Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 49

Thread: What Is Fascism

  1. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Buffalo N.Y.
    Post Likes
    Cause an Effect= for every action there is a reaction.
    From the smallest particle to the largest mass the rule is followed. Not to be construed as a law of physics.

    If there is an attack we take action to prevent another, (by the way, that is more than Clintons administration has ever done).

    Instead of saying "we could be safer than we are right now without the erosion of the first 10 amendments to the constitution", why not give some examples of how. Also, the comment about the erosion of the "Bill of Rights" is definitly not new.

    What seemed to make sense 200 yrs ago will not always survive, some of your so-called rights will have to be removed to fit into a growing and changing world.
    For instance, and not to try and interpet the constitution, The right to bear arms, do you think what they meant then really has any bearing now?
    Not to believe that these terrorist attacks have no relation to your erroding civil rights is just outrageous.
    Why do you blame your govt for this when they weren't the ones to fly planes onto 2 towers, 1 pentagon, and 1 feild.

    With all that being said I really don't believe that your civil rights have been violated, if they have then do tell.
    Don't try to fight for something that will bite you in the ass once you turn your back on it.

    Even though your arguments are admirable, they are mis-placed and mis-directed. It's not a perfect country or world, but you sound jaded as your hatred for America seems strong.

  2. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Post Likes

    Re: Gotta disagree

    Originally posted by rob10
    We can win the war on terrorism if we kill off as many muslims as we can put our hands on!!
    May or may not work but we could try it.
    “Engineers like to solve problems. If there are no problems handily available, they will create their own." Scott Adams

    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
    Albert Einstein

  3. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Likes
    Hey! Remember may have something here. Let's throw out the Constitution, declare that the Declaration of Independence was a huge mistake, make it a law that everybody goes to see "Bowling for Columbine" and "F-911", and make Michael Moore "King of the UNTIED States of America"! That would solve all of our problems!

    Yeah, right.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    Proud member of KA Club

  4. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Likes
    the right to bear arms has not changed.

    there is no reason to alter it at all.

    and hey bootlen,I'm the one for the constitution.the patriot act is the one against it.

    and to say how we could be safer,

    if the fbi wasn't in the buisness of protecting terrorists.

    one case:

    the illinois atty gen. and several FBI agents in the chicago office,were compiling a case against suspected terrorists.

    two of whom were on those planes9-11.and their money man,hassin al-qadi.after submitting requests for a year to get warrants and being "forgotten",
    eventually a higher up in the FBI came to the office and told the station chief and the agents in question to quote"
    "let sleeping dogs lie"

    against the protests of all involved,the case was closed.

    so not only were two of the hijackers saved by someone at the FBI,but hassin al-qadi is the owner of a maryland software company called PTECH.they are software programmers suppling security systems.

    some of their big recent contracts include:FBI,CIA,secret service,NSA,immigration service,etc.

    that brief account is from a story on "frontline",last year.
    at that point ,when they interviewed the two agents and the atty gen.,the three said they tried to contact and testify before the 9-11 commission,but were getting no reponse.

    so it doesn't seem from one incident that we as a country are even getting basic investigations,nevermind the gov't breaking down the constitution to make us safe.

    then the case of the FBI translator that blew the whistle that the job the FBI is doing is more about protecting their reputation than protecting the country.

    by passing up important revisions of mistranslations that would be crucial to investigations that are dead,and shouldn't be;or going in the wrong direction
    directly due to the practice of not"correcting"a fellow agent/translator because it would look bad on their record.

    FBI boss says"we don't make each other look bad,no matter would you like someone doing that to you."

    my rights,

    amendment 1,congress shall make no law RESPECTING the establishment of religion, OR prohibiting...

    over a billion dollars of public money going to faith based groups.small now but we'll see.

    a well regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms ,shall not be infringed.

    that means anything,not just guns for hunting.

    people can own any gun they want,a collector,for the range;the law comes in in prosecuting criminals convited using guns in a crime.

    amendment 4
    the right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses,papers,and effects,against unreasonable searches and siezures,shall not be violated,and no warrants shall issue,but upon probable cause,supported by oath or affirmation,and particularly describing the place to be searched,and the persons or things to be siezed.

    patriot act nullifies this amendment.

    not only can officials seach your records:creditcard purchases,library reading list,jobsite,tax records,home,office,car and anywhere else;
    they don,t have to tell you they did.and it is illegal to inform someone they are under suveilence. all without a warrant.

    the abuses suffered by the colonists on this very issue is why it got into our constitution in the first place.

    and don't forget ;the federalists never would have included the first 10 amendments if not for the refusal of the anti-federalists and the states to ratify the constitution without them.

    and now the federalists(i.e. republicans,democrats,council on foreign relation types)are still trying to remove the hindrances the people have imposed upon them.

    have you ever heard of "project Eschelon"
    a NSA surveilence operation that monitors all digitalelectronic communication around the globe.

    before 9-11;
    i used to ***** about it and people didn't even think it existed.the officials sometimes denied it sometimes didn't.

    after 9-11
    it became heralded as a saving grace,and then no one even questioned that it was all wrong,and unconstitutional.

    and it proved of no value to stopping 9-11 either.

    an example was a lady in new york talking on the phone about a play her son was in.
    she was talking about that he "bombed"at the school.

    this conversation was enough to create a "file" on her and her family.which is probably still open.
    60 minutes did a piece with lots of individuals caught in the web.

    the upcoming "CAPPS II" program that will flag everybody and their spending records,for buying an airplane ticket.

    the fact is if it is just a program that keeps records and info for everyone,whats the difference to authortarian control.if your future is at stake.

    some generation down the road hopefully the kids will be taught how in the late 20th century and beginning of the 21st , the freedoms of this country were in jeopardy but then the trend was reversed before the meaning was lost to history.

    or will they be taught of the "great first dynasty of bush and the second even greater coming of 1st.,king of these united socialist states of perpetual war for perpetual peace."

    I know at this point that is just hysterical rants,but this federal train doesn't stop once it gets rolling. all great falls were preceded by little stumbles.

    amendment 6

    amendment8,9 and 10.

    even the drug war is unconstitutional,in my opinion.certainly a folly.

    giving police a mandate to control personal behavior that in no way effects others,necessarily.

    so the prison -industrial complex is on the rise,and our money going down the drain to build prisons instead of schools.

    and actually I love america,
    that is why I care when I see these gross inconsistancies between history,policy and reality.
    these little things mean so much.

    and to you "cause and effect" thing.

    maybe you are misconstruing my words because I am paraphrasing history.

    I understand this little blurb doesn't even begin to cover all the personalities and situations and relationships that all are full of nuance.

    and the history of everything is told from different viewpoints.nothing happens without a divergence of opinion.then some of those opinions make it to the point of being remembered.
    this is where the "victors" and "to whom the spoils go" come in on influencing what gets remembered and what gets forgotten.

    my analogy is :
    like a stone wall.

    you start with a pile of rubble-chaos.
    through patience,principle and practice,eventually the stones get shaped,and laid into the wall.

    the character of the mason and the rocks goes into making what that wall will look like.
    a different mason could use the same rubble pile and produce a drastically different looking wall.

    when you look at the wall though,the decisions have already been made and there is order.

    so me describing that wall sounds very ordered and like a "conspiracy".
    but the reality is that there was chaos,order was created,

    and the product of that order may appear to have had more deliberate design incorporated than there actually was.

    build on principle

    [Edited by remember on 07-11-2004 at 12:36 PM]

  5. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Likes
    cause and effect.

    yeah,there is cause and effect;whats your point?

    gov'ts are supposed to make more coordinated actions.
    lots of people have been taught how.
    what this administration has done remains to be seen ,if it was a good idea or not.or even ,if it wasn't the stupidest piece of statecraft in the entire century.

    and the reason they had the right to bear arms in the 18th century was the same reason we need to bear arms today.

    there is no good reason to keep responsible people from owning any gun they want.even if it is a 50 CAL. jeep mounted machine gun rig.

    so just because times have changed,people haven't.

    and you must think in terms of duration,
    would it be wise to disarm the american populace for the duration of our remaining a country.

    even if today that arguement made sense to you(doesn't to me),to take away an entire populations ability to DEMAND equal treatment under the law,from an abusive form of gov't,or invading army,or even a roaming band of brigands.
    that is reckless.
    a blind faith that what exists now will only get better.unwise.

    so if you think that because we were attacked again,that is reason enough to give up rights,I think that is dangerous and seditious.

    ben franklin said,"those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve niether."

    the inhabitants of this country have been getting attacked by someone is no different.

    and anybody trying to sell you that is full of hooey.

  6. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Buffalo N.Y.
    Post Likes
    No, I never once mentioned gun control. But you have to think in the now.
    And there is gun control, not everybody can or should own weapons, that's gun control. But by the wording you would think that wasn't considered way back then. Your right had to adjust with the times. And no, 50cal's have no place in a society, especially the M2 type.

    What made sense back then doesn't always make sense now.

    Equal treatment under the law:
    This is only a falicy in peoples minds, it will never, ever happen. Utopia doesn't exist. Nobody truley has any god given rights, your rights are because of the will of the people.

    You have to think realisticly, not politicly.
    So what if we have to give up some of our rights to win a battle to save our country. As you know, freedom isn't always free, and everybody has to sacrifice something for the good of the whole.

    You mention the Supreme Court giving away your rights.
    Just the other day they ruled on the Anti-Pornography Act, sent it back to a lower court for further review.
    Well!! children and pedophiles are free to roam about because your rights as an adult might just be violated.
    That is one example of domestic issues. Not to be confused with international ones.

    You are upset because you might have to give alittle, you quote Ben Franklin amongst others with these god wrenching lines of freedom over security, but back then the world was a different place, which has no bearing on today.

    You mention "Project Escehlon", saying it's un-constitutional, well actually it isn't.
    It's the public airwaves which are free and open, and it is a matter for national security, which falls under no court jurisdiction. Only congress has oversight.
    The data that is collected is immense, no one, not even the computers can sift through all the data in a timly manner for apropriate further action. Yes mistakes are made and they are corrected.

    Speaking of the court system, your freedoms made it almost impossible to persue legal matters in regards to terrorist suspects. Well! if we can't prosecute them, we must kill them. We can't kill them because we can't locate them, because your upset that somebody might just be listening to your cellphone conversation as you blowoff work for the day.

    Airline ticket purchase habit monitoring is nothing new, this has been going on for years, even before the "Patriot Act", even before Clinton.

    You talk about "sometime down the road" as if with all this nonsense your talking about could ruin our country, send us into facisim. Well! that argument has been going on probably before the Civil War, and yes we, as a country have been adjusting. These civil right activist need to pick up a gun and defend their nation.

    The world is full of in-justice, do you really think that this will change anything? Remove the human race and you have solved the problem.

  7. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Likes
    yes,this has been going on since before the civil war.
    before the revolutionary war too.

    we don't need to give up any rights to be protected.
    the truth is there is no way to "totally" protect us at all times.

    so to give up on the freedoms that have already been enumerated,is won't make us any safer.

    the devil is in the details,and I don't want to push a point like ,"give up 'whatever happens happens.
    I'm saying that it is a fraud for some to say that we need to think like we should give up the basics of what made this country different from the rest,for the "good of the whole".

    for surely'that would be bad for the whole.

    today we are no safer ,than yesterday.
    and to say the odds against a terrorist directly affecting any one person is smaller than your chance of being struck by lightning.

    don't get me wrong ;i in no way am implying that the situation we are facing is "bush administration" stuff .or going back to "clinton administration".

    this story has been going on forever,and we are the "new Atlantis" like in Francis Bacon's book published in 1625.

    we are the heirs to the grand tradition of western civilization.

    there are players on the national stage and supra-national stage that are upholding that tradition.

    the history of this country fits into the history of the world.not the other way around.

    the "federalist"influence in the creation of this country came from england,and a group thats power has come from when before we revolted.and still regrets that "mistake" on their part for letting us go.england has no written constitution,just tradition.(and it is as the party in power says it is.england is a very secretive society.aristocracy,where we are going.

    that group and their tradition is alive and well in the erosion of the freedoms that the anti-federalists required for allegience.(the anti-federalists were closer to the freedom of the human spirit,as with our allies in france and their revolution)

    this federalist strain is at home with totalitarian control,which is why the "conspiracy theorists" have always seen them as working towards;fascism and communism.
    because "they" have been strong supporters of all of our ideological enemies.(nazi's,soviets, maoist chinese,,etc)

    but I see it as they were there first and those groups are/were working for them.

    the high ideals of the anti-federalists is what schoolchildren think of when they think of the great traditions of a proud country.(democracy/freedom)

    when they grow up they need to learn the reality that this is not a democracy but a republic. and know the difference.

    they both have shortcomings,but the federalists hide behind the cloak of what is noble even when they work to undermine those promises.

    and they should be taught that the struggle to keep our freedom has not been fought against outside enemies,but the real struggle has been against the enemy within.

    this country had unprecedented natural resources and a race of people that could be exterminated so the european powers could come here and stake their claim.
    and we had two oceans to protect us and keep us from fueding like europe and the british balance of power,they exercised.

    but the american people can only be ruled by their money,not by an army.

    so the powers that be had to resign themselves to becoming the american establishment and coasting on the "growth" of a nation.

    howard zinn..."the peoples history of the united states"
    is a pretty good volume of the peoples struggle to attain the high ideals of the words of the founding fathers.

    the guys dying in vietnam did nothing for this country,sadly.
    their gov't was in the "perpetual war for perpetual peace" game,making money and securing stability for american buisness intrests abroad.

    ,the communist won,big buisness does buisness with them as happily as anybody else,even more so.;because they can get "control" with "state" contracts.general motors is now the largest car manufacturer in china.

    now unions are corrupt and a dirty word to some.
    but if buisness had its way without being forced over the years,we would all be living in some "milltown",isolated from the world,working for subsistance wages.

    the people struggled and made this country great,not the gov't.

    and the armed forces have not in my lifetime actually gone anywhere in defense of this country.sadly.from vietnam on.

    a friend of mine has been in many an action from,granada,panama,lebanon,iraq,kuwait,columbia,e tc.
    and none of them was for us,unless you count for the oil and buisness.and no disrespect to servicemen and women,but they may not realize they are "helping"this country vis a vis helping multi-national buisness climates.

    at least there are many people that are benefitting in other parts of the world by our actions.

    we have rights because the constitution says so.

    if the constitution is changed,those people that still have the guns(power),will decide whether we have rights or not.

    god knows when they wrote the constitution and the first 10 amendments,they didn't mean them.
    but we have them,just the same.

    and you shouldn't confuse stupid decisions like the supreme court not deciding on child porn,like it is free speech,as movement in one direction.

    in the past ;

    people have gone through great lenths to create very bad situations,not because they were after creating those situations,but they were after the predictable backlash to the situation created.
    like lawmakers writing a bad law,they know won't standup to scrutiny,but can be used as a sound-byte because a "spun" synopsis sounds bad for those voting against it.

    this supreme court could be looking at "real" cases and not wasting their time like this.

    but each decision doesn't make a pattern.

    the "get real" is get may not think politics is real;but these peoples schemes and deal are running over everyone right now,there is no more real than that.

    and to think you can avoid "what they do"is naive.

    and my life is fine.

    I'm just punching out some words on a computer,not "battling the empire"

    hope yours is too and stays that way.

  8. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Buffalo N.Y.
    Post Likes
    One likes to think that all the rights given us will be kept intact, but that just isn't so. What you might consider a right someone else will consider an hinderance.
    As time has gone the "Bill Of Rights" had to be interputed and revised as our society has evolved, ie: Freedom of Speech does not give a person the right to slander. Some might see this as an infrigment on their 1st Admendment right, and I bet that argument had to be resolved.
    The meaning is that the Bill of Rights are so vague as to the true meaning that the Supreme Court is in place to interpet them, and as the world changes so will the considerations of the rights given.
    You cannot expect them to hold solid. They haven't.
    Another for instance; Admendment 4, Whay constitutes "unreasonable search and seizure"? here again this is so vague that the Supreme Court has had to clarify and pass opinions on the argument, and these opinions are to be used by lower courts for rulings.
    How is "probable cause" in the statement to be handled. Notice it states that a warrant is to be obtained. Police can search your person or possesions without a search warrant and only with probable cause or reason of certainty, no warrent needed. Changed.

    Now look at Admendment 9, how would you interpret this?

    It's not about "when they wrote the admendments they didn't mean them", it's about how to interpret them. This can be said with certainty, they left them vague and open for a reason.

    You say that "today we are no safer ,than yesterday".
    In which manner are you refering to? I'm assuming another terrorist attack.
    I would beg to differ. we have most definitly made it much harder for them to corrdinate and excecute actions upon us.
    This is not to say that we will be 100% safe, our open society will not allow it.

    As to our past military actions.
    "the guys dying in vietnam did nothing for this country,sadly.
    their gov't was in the "perpetual war for perpetual peace" game,making money and securing stability for american buisness intrests abroad".
    That comment has no basis.
    The goal in Vietnam was to stop or slow the spread of communism. Sadly we lost many men and women but to minimze their sacrifice with a comment as that is very shallow.
    Your not looking at the goal or intention, your just inputing your own opinion.
    Every war has an economic unerlaying, if looked at indepth you'll see that. Economics plays a large part in every decision, our economics that gives you, or us our way of life, isn't that worth fighting for? I surely don't want to sacrifice it for some fanatic.
    It's known that terrorist want to disrupt our economy, they already have, need they try again?

    How did the communist win? just because we do business with China doesn't mean they won, if anything we won. Granted they flood the markets with sub-standard goods made with cheap labor but here again our open society, which you so dearly don't want to change, let's it happen.

    In closing the "Patriot Act" is intended to weed out the bad while not affecting the good.
    The phlosiphy may make sense but there will be problems, there always are.
    If it is kept there will be refinments to make sure that the rights of the innocent are not infringed upon, it is a very large task and will not happen overnight.

    What scares me the most is that we live in a society that doesn't accept change very well, the world is always changing and we need to keep pace so as not to let our guard down all the while protecting our basic rights.
    At his time this is all we have to work with.

  9. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Likes
    communists won in vietnam because we had to scuttle our buts out and take nothing with us.

    if it was a war,that is winning.
    technically ,I guess it wasn't a war.

    and it did nothing to slow communism.and that is not just my opinion but that of many of the generals and officers that waged that expedition.many generals that were there seeing what was going on ;in the war and on the economic side have written books to that point.

    communism has been no threat to this country.
    that is a ruse.
    this country was never in danger from,or in danger of becoming communist.

    that was /is just spin that was created to justify expansionism and military expenditure.

    the soviet union never had any intention of "taking over america.
    just resisting it.

    and the communists will never win,they will join the world economy,like everybody else.

    and that is all a moot point ,when you consider that communism would have failed on its own if not for financial and material help that it recieved from the western financiers.

    and one point;
    communism like fascism is just a tool of a group of people to concentrate power and money in the hands of the ruling elite.not all that different from the federalist ideal of a republic.akin to feudalism.all aristocracies are that way.

    any ideological underpinnings given to these movements is just propaganda used to excite ignorant masses in their favor.

    and yeah ,the interpretation is all important.
    but (not that i,m a constitutional expert,either)the constitution is interpreted in context of the writings ,which are in great length and detail,that have been sent down from the original writers and judges that have since ruled on them.
    the lower courts don't just use the "supreme court rulings",there are all the logic papers behind them and the logic papers of the people that wrote the laws in the first place.

    and the "rights" are basic .
    admittingly contradictory interpretations throughout the centuries,have made this sort of a mess.

    but still,they were written with much deliberation and for the point we are at now,it is pretty clear(for some)that this latest assault is not what the founders,or the early justices meant.

    amendment 4

    there is a clear lineage that if you are looking for a car it is unreasonable to search breadboxes.

    and there is no reason to negate the clause totally as is the case with "the patriot act."

    but what is bad,
    growing up ,people could still point out how much better this country was than places like ussr or nazi germany,with their secret police and the people being "under watch" all the time.and how that was a fundemental difference between us and the rest of the world.
    I just think its sad that today,people can be manipulated into thinking this is a natural progression,to give in to creeping invasion of privacy.that what was clearly wrong before is somehow alright now..

    to throw out "probable cause" entirely,which is what the patriot act is doing.because now there is no requirement,
    supposedly there is,but no one gets to see it.
    and in a world of reality,that means for all intents and purposes,you can make it up,and have a "sympathetic"judge ;go along.

    and it has been standard procedure,evidence is needed for a warrant,but the police had the right to search without one if they had immediate probable cause.
    these new interpretations say it is ok to search everyone,in case you might find something.
    that is a fishing expedition. that is what is changing.(although cases have comeout on both sides of that one too.)

    so I agree,we are lost on interpretation,but it is an itellectual fraud to equate the decisions made in a climate of hysteria,to be sound judgements.

    but i suppose if you ask idiots like john yoo,you will get the answer that "executive privilege"trumps all concerns.

    and like i said ;from the beginning we had groups that opposed each other ,which is why you can say the founding fathers meant both ways to be.

    amendment 9

    and what they meant again

    first they wrote at length about what they meant,in other papers.

    and when I say the founding papers didn't mean what they said; I mean the standard,

    rights were for only white males that were landowners.

    poor white men didn't count much,
    women didn't count at all,nor were indians,blacks, etc.

    which was the reality of the time,but over the centuries that has been rectified.for the good of the country.

    so I also agree that changes have been made for the "good"

    but back to now.

    eschelon,surveience apperatus.

    it has been used more for electronic corporate espionage,than it has for anything else.
    companies like boeing and airbus and other major players have been in court over the information that has been stolen and given to competitors.(part of that 60 minutes program)

    and it is one of many ways the 21st century secret police are working and abusing the system.

    and to say that they can't assimilate that much information,that is what the software is for.
    and if they couldn't ;what good is it.

    we aren't any safer,in the sense;
    when one target is hardened ,they adversary will find another.

    and considering the yests done on the TSA and their security ,they have not even done a good job at the airports. and there are other ways to bring planes down.

    and the point is ;

    after you roll a die five times and you get the same #,the sixth time ,you still have the same odds of getting that # as the first time.

    ther have always been terrorist attacks in this country ,since our founding fathers were the terrorists.

    so I understand certain things have been hardened,but that as a whole doesn't make us any safer.

    I grew up outside NYC, and that place is just an event waitng to happen.
    I'm suprised more hasn't in the course of a lifetime.the infrastructure is seriously vulnerable.
    we've been lucky so far.

    the patriot act has already been abused;
    tom delay lying to the "homeland defense "people to use the security systems to track down that planeload of wayward texan democrats trying to offset the republican manipulation of their system to gain power for their party.

    that only took a few months after it was up and running,so to think ;

    Ill wait and see if the "bugs" can be worked out ,and surely they will be fair and work to rid the abuses of the system,is a view,but a naive one.

    and finally,
    economics is the paramount concern in every decision.

    [Edited by remember on 07-13-2004 at 09:55 AM]

  10. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Buffalo N.Y.
    Post Likes
    First of all, communism in theroy didn't win anything.
    As you say, communist tried to resist, well how would you do that? Muscle will be flexed, conflicts will start, it lies in human nature.
    These actions acted upon the communist society to weaken it, if not by direct brute force, then by draining it's will of the people to carry-on.
    The remaining communist states are either slowly reforming, or moving away totaly from the communist doctrine. Hence; communism has lost. If by changing it's beliefs it is no more a true communist state. And don't be fooled, there are still dye hard communist left that want to see America fall.
    So,communism was a large and serious threat, thier very will to survive dicates that we lose.
    With nuclear missiles and a strong desire to survive wouldn't you say that we were in danger from them? Yea!!!!

    Only the Supreme Court can make rulings on constitutional law, they are the final interpreters of the document.

  11. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Buffalo N.Y.
    Post Likes
    First of all, communism in theroy didn't win anything.
    As you say, communist tried to resist, well how would you do that? Muscle will be flexed, conflicts will start, it lies in human nature.
    These actions acted upon the communist society to weaken it, if not by direct brute force, then by draining it's will of the people to carry-on.
    The remaining communist states are either slowly reforming, or moving away totaly from the communist doctrine. Hence; communism has lost. If by changing it's beliefs it is no more a true communist state. And don't be fooled, there are still dye hard communist left that want to see America fall.
    So, communism was a large and serious threat, thier very will to survive dicates that we lose.
    With nuclear missiles and a strong desire to survive wouldn't you say that we were in danger from them? Yea!!!!

    Only the Supreme Court can make rulings on constitutional law, they are the final interpreters of the document. You say,
    "the lower courts don't just use the "supreme court rulings",there are all the logic papers behind them and the logic papers of the people that wrote the laws in the first place". I say, What??? Do you mean interpretation.
    I'm confused on what you are saying, All constitutional law is absolute of the Supreme Courts decision, there's no mixing and mingling of past decisions from other authorities.
    Only the Supreme court has the final say on laws passed by congress. If a lower court makes a decision as to it's basis under constitutional law you can bet that if they believe it to be in conflict with the constitution it will get reveiwed by the them.
    We are talking about "Constitutional Law" aren't we? The "Bill of Rights" mainly??
    This is all inclusive of Admendmants though.

    Admendment 4;
    You can bet that clarification, and the constitutionality of probable cause to search and seize as to how it pertains to the "Patriot Act" will in time get looked at very hard.
    Don't be under the impression that sections of "The Patriot Act" can't be overturned, they can, very easily by the Supreme Court they see fit.
    It is happening a I type. Just recently they ruled on the people being held as suspected terrorist and thier rights to counsel and a hearing by a U.S. Federal Court.
    So don't throw out a blanket statement as you have done about repression which has no fact to back it up. This is your Supreme Court protecting basicly bad people.

    Admendment 9 gives the states the right to pass laws as they see fit. As long as those laws do not conflict with the constitution, and are as beneficial or better as to the rights of an individual.
    No state can infringe on the Rights given by the constitution.

    As with any system of govt, it will have problems. Not every single person will feel ajudicated by the rights given them and how they are manipulated.
    But, as an American who is able to even talk as you do about your govenrment and not have fears of midnight raids by the gestapo shows others that you have no appreciation of your form of govt.

  12. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Likes
    no commnism in theory didn't win anything,
    but the north vietnamese did.

    in the sense ,they chased out the colonial powers,first france,than the US.

    I don't even believe in communism as a theory being real.
    since marx and engels wrote the communist manifesto.

    communism like "the CARBONIERI","charcoal burners";or the settlement at james town va. was tried and hasn't really worked on a massive has always been contrary to human it was /is never a viable alternative form of gov't.

    all the other communism's like that of :
    lenin,or stalin,or tito,or mao or any of the ones on the political landscape,never really existed,

    except to say an ideology was key in propaganda,as a tool and framework for those totalitarian gov't to fool the people into "groupthink",as a necessary form of population control.

    china is resisting by only partially joining the world financial system.
    their currency is "set" by beijing,not adjusted according to the dollar or any of the dominant world economies.
    so the force the western world exerts on little countries,like:brazil,argentina,mexico,europe,afri can nations,doesn't work in china.

    that is one way they are resisting.
    an important way too.
    these communist gov't(ussr,china)may have weapons,(which in itself is always dangerous,if they go off; but they are not a danger to us.

    n.korea has no intention/ability to really be anything but a thorn in the side,not the agent to take on america.

    and I would bet that if you knew how intertwined these (commie)gov't personalities were intertwined with the personalities that shaped our country/economy ,you would realize the whole thing (all this fear)was not justified.
    nor were all the military expenditures and "blank checks" written to policy makers to do anything evil in the name of capitalism in the "cold war".

    after WWII,communism was the most important thing policy makers needed,to run amok with the countries affairs.

    which is how and why america got to be so hated and why we are in the mess we are in right now.

    and the patriot act is a joke.

    an unnecessary piece of legislation,another layer of beaureucracy.another reason for the powers that be to be unaccountable for their blunders.another excuse.

    write up another "anti-terrorism bill",instead of doing anything well.

    fight al-queada,so you go to Iraq,where they weren't they are,and rercruiting more people than ever.

    you can show me window dressing all you want.
    but that won't actually do anything except create a larger haystack to find the needle in.

    and the constitution isn't really all that vague,when you look at all the accompanying paperwork where they go into great detail into exactly what they mean't,and why they meant it.

    the paper itself is only the tip of the iceberg.

    and the supreme court is only one part.
    the congress is the other.
    neither is more important

    first the congress passes a law,
    the supreme court can uphold or reject that law.
    it goes back to congress,if it gets rejected.if the supreme court decides it is unconstitutional,the congress has the ability to change the constitution.(marrige amendment)(prohibition)
    the two entities go back and forth.forming what sticks.

    the supreme court justices use "precedents",decisions that have already been made and they use the" decisionpapers" that are written every time the court makes a ruling,by the "for" judges and "against" judges.
    the congress has records of the arguements made when they debate laws,these can be looked at to see what led to the decision and why it was made.

    the congress can override all of that if they get enough votes to amend the constitution.that is the bar to exceed if you want to go against the court and the constitution..

    and the problem with a republic is that the group of people that inhabits the levers of power(as defined in the constitutional framework)

    the framers intended for honorable or at least somewhat honest and capable people to make the decisions for the masses.

    we now have a dangerous mix of people that are prey to the propaganda that is intended for the masses,making bad decisions(the democrats)
    and just openly power grasping ,dishonest people that don't have the foresight to know what will be good for the country in the future.(the republicans)

    even the arguements of people like john jay,alexander hamilton,james madison in their "federalist papers" have proven themselves to being unworkable.

    the seperation of powers has been obliviated with the formation and acceptance of groups like "the council on foreign relations"

    the fourth estate has been coopted,so the democratic part of the process is really just the mice following the pied piper.

    what I'm saying is this system is in jeopardy.
    and the problem is too many people don't realize it.

    [Edited by remember on 07-15-2004 at 08:42 AM]

  13. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Buffalo N.Y.
    Post Likes
    How did the N.Vietnamese win? do you really think that they are the winners of anything. Vietnams economy is in shambels.
    They are looking for help from the west to help bolster their economy, feed their people.
    Same goes true with N.Korea, but they are more dangerous, same as a cornered cat.
    Just because we left doesn't neccesarily mean we as a country lost. The liberal American public sector is what really caused us to leave vietnam, the military could and would have won.

    But, this is where it gets confusing.
    If we were allowed to complete the job, what would we have done with the country? We weren't interested in winning a country, we were trying to defeat the spread of communism. Would you say that the purpose was sucessfull?
    America, historically is not an imperialistic country.

    If you really believe that the USSR wasen't a threat then you are in the minority, or living in a cave.

    You seem to have a grasp on events, and the abilty to research history, but you also appear to run against the grain with some of your comments.
    Don't blow it by throwing out wild statments and accusations.
    I believe that you have a vendetta with the current administration, that is your right as an American.
    Personally, I would rather have Bush than Kerry.

    Your comments on Iraq and possible links to Al-queda are way off base, read the report again.

    Here again you are taking words at face value, politicians are notorious for lying, and you as an informed American should be able to read between the lines.
    Saddam was on the same path as Hitler, and look how that went with slow intervention.
    Saddam gases not only his own people, but also others.
    Saddam invades other countries without reasonable cause.
    Saddam violates UN resolutions openly.
    See the light!!!!!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor MagazineThe place where Electrical professionals meet.