Hard on the heels of my hard-hitting critique, Mark Webber, celebrated Australian F1 driver, said, "When you hear of people losing their lives, this is a tragedy. It's probably not the best time to go there for a sporting event. They have bigger things, bigger priorities."
Obviously he couldn't go for a full-out condemnation, seeing as Bahrain money supports him and his, but still, what he's saying is pretty good. Bernie Ecclestone, on the other hand, continues to support the illegitimate regime, but what do you expect of a Nazi?
Monday, February 21, 2011
Next stop: Melbourne
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
Every regime is illegitimate.
After being told that I "don't get it," I'm hesitant to post a comment here.
CA: Even the regime of Dovid Malka Meshicha?
e: and yet you did- I'm very proud.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jlH_a6DK1Ajs3lJVY140yvvnpYoA?docId=6021112
Aha, you and the Australians are in cahoots, aren't you??? I've always suspected.
Subscribing
Sara: um, not really. That's just the next stop for F1.
My roommate believes that Starbucks is run by Freemasons. People can believe that anyone is in cahoots with anyone, if they wish.
I bet that Freemason J converted just to infiltrate the Jewish conspiracy.
Who is Freemason J? And what's the Jewish conspiracy?
1. A.K.A. Sebastion
2. Read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, sheeple.
TRS: Dovid Malka Meshicha has (or will have) a reign, not a regime.
semantics.
Roommate: These are serious accusations you are bandying about!
I mean, I know, but why haven't I been inducted yet?
Anon: So what's the difference between a regime and a reign?
If you manage to meaningfully explain the difference between a reign and regime, do tell me did David and Solomon have reigns or regimes? Were they legitimate?
trs: yeah, yeah, all you jews claim not to know about the conspiracy. But today it's not possible to keep the cat in the bag any longer. deal with it.
That's exactly it: a reign is legitimate, a regime is not. That's why you hear of "regime change," but never "reign change." (Although, in the case of Moshiach, we're experiencing "reign delay.")
circular argument.
That's like saying, "How do I know that democracy is good and fascism is bad? Because democracy is good and fascism is bad. That's why you hear of U.S. troops bringing democracy to other nations, but never about U.S. troops bringing fascism to other nations."
You don't hear about a "reign change" because that's improper English grammar.
No, democracy is good because it (more or less) increases the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of the citizens; fascism is bad because it opposes all of the above.
But that's irrelevant, anyway. "Democracy" and "fascism" are terms that (in principle, at lesat) can be objectively applied to a government based on how it acts. "Reign" vs. "regime," on the other hand, are purely subjective: if we like it we call it a "reign," if we don't we call it a "regime." It's like the famous expression, "I'm a firm believer, you're stubborn, he's davar-acher-headed."
So you're admitting that that you're being nonsensical?
No, I am saying that Certified Ashkenazi's "every regime is illegitimate" is a tautology: calling it a "regime" automatically implies that it is illegitimate.
not at all. "regime" has a negative connotation, but strictly speaking, a regime can be legitimate (according to statists).
CA, our resident anarchist, is pointing out that all regimes are illegitimate. This is not tautological. In fact, most people are statists and would disagree.
Well, that was fun.
Were the anon?
Were they fun?
That was meant to read "Were you anon?"
I think we should set up an anonymous convention. All the anons could get together and change their names every few seconds and maybe talk about what it's like to live without an identity.
That sounds like a swell idea!
Right? and you guys could eat mystery meat and drink equally mysterious drinks. And maybe play Guess Who.
Oh sarabonne, you're so clever.
Sigh, I am aren't I?
Yes. Now stop talking to yourself.
Hey, if anonymity was good enough for Esther, why shouldn't it be good enough for us?
Post a Comment