scriptorblog's Comments (14)

“It's now Mob v. Polanski.”

“Actually, Polanski did agree to serve the 50 days or so and was ready to finish the sentence. The judge had agreed to the sentence. However, before the actual imposition of the sentence, the prosecutor showed the judge some pictures of Polanski supposedly partying with young girls. The judge then reneged on the sentence, so Polanski took off.

Your post is a good example of the kind of justice, or rather, mob justice and lynching that Polanski will face if, or when, he is extradited. Polanski did not plead guilty to drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13 yr old girl. If he had he would still be in jail in California. He plead guilty to having sex with a minor. There is no judge in California who could be fair and unbiased in Polanski's sentencing. Any judge who sentenced him to less than 20 years would need a bodyguard for the rest of his life.

You don't want justice for Polanski, you want revenge.”

“You go girl!!! I am a father, and I will be damned if my daughter gets discriminated against.”

“Imperial Germany: destroyed in WW I. Inca and Mayan: conquered by the Spanish. Mughul: British colonialism. Kampuchea: destroyed by the Viet and Thai. Zimbabwe: Portuguese and British colonialism. Mesa Verde: probably also part of Spanish conquest. The Portuguese and French states are still active, capitalist states with no sign of suddenly collapsing. The above empires did not collapse, they were invaded, enslaved and destroyed. “Overnight” may be a figure of speech. Choose the time span of one year if you like. The Soviet Empire still unraveling? Name one community, region, people, etc. which is still under the control of the U.S.S.R. Surely in the entire history of the world you can find one empire which collapsed in one year, without being colonialized, without being invaded, without being militarily destroyed.”

“Can you name three empires which collapsed overnight? How does an empire "seemingly" collapse?”

“How do you explain the fall of the Soviet Union? Many, if not all, military powers have engaged in long, economically draining wars without suddenly collapsing. China not remotely following the same path? A communist revolution overthrowing a semi-feudal, primitive capitalist regime; four decades of Stalinist economic policy in spite of which China is about to become the world's second largest economic and military power. Sounds pretty similar to me. There was a recent story about employees in a large factory in China who took control of the factory and refused to leave. The government did not send the military in. Any capitalist or Stalinist government would have killed the workers.

By the way, you should learn that name-calling is not an argument.”

“You rightly note that the "facile" explanation of the demise of the Soviet Union is that of "triumphant" U.S. led capitalism. This, as usual, fails to explain how or why the Soviet state collapsed. There has never, as far as I can tell, in history been a state which, without being invaded, without having a single shot fired on its own territory, without having a single soldier or civilian killed fighting on its own territory, simply collapsed. There have been some which surrendered without a fight, but none that simply disappeared. There was one individual, a Mr. K. Marx, who predicted when a socialist state reached the stage in which no single class was being suppressed, that the state would "wither away and die," I believe were his words.

The Soviet state collapsed in a way specific to its own development, circumstances and history. The collapse did not result, however, in the inability of any future state to develop: The current Russian state appears to be a kind of gangster capitalist organisation. The world's first socialist (some say communist) state collapsed and died within approximately 80 years of its foundation. At this rate the Chinese Communist state should follow the same process in about 2030. What follows for China is anybody's guess.”

“"More often and smaller effects??" Such as the Great Depression? Savings and loan meltdown? Dot.com meltdown? Now the financial sector meltdown? What dream world are you living in?”

“I think you overestimate this "line of attack." The tax and spend, big government argument has been around a very long time, at least as far back as Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, et al. The real issue is George W. Bush. For the Democrats to win they must do the very thing McCain/Palin fear the most: remind them and the American people that they are nothing more than a rerun of Bush. They must demand an answer to the question "Why are you (Republicans) afraid to debate the Bush presidency" and "How are you different from Bush?"”

“Your argument is based on the premise that French elections follow the same historical rules that US elections do, i.e., the party of an unpopular second term president loses elections. Since Sarkozy won this means, according to your argument, that Sarkozy represents some sort of exception to the general rule and, therefore, McCain can also be such an exception. For this argument to be valid you must first show that French elections follow the same rules as US elections. Your conclusion may be valid, but you cannot assume that your premise is valid.

Also, you must agree, for your premise to work, that Ms. Royal's party, the Socialists, is the same as the US Democrat party. I suspect that McCain/Palin would agree with this. However, no Socialist has ever won a US presidential election. Unless you mean to say that the Socialists of France are not really comparable to the Democrats of the US. Except of course that Royal lost which means that Obama will lose because the French are like the Americans, except when they aren't.”

“Democrats can win only if one of two things happen: 1) They steal the election, or 2) A third party candidate runs and takes away enough votes from McCain/Palin. The Democrats have forgotten how to steal elections, and it doesn't look like Ron Paul is going to run.”

“Does the show have legs? Yep, and it will walk all the way to the White House. Not to say they deserve to win; Democrats are the most deserving losers in U.S. political history. Remember Pelosi and Reid? Are there two more forgettable and spineless politicians in recent history? U.S., say hello to McCain/Palin, say goodbye to Roe v. Wade, goodbye to unions, goodbye to election reform, etc., etc.”

“"Risks?"”

“Your sentiments are very laudable, but so naive. Havent you heard? Jefferson, Washington, Madison, et al. never intended to suggest anything about separating church and state. And if you find any history that they did, then you are a dupe of leftist, Anti-American extremist radicals who want to destroy the greatest country in the history of the UNIVERSE.”