saying that they are like terrorists is just as ignorant as their calling Bush a terrorist. Both of those extremes are ridiculous and not worth reading.
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: EXman
They are terrorist bullies that try to change the meaning and spirit of the Constitution.Originally posted by: BoomerD
Let me guess...you who hate liberals, also think the ACLU is anti-ameirican? Considering that it's only goal it so defend all provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I can understand why cons hate them...NO, the causes they take aren't often popular, hell, I even got pissed when they took Rush Analcyst's side in his recent "pharmacutical adventure" , but, like it or not, they were right to do so...Yep, they defend the freedoms guaranteed in those "quaint documents"...very anti-american...
Those quaint documents were written only after a prayer began each and every meeting. I wonder If they defend that? Probably to busy with defending mens rights to sex with little boys... :laugh:
Now that is definately defending America!!!
Though I have my issues with the ACLU (one in particular grates on me) I generally find them to be sincere in their desire to protect our constitutional freedoms. This includes defending NAMBLA on the basis of 1st amendment protections as you mentioned. The protection of unpopular speech, no matter how distasteful we may find it, is an admirable goal and one I should think the founders would support since they put it first on the list.
Yes I am sure they had defending people who prey our children on their minds... That last sentence of yours I believe to be sincere and that is telling and worrisome. There isn't anything admirable about skewing the constitution so that you can rape little boys IMO. And If you did a poll I think you see that the silent majority is overwhelmingly appauled by those creeps. If I ever caught one of them creeps near one of my 3 boys he meet the working end of my Louisville slugger.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
saying that they are like terrorists is just as ignorant as their calling Bush a terrorist. Both of those extremes are ridiculous and not worth reading.
Originally posted by: BoomerD
From the ACLU's website:
"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state. ONLY FOR PEOPLE WE AGREE WITH
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.ONLY FOR PEOPLE WE AGREE WITH
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.ONLY FOR PEOPLE WE AGREE WITH
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.
If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled."
Terrible, terrible....
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: BoomerD
From the ACLU's website:
"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state. ONLY FOR PEOPLE WE AGREE WITH
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.ONLY FOR PEOPLE WE AGREE WITH
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.ONLY FOR PEOPLE WE AGREE WITH
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.
If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled."
Terrible, terrible....
Then why do they Force their IDEAS of fairness on school systems or threaten million dollar lawsuits that would bankrupt them. Nothing but another school bully.
Jumping from one straw man to another in desperation?Originally posted by: BoomerD
Let me guess...you who hate liberals, also think the ACLU is anti-ameirican? Considering that it's only goal it so defend all provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I can understand why cons hate them...NO, the causes they take aren't often popular, hell, I even got pissed when they took Rush Analcyst's side in his recent "pharmacutical adventure" , but, like it or not, they were right to do so...Yep, they defend the freedoms guaranteed in those "quaint documents"...very anti-american...
Originally posted by: palehorse74
saying that they are like terrorists is just as ignorant as their calling Bush a terrorist. Both of those extremes are ridiculous and not worth reading.
Originally posted by: Vic
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1858
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Vic
I assume you're referring to the hidden communist agenda
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Lay down the crackpipe, just because people don't want to have to scoop fellow dead frozen americans out of the gutters does not mean you are a commie. Or have to live around sick people, like it or not we are strongest when helping one another, no man is a island to himself, what you call a man like that is a sociopath.
What you call someone who thinks commies are hiding under the rug is a wingnut who reads too many of these.
Originally posted by: johnnobts
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
of course many liberals take offense to the whole "creator" bit in that statement, don't they?
actually, i'd go with john locke, that we should have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property... property is somehting libs have problems with too (and life for unborns of course... )
Originally posted by: Genx87
I think a lot of confusion Vic comes from the labels we put on people based on incorrect ideas and shifts in demographics and political ideology of this country over the past 60-80 years.
Liberalism is something I completely agree with and think we need to uphold in this country. But what people consider liberals in this country is not what they considered them 60-80 years ago.
The self proclaimed liberals in this country are nothing more than socialists who have hijacked the name. Just like the neo-cons appear to be nothing more than fascists in disguise who have hijacked the conservative name.
Like fascism and Socialism in real life there are many similarities and that is probably why both parties on the surface dont seem to be very far apart on many issues.
Under the surface however you can see the difference.
A perfect example of this is
Democrats - State run, state issued healthcare
Repubs - State controlled healtcare, private business issued healthcare
Clearly one is socialist, the other wreaks of fascism.
Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Originally posted by: Genx87
I think a lot of confusion Vic comes from the labels we put on people based on incorrect ideas and shifts in demographics and political ideology of this country over the past 60-80 years.
Liberalism is something I completely agree with and think we need to uphold in this country. But what people consider liberals in this country is not what they considered them 60-80 years ago.
The self proclaimed liberals in this country are nothing more than socialists who have hijacked the name. Just like the neo-cons appear to be nothing more than fascists in disguise who have hijacked the conservative name.
Like fascism and Socialism in real life there are many similarities and that is probably why both parties on the surface dont seem to be very far apart on many issues.
Under the surface however you can see the difference.
A perfect example of this is
Democrats - State run, state issued healthcare
Repubs - State controlled healtcare, private business issued healthcare
Clearly one is socialist, the other wreaks of fascism.
Genx87,
I haven't posted on here for a long time, but I see that you have grown a lot from what I remember of you before. Props to you.
It's okay to become disillusioned with what seems to be the only two choices in our democratic system. Just don't get trapped there.
I believe similar concepts. For instance, the conservatives I see don't represent the conservatives of 60-80 years ago. The obvious reason for that is that what was once new is now old. Ironic that some things that were once old are now new!
Pubs are not always the conservatives and Dems are not always the liberals. Go back to the mid 1800's and you'll see what I mean.
But you have to admit that the power of our government is like nothing before; not because of social programs but because of lobbying interests.
It's to the point that it's difficult to tell our seemingly "only two" choices apart.
If I were the CEO of a multibillion dollar company that could lose out because of new legislation, my job would be to protect the interests of the shareholders. I would spend a whole lot of moola to ensure that my corp remained stable.
This is simple, but IMHO, this is the main reason why our government has been crippled to change and efficiency: not all private enterprise, when contracted by the government, is more efficient than a bureaucracy. I know it seems like a leap, but I'm convinced of it.
Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Originally posted by: Genx87
I think a lot of confusion Vic comes from the labels we put on people based on incorrect ideas and shifts in demographics and political ideology of this country over the past 60-80 years.
Liberalism is something I completely agree with and think we need to uphold in this country. But what people consider liberals in this country is not what they considered them 60-80 years ago.
The self proclaimed liberals in this country are nothing more than socialists who have hijacked the name. Just like the neo-cons appear to be nothing more than fascists in disguise who have hijacked the conservative name.
Like fascism and Socialism in real life there are many similarities and that is probably why both parties on the surface dont seem to be very far apart on many issues.
Under the surface however you can see the difference.
A perfect example of this is
Democrats - State run, state issued healthcare
Repubs - State controlled healtcare, private business issued healthcare
Clearly one is socialist, the other wreaks of fascism.
Genx87,
I haven't posted on here for a long time, but I see that you have grown a lot from what I remember of you before. Props to you.
It's okay to become disillusioned with what seems to be the only two choices in our democratic system. Just don't get trapped there.
I believe similar concepts. For instance, the conservatives I see don't represent the conservatives of 60-80 years ago. The obvious reason for that is that what was once new is now old. Ironic that some things that were once old are now new!
Pubs are not always the conservatives and Dems are not always the liberals. Go back to the mid 1800's and you'll see what I mean.
But you have to admit that the power of our government is like nothing before; not because of social programs but because of lobbying interests.
It's to the point that it's difficult to tell our seemingly "only two" choices apart.
If I were the CEO of a multibillion dollar company that could lose out because of new legislation, my job would be to protect the interests of the shareholders. I would spend a whole lot of moola to ensure that my corp remained stable.
This is simple, but IMHO, this is the main reason why our government has been crippled to change and efficiency: not all private enterprise, when contracted by the government, is more efficient than a bureaucracy. I know it seems like a leap, but I'm convinced of it.
Originally posted by: Vic
Under the constitution, the government was to control the money and the money supply. Any money it possibly need it could simply run right off the printing presses. The effect would be inflation, but that would only hurt those with cash assets. Otherwise, the inflationary effect would have little more effect on the state of individual finances than does our current system of taxation, and would be infinitely fairer. In fact, through a system known as fractional reserve banking, we allow private banks to print just about as much money as they want to simply by lending it out (which essentially makes it so that banks control the money supply in the country, and not the Congress as is constitutionally-required).
The modern system of taxation comes from the tribute paid to the kings in ancient times. We pay taxes to protect the holdings and businesses of the banks and the very rich and for no other reason.
And oh BTW, I am a banker.
This system I'm referring to was first prominently championed in our modern economy by Upton Sinclair in the 1920's. Mr. Sinclair was that very same "girly-man liberal (who) fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry" that made Joe's bacon safe.
I agree. This is an excellent post. This fall of both the major parties into socialism and fascism, excellently demonstrated by you with this healthcare example, is the reason for my anger at our modern political system, and the seeming lack of education by those who would support our decline, regardless of partisan affiliation.Originally posted by: Genx87
I think a lot of confusion Vic comes from the labels we put on people based on incorrect ideas and shifts in demographics and political ideology of this country over the past 60-80 years.
Liberalism is something I completely agree with and think we need to uphold in this country. But what people consider liberals in this country is not what they considered them 60-80 years ago.
The self proclaimed liberals in this country are nothing more than socialists who have hijacked the name. Just like the neo-cons appear to be nothing more than fascists in disguise who have hijacked the conservative name.
Like fascism and Socialism in real life there are many similarities and that is probably why both parties on the surface dont seem to be very far apart on many issues.
Under the surface however you can see the difference.
A perfect example of this is
Democrats - State run, state issued healthcare
Repubs - State controlled healtcare, private business issued healthcare
Clearly one is socialist, the other wreaks of fascism.
As you said, it works well in isolation. Or if other countries were playing by the same rules. When a government-controlled currency (i.e., what I proposed) is placed in competition with banker-controlled currency (i.e., our current system) on an open international market, the bankers will of course work to destroy the government-controlled currency. It's no mystery.Originally posted by: Future Shock
Vic,
That works fine in isolation - however such inflationary practices play absolute havok in international trade and exchange rates.
The last country to apply that practice was post-WWI Germany - which had such rampant inflation that people started the currency for everyday paper - because it was cheaper. As a result, Germany felt economically compelled to start WWII as it spiralled into runaway inflation. That was a direct cause of them electing the Nazis, btw.
Hardly a good proof of concept for printing money boundlessly to...
More recently, a number of South American countries have practiced the same lack of fiscal dicipline. In every case that I know of, it has hurt the country more than helped - in some cases leading the country's population to abandon the local currency in favor of a more stable one (i.e., the US dollar). I knew a bunch of Brazilians that cashed their paychecks and immediately bought dollars the same day...and these were white collar workers.
So if you happen to know of anywhere this HAS been done successfully in the 20th or 21st century, please provide a reference. Until then, the above real-world experiences do not show such a strategy in a favorable light...
Future Shock
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Originally posted by: Genx87
I think a lot of confusion Vic comes from the labels we put on people based on incorrect ideas and shifts in demographics and political ideology of this country over the past 60-80 years.
Liberalism is something I completely agree with and think we need to uphold in this country. But what people consider liberals in this country is not what they considered them 60-80 years ago.
The self proclaimed liberals in this country are nothing more than socialists who have hijacked the name. Just like the neo-cons appear to be nothing more than fascists in disguise who have hijacked the conservative name.
Like fascism and Socialism in real life there are many similarities and that is probably why both parties on the surface dont seem to be very far apart on many issues.
Under the surface however you can see the difference.
A perfect example of this is
Democrats - State run, state issued healthcare
Repubs - State controlled healtcare, private business issued healthcare
Clearly one is socialist, the other wreaks of fascism.
Genx87,
I haven't posted on here for a long time, but I see that you have grown a lot from what I remember of you before. Props to you.
It's okay to become disillusioned with what seems to be the only two choices in our democratic system. Just don't get trapped there.
I believe similar concepts. For instance, the conservatives I see don't represent the conservatives of 60-80 years ago. The obvious reason for that is that what was once new is now old. Ironic that some things that were once old are now new!
Pubs are not always the conservatives and Dems are not always the liberals. Go back to the mid 1800's and you'll see what I mean.
But you have to admit that the power of our government is like nothing before; not because of social programs but because of lobbying interests.
It's to the point that it's difficult to tell our seemingly "only two" choices apart.
If I were the CEO of a multibillion dollar company that could lose out because of new legislation, my job would be to protect the interests of the shareholders. I would spend a whole lot of moola to ensure that my corp remained stable.
This is simple, but IMHO, this is the main reason why our government has been crippled to change and efficiency: not all private enterprise, when contracted by the government, is more efficient than a bureaucracy. I know it seems like a leap, but I'm convinced of it.
I would actually say our govts power is bigger than it ever has becuase it has been allowed to grow by leaps and bounds due to income tax. Compare the size of the govt from the 1800s to what it is now on a % basis and I bet we are magnitudes larger because the feds are allowed to directly tax income now and have been since the 16th amendment was passed.
I agree the government is more powerful than ever before, but for a different reason. It seems you judge size by income instead of spending. You are looking at our government as if it were a company.
If a company spends more than it receives in profits, it will eventually go bankrupt. If enough people believed this about our government, then there would be more of an uproar about the record deficits. We don't have a government that is restrained by lack of income, therefore, it is the spending that is the problem, not so much the taxation.
What we have now is a government that has cut taxes, primarily for those of wealth, and increased spending to record levels, not on social programs, but on defense contractors.
We have a larger government, not because of taxes, but because of spending.
The legislative branch exists as a check to the executive branch, primarily because it controls spending (or is supposed to). The founding fathers knew that this was a true limiter of government power, particularly executive.
What we have now is a "rubber stamp" legislative that seems to believe in a more powerful executive. You have to realize that this encompasses not just the president and his cabinet, but a plethora of bureacracies:
FDA, DEA, CIA, NSA, FEMA, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and now the new Department of Homeland Security.
In addition to this, our congress is a rubber stamp to the corporate interests that are the largest and can pay the most:
Oil & Gas, Pharmaceuticals, Banks, Defense Contractors... Now they wield a chunk of the government power and have for some time now. You don't have to walk far to see the effects of this.
FDA, DEA, CIA, NSA, FEMA, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and now the new Department of Homeland Security.
Originally posted by: Genx87
FDA, DEA, CIA, NSA, FEMA, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and now the new Department of Homeland Security.
You have to ask yourself how all of these agencies came into being. It is because the govt has been allowed to steal money out of the pockets of its citizens to satisfy its need to grow.
The feds wouldnt be able to get away with the massive growth of the govt if they didnt have the taxpayers to rape. Income tax has grown by leaps and bounds right along with the size of the govt since the initial conception of it. This is when the feds convinced people that they were only going to steal from the rich to give to the poor. It didnt take long before they extended income tax on down the line.
Kind of sounds a lot like what the left proposes today isnt it? Increase taxes on the rich? Think it will help the poor?And how long before these tax extensions filter down to the middle class?
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
You are basing your whole argument on a logical fallacy. Those agencies (non-intel - they existed in some form before the tax system anyway) actually DID benefit the poor which you claim that they didn't.
They helped establish standards that made neighborhoods safer to live in, especially near factories and near waterways that factories used to be able to run roughshod over by polluting the bejesus out of. Also, by holding manufacturers responsible for the content of the products as well in the FDA's case. And those taxes almost immediately filtered their way downward once the 16th Amendment passed.
The amendment was finally ratified in 1913 and it didn't take long for the US to have a very well developed middle class. True, they got taxed also, but the benefit that the country received from this little "inconvienence" has been magnitudes more than what they have paid. It has enabled the country to grow by leaps and bounds. Something that you and Zen (more than anyone I have ever known) seem to think would still happen without a tax. You want all of the benefits without a single bit of the responsiblities that go along with paying for those benefits.
As for the "stealing" money part, the 16th amendment gives the govt the right to legally extort, not steal from us
Originally posted by: JVanhuse
They hate America because they're too far removed from the struggle that created it. I.e., we were born out of a brutal war and Dems are so far removed from that situation and apparently are incapable of any retrospective analysis of why and how our country came to be.
Dems only care when they are going to be immediately impacted. They are against preventative measures unless it fixes a massive problem upon them at any given moment.
Originally posted by: JVanhuse
They hate America because they're too far removed from the struggle that created it. I.e., we were born out of a brutal war and Dems are so far removed from that situation and apparently are incapable of any retrospective analysis of why and how our country came to be.
Dems only care when they are going to be immediately impacted. They are against preventative measures unless it fixes a massive problem upon them at any given moment.