there. The problem with your explanation is that most of these immigration centers were started over a decade ago. Many were set up by Bush, but several more were opened during the "progressive" Obama administration (which opened several more). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_detention_sites_in_the_United_StatesCheck out the dates these centers opened. And? Who gives a shit which one of your mass murdering war criminals put up the concentration camps? Ad Hominem. And Complex Question Fallacy. What they did in other matters has no bearing on this topic. When did I ever present an argument in favor of them? All I said was this bad situation was caused by the refusal of the government to properly fund increased facilities so that asylum applications could be processed quickly. And what excuse does the Austrian government have for its "concentration camp?" Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2019 12:49:28 GMT -5
And? Who gives a shit which one of your mass murdering war criminals put up the concentration camps? Ad Hominem. And Complex Question Fallacy. What they did in other matters has no bearing on this topic. When did I ever present an argument in favor of them? All I said was this bad situation was caused by the refusal of the government to properly fund increased facilities so that asylum applications could be processed quickly. ob Awww, shucks then! Such an ooopsie!  Well, then, no use complaining is it? Not like anything can be done for these people, amirite? 
Local communities and Bundesländer governments are nominally obligated to build and fund enough facilities to house all asylum seekers while their cases are being processed, but none of them provide enough funds.
So, just pure accidential oopsie on part of a bungling government!  Teehee!~
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 25, 2019 14:17:11 GMT -5
Ad Hominem. And Complex Question Fallacy. What they did in other matters has no bearing on this topic. When did I ever present an argument in favor of them? All I said was this bad situation was caused by the refusal of the government to properly fund increased facilities so that asylum applications could be processed quickly. Bob Awww, shucks then! Such an ooopsie! Well, then, no use complaining is it? Right, since your text was untouched. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 0:16:22 GMT -5
Yes. Note how, unlike yourself, I do not actually try to excuse and defend the Austrian government's bullshit.
What "other, better states" are people being sent to?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2019 2:45:45 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 10:42:20 GMT -5
Yes. Note how, unlike yourself, I do not actually try to excuse and defend the Austrian government's bullshit. Is that a personal attack? If not, then please say what this has to do with the issue under discussion. "The issue under discussion" is that you keep trying to paint me as a hypocrite for condemning these "Detention Camps" as a crime against humanity and a violation of fundamental human rights. Every single one of your arguments here has been an attempt to attack my position as supposedly inconsistent, from your earlier insinuation that I must house refugees in my own apartment in order to condemn immigration policy, all the way to you bringing up similar issues in my own country, presumably because you expect me to not condemn the same crimes from my own country's government. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2019 11:07:58 GMT -5
Is that a personal attack? If not, then please say what this has to do with the issue under discussion. "The issue under discussion" is that you keep trying to paint me as a hypocrite for condemning these "Detention Camps" as a crime against humanity and a violation of fundamental human rights. Every single one of your arguments here has been an attempt to attack my position as supposedly inconsistent, from your earlier insinuation that I must house refugees in my own apartment in order to condemn immigration policy, all the way to you bringing up similar issues in my own country, presumably because you expect me to not condemn the same crimes from my own country's government. But your position is inconsistent. All I did was point out that letting people into a country without any sort of checking would be similar to letting anyone come into your house without your permission. Since no one does that, this was obviously not a personal attack. I was simply making an analogy. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 11:31:33 GMT -5
"The issue under discussion" is that you keep trying to paint me as a hypocrite for condemning these "Detention Camps" as a crime against humanity and a violation of fundamental human rights. Every single one of your arguments here has been an attempt to attack my position as supposedly inconsistent, from your earlier insinuation that I must house refugees in my own apartment in order to condemn immigration policy, all the way to you bringing up similar issues in my own country, presumably because you expect me to not condemn the same crimes from my own country's government. But your position is inconsistent. That's an unsupported assertion. You control how people enter your apartment by giving them permission personally. According to your analogy, people are not allowed to enter your country until you personally approve of them entering. How do you reconcile that with the simple fact that this is not actually happening anywhere in the world, and that your analogy is therefore based on a completely wrong idea of how your own country actually works? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2019 12:14:09 GMT -5
But your position is inconsistent. That's an unsupported assertion. Actually, I did support it in the very next sentences which you have conveniently posted below. But I don't personally own the entire country. I only share ownership with all the other citizens. For convenience, we have the government act as our agent. So the government takes over the task of giving permission to enter. Complex Question Fallacy. Are you saying that nations don't check who enters their country? Then why are all those guards at the airport checking people's papers? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 15:10:09 GMT -5
But I don't personally own the entire country. So you admit that you are not the house owner in your analogy. So who is the house owner? And do you believe that I personally own the entire country? So who is the government in your house owner analogy? So since you are personally responsible for who gets into the country and who doesn't, does that mean you are also responsible for the atrocities done to immigrants by border controls and the ICE? Did you order all this? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2019 16:20:26 GMT -5
But I don't personally own the entire country. So you admit that you are not the house owner in your analogy. So who is the house owner? No I didn't and you are intelligent enough to know that isn't what I said at all. I AM a part owner and every 2 years I get to vote for the board of directors. As I said, Part Owner. So who is the government in your house owner analogy?[/quote] In the case of a house owner, the owners themselves are the government. Remember the old saying: Every person's house is their Castle? No I didn't order it. And in the next election I will cast my vote against it. Since you asked me about my personal responsibility, I get to ask about yours. Are you responsible for the border atrocities committed by the Austrian government? What have you done to stop it? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 19:02:39 GMT -5
So you admit that you are not the house owner in your analogy. So who is the house owner? No I didn't and you are intelligent enough to know that isn't what I said at all. I AM a part owner and every 2 years I get to vote for the board of directors. Really? What part of the United States do you own, and how did you acquire that portion of real estate? You still haven't explain who the government is in your analogy. Is it the house? The landlord? The police? But that is total nonsense. I do not own any real estate in Austria. So when you complain about the government, you are complaining about yourself and your fellow citizens? When you say that the government is corrupt and inefficient, who specifically are you talking about? Yourself? But you said that you decide who gets into your house. And since you are the government, you dediced what happens to people who get in. By your own analogy, it is you who is responsible for how these people are treated. Or are you saying that you have no say in what happens in your own house? There were no actual border atrocities I know of. Are you talking about the immigrant cammp at Traiskirchen? That's not even close to the border. I am responsible for it insofar as I have not done anything material to prevent my government's security forces, or the private company given responsibility over the camp, from enacting their policies. I am responsible in the same sense as the part of the German population not involved in any Nazi crimes was responsible for the Holocaust, by not resisting violently enough. Other than that, there is very little I can materially do to stop this, except voice my displeasure. Nothing. But that doesn't mean I have to defend or justify it in any way or form, does it? I can condemn a crime without being in a position to stop it. Don't you think so? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2019 21:58:36 GMT -5
No I didn't and you are intelligent enough to know that isn't what I said at all. I AM a part owner and every 2 years I get to vote for the board of directors. Really? What part of the United States do you own, and how did you acquire that portion of real estate? It's the same as the stock in a company. If there are a thousand shares and you own one, then you own 1/1000 part of that company. But you can't point to any one part and say that "I own that." The government is the public servants who obey the will of the owners (the voters) through their elected agents (President and Congress). Are you saying that Austria is not a Democracy and that you have absolutely no say in how the government is run? Nope. I'm complaining about our agents, the politicians. No Again. I am talking about our public servants. Ultimately yes. Just as you are responsible for the right-wing government that put immigrants into TRAISKIRCHEN. I do have a say, even though it is very small. Same here. For once we agree. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2019 12:01:17 GMT -5
Really? What part of the United States do you own, and how did you acquire that portion of real estate? It's the same as the stock in a company. If there are a thousand shares and you own one, then you own 1/1000 part of that company. But you can't point to any one part and say that "I own that." That's total nonsense. You do not own any shares in America. That is a complete fantasy that you made up. Which is... what exactly, in your analogy? Non sequitur. One has nothing to do with the other. Stock companies are not democracies, and countries are no stock companies. That's a fantasy that you made up.
And by the way, Austria is a Federal Republic.
Who are not the government, as we established. The government is you and your fellow citizens. Why would I be? I never claimed to own Austria. Did you order these policies, then? Do you find them justified in principle? Does that mean you agree that US "detention" camps are a crime against humanity after all? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 27, 2019 12:50:37 GMT -5
It's the same as the stock in a company. If there are a thousand shares and you own one, then you own 1/1000 part of that company. But you can't point to any one part and say that "I own that." That's total nonsense. You do not own any shares in America. That is a complete fantasy that you made up. It's in the Constitution. I have to right to vote for government officials just like shareholders have the right to vote for the board of directors. What "analogy?" I just gave a description of how the political system works. Don't you vote in the Austrian elections? If you don't have part ownership of your government, why bother? Right? So you are saying that stockholders don't vote and have absolutely no say in the running of their companies. Or are you saying that citizens don't vote and have no say in the running of their country. Then why vote? And why report election results? According to what you just said, citizens and stockholders have absolutely no say. Yes. A Federal Republic that according to what you just said, voters have absolutely no say in how things are run. Wrong. Citizens choose the government. They are not themselves the government. If they are, then where is their government office? So then you never voted in the election that put the right-wingers in power, right? Because after all, you have no ownership rights in the Austrian government. I voted Libertarian and the Libertarian platform is totally against these policies. We got outvoted. An unintentional crime cause by government incompetence and indifference, but Yes I do. Do you agree the same for Austria's "detention" camp? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2019 15:14:22 GMT -5
That's total nonsense. You do not own any shares in America. That is a complete fantasy that you made up. It's in the Constitution. I have to right to vote for government officials just like shareholders have the right to vote for the board of directors. Please show me where the US Constitution elaborates that every citizen is a shareholder of the state. Your "living in a country is just like owning a house" analogy. Again, total non sequitur. Elections and parliamentary politics have nothing to do with property ownership these days. So you are saying that stockholders don't vote and have absolutely no say in the running of their companies. [/quote]I'm saying that citizens are not shareholders, and vice versa. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? I never said that citizens have no say. You made that up. Again, that's a claim you invented. Please stop lying about what I said, thank you. Wrong. Citizens choose the government. They are not themselves the government. If they are, then where is their government office? I have no idea. I am only going by what you said: "In the case of a house owner, the owners themselves are the government."I didn't vote for either of the right-wing parties, no. And no, I don't have any ownership rights over the Austrian government. But you said that these people are your employees. So you are responsible for their conduct. No, I do not consider them unintentional crimes. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 27, 2019 15:32:05 GMT -5
It's in the Constitution. I have to right to vote for government officials just like shareholders have the right to vote for the board of directors. Please show me where the US Constitution elaborates that every citizen is a shareholder of the state. The Right to Vote is clearly in the U.S. Constitution. As far as your Rights go, that analogy is correct. Yes they do. Elected officials are the managers the people pick to take care of their property. It's difficult for me to understand because you haven't given any reasons to support your arbitrary statements. Well if they have a say, then they are the owners. Again, if they do have a say, then they are the owners. I meant that the citizens don't take care of the day-to-day government work. But the citizens are still ultimately in charge. But you did vote for the left-wing parties, didn't you? Why did you do that if you have no ownership rights over the government? And you are responsible for the behavior of those Right Wing politicians in Austria that you didn't vote for. For Austria too? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2019 15:50:18 GMT -5
Please show me where the US Constitution elaborates that every citizen is a shareholder of the state. The Right to Vote is clearly in the U.S. Constitution. But we were not talking about the right to vote. We were talking about your claim that citizens are shareholders. Do you have any supporting evidence for that? Where is your evidence for that? Again, no evidence for your claims. Where is your evidence that electing officials is connected to property ownership? Do you also need supporting evidence for the "arbitrary statement" that apples aren't oranges? And why do I need to support my statement, but you don't need to support yours? Can you explain that? Non sequitur: "Having a say" in government is not the same thing as having "exclusive rights and control" over objects, real estate, or intellectual property. "Being in charge" entails a certain responsibility for the actions of the people who work on your behalf. If you're "in charge" of your country's immigration policy, then you are ultimately responsible for the effects of that policy. Because I believe they will run the government according to my interest. You claim that you are already in charge of the government, why would you need to vote for a party to represent your interests? That sounds like a needless intermediary step. No, I'm not. I am only responsible for my lack of resistance and action against them. Yes, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 27, 2019 19:18:07 GMT -5
The Right to Vote is clearly in the U.S. Constitution. But we were not talking about the right to vote. We were talking about your claim that citizens are shareholders. Do you have any supporting evidence for that? So what's the voting all about then? Shareholders legally own the company. That's why they are able to vote for the Board of Directors. Citizens legally own the country. That's why they have to power to vote for the government. I said: "The government is the public servants who obey the will of the owners (the voters) through their elected agents (President and Congress)." Are you saying that government officials are not public servants who can be voted out of office? Ohmygod! Then Austria is a dictatorship! Thank goodness we can still vote politicians out of office here in America. And that's the evidence. It stands until you can demonstrate that voters in a Democracy don't have the power to remove officials at the next election. LOL! You can't be serious. The fact that the voters are choosing the people who will be running the country is proof of ownership. "Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy"a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." www.dictionary.com/browse/democracyAre you claiming that it is possible to have "supreme power" without exercising ownership rights? Good luck with that one. But you weren't talking about apples and oranges now, were you? You said that citizens are not shareholders but you offered no supporting evidence at all. Citizens are like shareholders in that shareholders exercise supreme power in a company while citizens are the supreme power in a Democracy (see above definitions of "democracy) As for the definition of "shareholder: "a person who owns shares in a company and therefore gets part of the company's profits and the right to vote on how the company is controlled" dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/shareholderOf course with a non-profit company, there is no profit to distribute. The same is true of government. Sure I can explain it. Your question is a Complex Question Fallacy. I never said I don't have to support my statements. And most individual shareholders don't have much of a say in how a company is run. But they do own a piece of that company as long as they own that share of stock. In a similar fashion, individual voters have a say in how the country is run as long as they are able to vote.
Yes. And the voters who put the Nazis a big vote in 1933 are ultimately responsible for putting Hitler in power. So were the Venezuelan voters who put Chavez in power in 1998 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Venezuelan_presidential_electionSorry but you can't do that. According to what you said earlier, you have no ownership rights over the government. So you can't say how the government is to be run. Yes, but so are 60 million or so other voters. It's a little difficult to get us all in one room to have a policy discussion.That's why we have to elect representatives. It's a little more convenient you know. That's the same thing! Good. Agreed. Bob |
|
Teehee!~