PDA

View Full Version : Freedom of Speech...?



llotter
09-12-2012, 06:43 AM
I have wondered what should be the limits of what is one of must basic freedoms. We know that legal limits of 'clear and present danger', but I have wonder is someone of some group should be free to advocate ending free speech or maybe repealing the first amendment. Should we just hope that such advocacy is never successful or should we be more proactive in limiting that type of speech, if it were possible, and insure the anti-free speech folks are never successful.

Soflasnapper
09-12-2012, 08:52 AM
It's planned to get an amendment to the COTUS to either take away citizenship personhood treatment of corporations, or at a minimum, take away their currently granted 1st amendment rights under the Citizens United ruling.

I would support such an amendment, assuming it couldn't be done with carefully crafted legislation, and even if such a law could be fashioned and amending the COTUS not necessary, it would clearly be hemming in 1st amendment rights.

I don't see how one could rightfully disallow advocacy of such a step, even if the step was considered wrong or harmful. I'd say advocating even the wholesale revocation of the Bill of Rights cannot be stopped, even as much as I would oppose such an effort.

llotter
09-12-2012, 12:02 PM
Now that you mention it, I would vote for the repeal of the Bill of Rights. But more to the point, I want to live in a society that is based on limited government powers and I want the same for the generations into the future. So, I am wondering if us freedom lovers shouldn't be taking some action to help assure that freedom survives and thrives.

For example, I think that communism is the antithesis of our understanding of freedom so wouldn't it be good to prohibit teaching communism or if taught, it is taught as the enemy of freedom. Instead, we have a Communist Party USA with candidates running for office. We have universities peppered with communists, spreading their cancerous ideology to our youth.

Should we be intolerant of this rather than supportive?

Soflasnapper
09-12-2012, 12:59 PM
My early readings and enduring influences are from the great English political philosophers, Locke, John Stuart Mill, and etc.

I firmly believe in the marketplace of ideas, and suggest the proper response to others' free speech one may not like is more free speech to the contrary point of the speech one finds offensive, not stifling others' free speech with censorship.

Reason? One day and you might think for all time, you are the one in charge of saying another's speech is bad and should be silenced. Another day, and you could be crushed under the boot heel of those way on the other side who are intolerant of your (presumably correct) views.

So, no, I don't agree with that. It goes against our civic foundations, as the Founding Fathers read and were influenced by these same political philosophers I mention above.

What you suggest is antithetical to American ideals, which even as I criticize America heavily, are the core of my world view from which my criticism stems. America should live up to its highest aspirations of freedom and liberty. Censoring opposite views is unworthy of our great nation's history, heritage, and patrimony.

Gayle in MD
09-12-2012, 01:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Censoring opposite views is unworthy of our great nation's history, heritage, and patrimony. </div></div>


As is taking the law into ones own hands, by going out and murdering doctors and nurses when they are not breaking the law, but actually helping families who are facing terribly stressful decisions, to choose what is best for their own families, and exercising their own Contitutional rights.

It really gets to me when I read a rightie or a Republican talk about FREEDOM and Liberty!

They don't want FREEDOM! They want to dictate to all Americans according to their own irrational hate, racism, homophobia, and misogyny!

G.

llotter
09-12-2012, 02:57 PM
I guess I should not be surprised that you lefties come quickly to the defense of communism/statism cause that's what your preach every day. For me, your positions do not compute much as 'freedom' and 'personal responsibility' are not in your lexicon and never the twain shall meet. Now I wonder if another civil war or political division isn't inevitable.

Maybe a Republicans take over will delay the inevitable.

Gayle in MD
09-12-2012, 03:01 PM
You've been yapping about some kind of radical RW War in our country for months now.

Shame on you!

Soflasnapper
09-12-2012, 03:26 PM
Before anyone signs on with your crew, what do you propose to censor or disallow as to free speech, and on what grounds?

llotter
09-12-2012, 08:43 PM
That is a good question. Censorship certainly has a bad ring to it and I don't have a clear answer but it does seem clear to me that if we continue to treat the ideological enemies of freedom as though it were simply another non-threatening alternative, we are inviting the end of freedom.

In a way, freedom's enemies have a significant advantage over freedom itself. Real freedom, almost by definition, is a politically disorganized group of one citizen w/family, doing what they want. The enemy is extremely well organized in large, loud groups working the political system incessantly to their advantage and thus, defeat the individual.

Gayle in MD
09-13-2012, 02:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is a good question. Censorship certainly has a bad ring to it and I don't have a clear answer but it does seem clear to me that if we continue to treat the ideological enemies of freedom as though it were simply another non-threatening alternative, we are inviting the end of freedom.

In a way, freedom's enemies have a significant advantage over freedom itself. Real freedom, almost by definition, is a politically disorganized group of one citizen w/family, doing what they want. The enemy is extremely well organized in large, loud groups working the political system incessantly to their advantage and thus, defeat the individual.
</div></div>

I wonder if you ever realize how your own philosopies match those of the same people who stormed our embassy, killing others over a different point of view.

Both Egypt and Libya are fighting for their right to form a democracy, where they have a say in their day to day lives, and can live in peace. People who want peace, not lawlessness.

People who want to be free of the violence of a few among them, who have no respect for the law, nor for civil rights.

It is always the few irrational and radical, quick to move toward lawlessness, quick to take up arms, and kill, who stand in the way of peace and human progress.

Those who, like you, spout a preference for lawlessness, inflict the same sort of instability and danger to the rest, often by spouting off intentional distortions of what is real and factual for the majority.

This is exactly how the Bush administration falsely promoted the war in Iraq, the gratest failure, and most wrong headed foreign policy decision of our lifetimes.

We do not treat those who threaten our safety and principles as simply another non threatening alternative. We go after those who threaten our principles, with violence, but not often enough for their lies annd distortions of the facts, which has been the Republican method for disaster.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "I think most Americans, Democrats or Republicans, understand that there are times when we set politics aside, and one of those is when we've got a direct threat to American personnel who are overseas," President Obama said.

"And so I think that if you look at how most Republicans have reacted, most elected officials, they've reacted responsibly, waiting to find out the facts before they talk, making sure that our No. 1 priority is the safety and security of American personnel."

"It appears that Gov. Romney didn't have his facts right. The situation in Cairo was one in which an embassy that is being threatened by major protests releases a press release saying that the film that had disturbed so many Muslims around the world wasn't representative of what Americans believe about Islam."

"In an effort to cool the situation down, it didn't come from me, it didn't come from Secretary Clinton, it came from people on the ground who are potentially in danger. And my tendency is to cut folks a little bit of slack when they're in that circumstance, rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office," Obama said.

"I do have to say that, more broadly, we believe in the First Amendment. It is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution that I am sworn to uphold, so we're always going to uphold the rights of individuals to speak their minds. <span style="color: #990000">Obviously the Bush Administration didn't have that respect for Joe Wilson's freedom of speech! </span>

On the other hand, this film is not representative of who we are, and our values, and I think it is important for us to communicate that. That's never an excuse for violence against Americans, which is why my No. 1 priority and my initial statement focused on making sure that not only are Americans safe, but that we go after anyone that would attack Americans."

Obama said the U.S. will "remain vigilant," and that "even as we apply pressure on al Qaeda and other elements that are affiliated in big chunks of the world, such as North Africa and the Mideast, we've got a lot of dangerous characters, and we've got to make sure we're continuing to apply pressure on them. And that's something I'm determined to do."



•President Barack Obama"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives. I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants. On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss. The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward."


•Mitt Romney: "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," the statement read. "The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached, protesters were inside the grounds," said Romney at his press conference. "They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it's a -- a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.

<span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Romney is actually being critical of those on the ground who were trying to cool the situaton down, which was created by the movie made by radicalracist idiot in Florida!</span> </span>


That instead, when our grounds are being attacked, and being breached, that the first response to the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation.

<span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>And there is the proof that Romney should never be president. The first thing a president should do is find out the facts and then do what is necessary to protect our people! Not jump into an on-going serious threat to our people, and cndemn them as they are trying to cool thhe situation down. WHO THE HELL DOES ROMNEY THINK HE IS! He played politica while others lives were at stake!</span> </span>

And apology for America's values is never the right course."

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>This president has never apologized for anything! Here Romney is reiterating his same lie yet again, politicing while American Lives are in danger! Truly irresponsible and deceitful! A disgrace</span>!</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The embassy's statement, however, came before the protests -- not after, as Romney claimed.</span> The embassy did subsequently tweet that it stood by its condemnation of the video, but it also condemned the attacks. When reporters pointed out that the White House disavowed the Cairo embassy's statement, Romney said he agreed with that response. He still said, however, that the embassy was part of Obama's administration, and therefore the president was ultimately responsible. "It's their administration," said Romney. "Their administration spoke. The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come his mouth but also from the words of his ambassadors, from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department. They clearly sent mixed messages to the world, and the statement that came from the administration, and the embassy is the administration."

<span style="color: #990000"> PIG ROMNEY SHOWS NO CONCECERN FOR THE ON-GOING AND AT THAT TIME, CURRENT THREAT TO OUR PEOPLE!</span>


•Secretary Of State Hillary Rodham Clinton"It is with profound sadness that I share the news of the death of four American personnel in Benghazi, Libya, yesterday. Among them were United States Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith. We are still making next of kin notifications for the other two individuals. Our hearts go out to all their families and colleagues. A 21-year veteran of the Foreign Service, Ambassador Stevens died last night from injuries he sustained in the attack on our office in Benghazi. I had the privilege of swearing in Chris for his post in Libya only a few months ago. He spoke eloquently about his passion for service, for diplomacy and for the Libyan people. This assignment was only the latest in his more than two decades of dedication to advancing closer ties with the people of the Middle East and North Africa, which began as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco. As the conflict in Libya unfolded, Chris was one of the first Americans on the ground in Benghazi. He risked his own life to lend the Libyan people a helping hand to build the foundation for a new, free nation. He spent every day since helping to finish the work that he started. Chris was committed to advancing America's values and interests, even when that meant putting himself in danger. Sean Smith was a husband and a father of two, who joined the Department ten years ago. Like Chris, Sean was one of our best. Prior to arriving in Benghazi, he served in Baghdad, Pretoria, Montreal and most recently The Hague. All the Americans we lost in yesterday's attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future. America's diplomats and development experts stand on the front lines every day for our country. We are honored by the service of each and every one of them."
•Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.)"Less than 24 hours after our nation remembered the heinous attacks of September 11, 2001, Americans find their sovereign soil attacked again as more American lives are lost at the hands of intolerant, barbaric, radical Muslims. United States Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Smith, and several embassy staff were murdered late yesterday when suspected religious extremists stormed the United States Consulate in Benghazi. This morning, my condolences and prayers go out to the families of the victims. Americans need to question whether the deaths of these innocent patriots could have been avoided. The Obama Administration touted the Arab Spring as an awakening of freedom, which we now see is a nightmare of Islamism. Even more concerning, is the initial response to these attacks last night from the embassy officials of the Obama Administration was to apologize for a Facebook video that supposedly hurt Muslim feelings. President Obama's policy of appeasement towards the Islamic world has manifested itself into a specter of unconscionable hatred. How anyone can believe this President is strong on national security and foreign policy is beyond my comprehension. President Obama has clearly surpassed former President Jimmy Carter and his actions during the Iranian Embassy crisis, as the weakest and most ineffective person to ever occupy the White House."


<span style="color: #660000">Another disgraceful pig spouting off for political purposes, at a time when traditionally, Americans put their politicalo differences to the side, to respect those who lost their lives. A DISGRACE! </span>


•Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)"We learned yesterday, and are receiving reports this morning, of the attacks against the United States Embassy in Cairo and the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. "In Benghazi our Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in service to our nation. Our thoughts and sympathy today are with the families of these brave Americans. "These attacks remind us of the sacrifices made on a daily basis by foreign service officers, diplomatic security personnel, and our Marine Security Guards. "I join my colleagues in strongly condemning the murder of these innocent Americans. And I support employing every available tool at our disposal to ensure the safety of Americans overseas and to hunt down those responsible for these attacks. "Yesterday we commemorated the anniversary of the attacks of September 11, and today we are reminded that brave Americans serve us every day at the risk of their own lives. We honor the Americans we lost in Libya, and we will stand united in our response. "Among the things we can all agree on in Washington is that attacks on the U.S. and its representatives will be met with resolve, and that America's presence and defense of our national interests across the globe will not be deterred by the acts of violent extremists."


•Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)"I was deeply disturbed and saddened to learn of the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American personnel in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. I join President Obama in condemning these senseless acts of violence. And my thoughts are with the families of those who were killed in this horrific attack. "It is too often forgotten that American diplomats risk their lives on a daily basis. Our diplomatic corps is filled with admirable and dedicated public servants. And the four Americans who lost their lives yesterday exemplified the courage and sacrifice that happens every day at diplomatic posts across the globe. "I have traveled to many of America's embassies abroad, and I have always been impressed by and grateful for the leadership and commitment of America's ambassadors and State Department personnel. Ambassador Stevens was a career Foreign Service officer and a former Peace Corps volunteer, who spent his life giving of his time and his talents to promote democracy and American values. "I support President Obama's directive to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the world, and to provide whatever resources necessary to keep our personnel in Libya safe. And I will continue to the monitor the situation as we learn more about these terrible events."


•Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)"I join with President Obama and other Americans in condemning these horrible acts against our public servants, and offer my deepest condolences to the families that lost loved ones. "At at a time when we should be standing together against these senseless acts of violence, Mitt Romney offered an atrocious political response that undermines our unity in the face of threats to Americans around the world."


•Elizabeth Warren"This senseless attack on our consulate in Libya is contemptible. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of those whose lives were lost. Right now, we should all honor the courage, dedication, and sacrifice of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the other Americans who gave their lives in the service of our country."


•Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) today released the following joint statement regarding the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya yesterday. "We are anguished and outraged by the death of four citizens of the United States, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, during an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families. "Chris was one of America's finest and bravest diplomats, and also someone we considered a friend. In the midst of last year's uprising in Libya, Chris traveled at great personal risk to Benghazi to represent the country he loved as the U.S. envoy to the Libyan opposition. He advanced American interests and values in Libya and stood with the Libyan people throughout their struggle for freedom and during the challenging times that followed. His death at the hands of extremists is a tragic and awful loss for the people of both the United States and Libya. "There is still much we do not know about what happened in Benghazi yesterday. What is clear, however, is that the attackers must be apprehended and punished. We appreciate that senior Libyan leaders have condemned these cowardly attacks, and we now look to the Libyan government to ensure that the perpetrators are swiftly brought to justice, and that U.S. diplomats are protected. We have confidence that our own government will provide all necessary assistance to this end. "Yesterday's attack is a tragic and terrible reminder that - despite the hopes of the Arab Spring - the forces of violent extremism in the Middle East are far from defeated, and that the revolutions inspired by millions of people who dream of freedom and democracy can still be hijacked by small groups of violent extremists who are eager to kill to advance their evil ideology. "Despite this horrific attack, we cannot give in to the temptation to believe that our support for the democratic aspirations of people in Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere in the broader Middle East is naive or mistaken. We cannot resign ourselves to the false belief that the Arab Spring is doomed to be defined not by the desire for democracy and freedom that has inspired millions of people to peaceful action, but by the dark fanaticism of terrorists. "To follow this misguided path would not only be a victory for the extremists and their associates, but a betrayal of everything for which Chris Stevens and his colleagues stood and gave their lives. In short, it would be a betrayal of our own best ideals as Americans and our own enduring interest in using our great influence to support the overwhelming majority of people in the Middle East who want to be free from the kinds of murderers and terrorists who killed our people yesterday in Benghazi."


•Chris Coons "I join President Obama, Secretary Clinton and my colleagues in the Senate in strongly condemning the horrific attack targeting American U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. "My heart goes out to the families of Ambassador Stevens and the other brave Americans who were killed in this senseless act of violence. They were committed public servants who courageously risked theirlives supporting the Libyan people and political transition. The service ofthese brave Americans epitomizes the best of our values, and their sacrifice will not be forgotten."
</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">Romney's words and bahavior are a disgrace! People in the media, and On The Hill, ARE STUNNED by Romney's disgusting behavior!</span>

G.

llotter
09-13-2012, 08:27 AM
I was asking a philosophical question about how best to maintain our freedom which is under threat from ideologies that do not value personal liberty. Why are you injecting a long article about the partisan positions on Egypt and Libya?

Gayle in MD
09-13-2012, 09:35 AM
Because you presume threats that do not exist. Just as the idiots who kill abortion doctors, and make and post on the internet, incendiary movies which cause violence and death for our innocent people around the world.

Freedom of Speech, is not completely unconditional.

Just as one cannot yell fire in a movie theater, people who promote unfounded fear mongering on the internet, and defend murderers, and spread vicious lies about the President Of The United States, as you have done here, over and over again, are equally threatening to the peace and welfare of all of our society, and to our citizens around the world who are out there fighting for freedom to thrive and spread to all countries.

G.

llotter
09-13-2012, 10:00 AM
the threat is the growth in government and more government means less freedom. Freedom can only be lost to gov. because of its police powers. I am not imagining that our gov. is growing and the main cause is the Nanny State, especially entitlements.

So, naturally, I am looking for the best way to limit that growth after the failure of the Constitution to preform that function.

Gayle in MD
09-13-2012, 10:12 AM
The constitution does not lay out any particulars regarding the size of Government.

Two hundred years ago, we did not face the problems of today.

It is absurd to think that as a country grows in numbers and in problems asociated with our natonal security, and a slew of other societal things which did not even exist back in the day of our Founders, that government would likely grow smaller.

Totally illogical.

Additionally, Republicans have been the ones to grow the size of Government, Reagan, Bush and Bush, all grew the size of Government, W. by the greatest margins.

The contrary is true of president Obama.


Again, Freedom of Speech is not a limitless guarantee, it has limits.

And as I stated, your practice of calling the president a Muslim, when it has been proven to be a lie, adds to civilian misinformation and civil unrest and endangers all of us to the irrational violence provoking results of nutjobs in our country, killing innocents among us.

This has just been proven, yet again, to be at cause of the murdering disasters in the middle East over the last forty-eight hours.


G.

llotter
09-13-2012, 11:08 AM
Just to take your first point first, the Constitution is very specific as to what the government should be doing and, e.g. there is no provision for either retirement or healthcare schemes witch come consume half of the federal budget and driving us into bankruptcy.

As the 10th Amendment clearly states, if it is not a listed function, the federal gov does not have any authority and that everything else is left to the states and to the people. It as added because the Anti-Federalists like Jefferson, were worried that too much centralized power in the federal government would destroy individual liberty.

llotter
09-13-2012, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is absurd to think that as a country grows in numbers and in problems asociated with our natonal security, and a slew of other societal things which did not even exist back in the day of our Founders, that government would likely grow smaller. </div></div>

Most of our current problems we face have been either caused or exacerbated by the federal government's intrusions, largely through redistribution of the wealth... now consuming 70% of federal spending. There is no doubt, problems in modern life that didn't exist way back when, but very few could not be coped with at a lower level, like state or local or service organizations or charities or families or individuals. In fact, I can't think of a single problem, beyond those constitutional responsibilities, that demands additional federal spending. Can you?

Gayle in MD
09-13-2012, 11:30 AM
The Constitution is not a fit subject for people like you who support radical, sicko murderers for taking the law into their own hands, and killing people.

Additionally, the Constitution is a living document.

It has been updated with amendments in order that it could better serve the current problems of time at hand, a number of times.

Additionally, it is still unrealistic to think that in a coplex society, of hugely growng proprotions, and modern circumstances which the Founders could not have posibly ever even dreamed about, that our country would grow by leaps and bounds and still maintain a smaller government.

Roosevelt keep our people from starving to death. He was a man with incredible foresight, and a sense of what was most fair for most of our people.

The issue of health care and corrupt insurance practices, became an economic issue, wch contributed to the huge Real Estate crash., Republicans AND Democrats, had acknowledged that Health Cre and Insurance costs were hurting our country, and were UNSUSTAINBLE! That is the time when we need to make changes, and only one president, of more than eight who tried, was able to bring those changes about.

You seem to be completely unaware of the purpose of the Amendment Process. Had the Founders expected America to maintain everything in The Constitution, just as it was orginally written, they would not have included the Amendment Process.

Your arguments are not rational, IMO.

You continue to ignore the Constitution, completely, whenn it goest against your skewed beliefs, and turn to it to justify things which are no longer aplicable.

For example, The constitution does not provide for Per-emnptive War, yet Bush lauched one.

Additionally it does not provide that religious zealots have the right to take the law into their own hands, and kill people, yet you support people who do that as well.

Abortion is a constitutional right.

The Affordable Cae Act, has been proven to be Constitutionally sound.

Get with the updates, instead of taking certain things out of context, and twisting their meaning beyond anything which applies to the events of the day, or the amendments already in place, even in those which are already, beyond a shadow of a doubt, considered to be Stare Decisis!

You refuse to recongnize the actual terms of Constitutional law, and support those who clearly breakd the Laws of The Land. Additially, you refuse to accept or acknowledge even those Constitutional Laws which have been deemed Stare Decisis.

G.

Soflasnapper
09-13-2012, 12:04 PM
In a way, freedom's enemies have a significant advantage over freedom itself. Real freedom, almost by definition, is a politically disorganized group of one citizen w/family, doing what they want. The enemy is extremely well organized in large, loud groups working the political system incessantly to their advantage and thus, defeat the individual.

This is close to something I agree with.

Change it this way: The enemy is extremely well organized in small, quiet and secretive groups working the political system incessantly to their advantage, and thus, defeat the individual.

If rust never sleeps, it's because Big Money keeps it awake. We've had organized Big Money in this world probably forever, and certainly in historically recognizable ways similar to today for many hundreds of years. The Founding Fathers noted that any republic such as our own had as its implacable enemy the aristocracy of great wealth, or as Theodore Roosevelt termed them, 'the malefactors of great wealth.'

The history of this country is a death match between the few holders of vast private wealth and the commonwealth good of the entire citizenry. The citizenry had a few good rounds in the Progressive Era under several consecutive Republican presidents, culminating in the New Deal and the Great Society social programs. The fight has been rather one-sided since then, and dating from Reagan' inauguration, been a general beat down of the nation by the huge wealth interests.

Their wild avarice could not be satisfied. They mounted castles of sands to stage houses of cards, greasing the skids with systemic fraud, and 'creating wealth' of some ridiculous multiple of times the actual world gdp equivalent output. World gdp is $50 trillion, and the level of their fraud, over a thousand trillion of dollars, as in a quadrillion dollars), the higher to push the value of their percentage wins and profit cuts.

They they popped this bubble they'd blown up, destroying $15 trillion of wealth or more. They've convinced many low information observers to blame that on large scale groups such as minorities, who have never had that kind of power, and are simply now a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from the true actors behind the stage.

Gayle in MD
09-13-2012, 12:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The citizenry had a few good rounds in the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Progressive Era under several consecutive Republican presidents,</span> culminating in the New Deal and the Great Society social programs. The fight has been rather one-sided since then, and dating from Reagan' inauguration, been a general beat down of the nation by the huge wealth interests.

</div></div>

Did you mean to write the sentence that way? Republican Presidents????????????????????



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The fight has been rather one-sided since then, and dating from Reagan' inauguration, been a general beat down of the nation by the huge wealth interests.

Their wild avarice could not be satisfied. They mounted castles of sands to stage houses of cards, greasing the skids with systemic fraud, and 'creating wealth' of some ridiculous multiple of times the actual world gdp equivalent output. World gdp is $50 trillion, and the level of their fraud, over a thousand trillion of dollars, as in a quadrillion dollarss), the higher to push the value of their percentage wins and profit cuts.

They they popped this bubble they'd blown up, destroying $15 trillion of wealth or more. They've convinced many low information observers to blame that on large scale groups such as minorities, who have never had that kind of power, and are simply now a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from the true actors behind the stage. </div></div>

So True and very sad!

G.

llotter
09-13-2012, 12:30 PM
Your terminology is a bit off but you make a couple good points. I don't attach 'infallibility' to the Supreme Court' an-d both of their decisions on abortion and ACA were wrongly decided, as was the decision on Social Security. All of these and others need correcting and the judges should be impeached.

The 'pre-emptive' war was fully approved by Congress, getting 89 botes in the Senate, including all of the leading Democrats and all of the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee who had all of the intelligence that Bush had. So the slogan that 'Bush lied, people died' is just plain uninformed.

I do agree that the Constitution is a living document but changes should go through the amendment process, not 'legislating from the bench'. The court has been doing that for such a long time that it has become routine and have resulted in the unlimited growth in the federal government and that is destroying our liberty, just a Jefferson predicted would happen.

Gayle in MD
09-13-2012, 01:18 PM
As for the Democratic votes, no one sees the intelligence that the President sees, and additionally the President was cherry picking the intelligence to fit his agenda.

Any Dems who might have voted for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, were fed lies by the President and his War Mongering minions. That is a proven FACT, BTW, and not speculation. Additionally, the majority of the Democrats did not vote for the war. Again, it was a Republican majority at that time in both houses.



The size of the government has nothing at all to do with Freedom, nor with Liberty.

There is no Freedom or Liberty more basic and paramount than having complete and total control over ones own body and ones own personal, private decisions regarding their own body.

This a Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT, is now considered Stare Decisis, settled law, and will never be overturned unless there are no Democrats and no women left in this country.

To overturn it would require three quarters of the entire State Legislatures.

That will never happen.


Name one LIBERTY, which you think you have lost, due to the size of government. Just one!

Additionally, James Madison and many other Founders believed that the Separaton of church and State should be complete and perfect, or neither would survive. Many of the Founders were actually Athiests.

There are thousands of things in the Constitution which have been distorted to the point that they are no longer feasible in today's world, such as our current anachronistic and ridiculous gun laws, which were never meant to create a country where any nutjob could purchase Weapons of Mass destruction over the internet, and kill dozens of people in minutes.

It is just a shame that ignorant religious zealots, and money mongering organizations such as the NRA, have distorted what is best, and safest for our country under the current realities of life and world in which we live at this time.

Our society is at risk, and much of that risk is associated with the gun lobby, in order to assuage their own greed, without concern about what their lobbying and bribes have done to the safety of average Americans in our country.

G.

llotter
09-13-2012, 03:20 PM
Governments take on average 38.4% off the top of all incomes. Most of the balance is used for necessities like food, clothing and shelter, so there is little left over for savings, investment, vacations or whatever. For arguments sake, let's say that government took only 15.4% and left me with 23% more every week and every month.

Don't you think that anyone would be freer and less of an indentured servant to people they don't even know with substantially lower taxes? It is a fundamental aspect of freedom to enjoy the fruits of your labor and the right to your property.

basically, who owns your labor? Does it belong to society in general to be spend as society wants or to the one who provided that labor?

Soflasnapper
09-13-2012, 04:54 PM
Did you mean to write the sentence that way? Republican Presidents????????????????????

Absolutely. A little appreciated historical fact.

People kind of know about the famed supposed trust-buster, TR, and that he was a Republican.

It's less well known that several presidents before him, in the late 1800s, were also Progressives, and also Republicans.

A very large part of the edifice of federal government regulations occurred in the late-19th century to early 20th century, before there were any recognizable modern day liberals to be seen anywhere.

cushioncrawler
09-13-2012, 05:54 PM
What i like about the COTUS iz the bits that protekt the environment and the future, and the bits that protekt happyness.
mac.

Soflasnapper
09-13-2012, 06:26 PM
[quote=llotter}

Don't you think that anyone would be freer and less of an indentured servant to people they don't even know with substantially lower taxes? It is a fundamental aspect of freedom to enjoy the fruits of your labor and the right to your property.

basically, who owns your labor? Does it belong to society in general to be spend as society wants or to the one who provided that labor? [/quote]

According to the debt fetishists, we need to reduce our national debt. By a lot. Pay it off, even.

It's at $16 trillion and mounting.

Let's see what math can tell us about the payment plan for paying this off or down.

If the government could run a net surplus of $500 billion a year, it would take 32 years to pay off this amount, if it stayed at this level, and didn't rise at all in the future.

If we made it a $250 billion dollar payoff a year from a surplus that large, it would take 64 years to pay it off.

So in what way is having a very low tax rate compatible with this arithmetic? Isn't it clear that exactly as people like David Stockman say, this country must and does face very high tax hikes from this level that will continue through several generations, at least?

cushioncrawler
09-13-2012, 06:42 PM
Ozzie natives hav lived in ozz for 50,000 years. Early on, ie the first 49,800 years, the national debt woz zero eech year, and the total debt woz zero. Expressed in equivalent US dollars, this would be US$0, ie zero, ie zilch.

Native property rights were a bit more komplikated. There were no property rights. Koz there woz no property. Natives didnt own the land. The land owned the natives.

I dont know who owned native labour. What i do know iz that at the time that the Foundling Farters were writing the COTUS, ozzy natives spent less time working per day than the average selfish ignorant superstitious pinkarsed ape in theusofa.

Waite a mo, back then the ozzy natives spent less time working per day than the average 2012 selfish ignorant superstitious pinkarsed ape. Beleev it or knot.
mac.

Stretch
09-13-2012, 07:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ozzie natives hav lived in ozz for 50,000 years. Early on, ie the first 49,800 years, the national debt woz zero eech year, and the total debt woz zero. Expressed in equivalent US dollars, this would be US$0, ie zero, ie zilch.

Native property rights were a bit more komplikated. There were no property rights. Koz there woz no property. Natives didnt own the land. The land owned the natives.

I dont know who owned native labour. What i do know iz that at the time that the Foundling Farters were writing the COTUS, ozzy natives spent less time working per day than the average selfish ignorant superstitious pinkarsed ape in theusofa.

Waite a mo, back then the ozzy natives spent less time working per day than the average 2012 selfish ignorant superstitious pinkarsed ape. Beleev it or knot.
mac. </div></div>

Vote Republican and you too can have a Stone Age utopia. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif St.