Post #190,391
1/16/05 3:03:01 PM
|
And you are arguing
What? That those that share your view of religion are 'more equal than others'. That those that disagree with you are less than you are, that people like YOU should be making their decisions; precisely what you SAY you find distasteful about the fundies.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,468
1/17/05 9:32:20 AM
|
Mebbe you should answer his question
Yes, that's what he's saying, OK? Now...what are you saying?
Seems to me he has you as pegged as you have him....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #190,470
1/17/05 9:48:11 AM
|
<sigh>
His only question was 'too late?'
We WILL see.
I do not advocate jumping the gun and 'ripping up the Constitution' before the neocons get a chance to. Denying the people their voice is ethically wrong, even if it's 'for their own good' - so is setting up a two-class system. Yes, I believe that the American people have made a grossly wrong error in this election. Yes, I believe the neocons will damage the Republic. Will I therefore drive a stake into the heart of the Republic? Do I advocate 'burning the village in order to save it' as Mike has?
The answer is 100% NO.
For instance, Mike has gone on record as saying he would deny government positions to the Nazi Party. In short, he would decide which political parties are 'valid'. I have gone on record as saying 'let the people decide'. Is this so hard to understand?
Forgive me for being against setting up an 'underclass' based on people's beliefs.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,471
1/17/05 10:04:08 AM
|
Or even...
Forgive me for being against setting up an 'underclass' based on people's beliefs. ... or even one's perception of people's beliefs.
E.g. [link|http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15546.html|2004 Exit Poll Results] from beliefnet:
21% of the "White Evangelical/Born Again" voters said they voted for Kerry.
31% of those claiming "None" as their religion said they voted for Bush.
36% who said they never attended church said they voted for Bush.
22% of those who said that abortion should be illegal in all cases said they voted for Kerry.
Etc.
How would Mike go about determining who was banned?
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #190,500
1/17/05 4:43:20 PM
|
Err, look at your stuff from a different angle.
~79% of the "White Evangelical/Born Again" voters said they voted for Bush.
~69% of those claiming "None" as their religion said they voted for Kerry.
~64% who said they had attended church said they voted for Bush.
~78% of those who said that abortion should be illegal in all cases said they voted for Bush.
Maybe I'll use your stuff to decide ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,501
1/17/05 4:58:30 PM
|
A majority isn't all.
This brings us back to your 50.5% in Jesusland...
How do you decide who in Jesusland shouldn't be able to serve in office or vote or whatever? In the last election, ~20+% of the people in Jesusland voted against Bush. If we accept for the sake of argument that the 80% are a danger, how do you determine who in Jesusland should be able to vote or run for office? Do you decide to not take chances and just exclude them all, just to be sure? Do you eliminate the secret ballot in Jesusland? Do you require that people in Jesusland who attend certain churches have to wear certain symbols? Would some political questionaire be required before a person in Jesusland could register to vote or run for office?
It's a really bad position you're taking...
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #190,505
1/17/05 6:11:48 PM
|
Not a bad idea...
Do you eliminate the secret ballot in Jesusland? I'll bet the vast majority of the sack-o-hair in Jesusland would go for it. That way, they'll know, "Who's for us and who's again' us!" After all, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear! jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #190,563
1/18/05 8:15:48 AM
|
How about a civics test?
Achieving the age of 18 chronologically seems to me to be an insufficient credential for contributing to the decision of whom sits atop the world's only remaining superpower (wrt militia, of course. We are rapidly becoming an "also ran" in economic power).
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,570
1/18/05 9:21:47 AM
|
Who writes the test? Who judges it?
|
Post #190,633
1/18/05 5:15:57 PM
|
moi?
|
Post #190,656
1/18/05 6:40:24 PM
|
^^^^ I'd be comfortable with that.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,657
1/18/05 6:41:16 PM
|
And when he passes on...
...or becomes too mentally feeble to continue updating it - who then?
And then who?
And then who?
And then who?
"Here at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal hundred megawatt laser beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his 'SMITE' button for our fire control system."
|
Post #190,659
1/18/05 6:45:15 PM
|
Me. Then, my kids. Then, ...
we launch all the nukes and leave it to Gawd.
[image|/forums/images/warning.png|0|This is sarcasm...]
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,760
1/19/05 10:26:13 AM
|
Of course you would
But it doesn't scale.
--
- I was involuntarily self-promoted into management.
[link|http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484|Richard Stallman]
|
Post #190,765
1/19/05 10:42:41 AM
|
It should ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,774
1/19/05 11:36:08 AM
|
Civics test would be counterproductive!
No worries, the random reliance on actual vote counts has already been corrected for!
And wrt economic power vs military power, I think we need to look at things a little differently... the civics-lesson approach tells us that we are the most powerful and free country in the world, and that we should continue to do good, that our best interests are to lead the world into a better era.
BUT THAT'S OLD THINKING. That's optimistic, rose-colored, weak-kneed, bleeding-heart, depending-on-others, limp-wristed pap.
You gotta think CRISIS. You gotta think stingy. You gotta think mean. You gotta think Last chance. You gotta think Nothing to lose.
We only have a few good years of dominance left, are rapidly heading towards irrelevance, and the nice-guy civics-lesson good-world-citizen approach is only going to accelerate the process of landing us into the also-ran bin, while handing a nice working productive world over to China. Once that happens, we'll have nothing to show for it and no way to get out of it *forever*.
By stirring things up the way we have been these past years (and wait -- there's more!), we may create chances for a catastrophic success somewhere, and if we still lose, at least we'll have poisoned the well so whoever takes over will have a hard time of it -- and who knows, leave ourselves a little leverage to work with.
Giovanni
Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for.
You don't need George Bush for that.
|
Post #190,883
1/19/05 8:17:44 PM
|
read the voting rights act of 1964
been there, done that and it didnt work the first time
regards,
daemon
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
Post #190,482
1/17/05 1:24:56 PM
|
Consider yourself forgiven
The question I have is: Once the majority of the voting populace has demonstrated that they are dumber that a sack of hair, and they figure that a Nazi would be the "correct" choice for this republic (a situation that some say has already happened, and that others like myself believe is but a single "election" away), then what? mmoffitt's solution is not palatable, I'll agree. But what is?
(Hint: There isn't enough room in Austrailia for all of us....)
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #190,483
1/17/05 1:51:42 PM
|
For the individual, or the whole?
Once the majority of the voting populace has demonstrated that they are dumber that a sack of hair, and they figure that a Nazi would be the "correct" choice for this republic (a situation that some say has already happened, and that others like myself believe is but a single "election" away), then what? For the individual: if you believe that the situtation has progressed to a point of collected misdirection (ie: Germany in 1939), the best solution is to leave. (Witness several key German scientists who left.) For the group as a whole: democracy (or a republic) can and has voted individuals in who taken over (witness Chile). However, in these cases, either the country corrects itself over time (Chile) or the world corrects the country (Germany). (The key statement being "over time".) Sidenote: many conservatives thought we reached the same point with Clinton, both first and second term. (Rush's famous "Days held Hostage" and even jokes about Clinton refusing to give up office.) The US is a very strong country. It will survive Bush and the neocons. IMO, we don't have to worry about a leader who has 30-50% of the people who dislike/hate them. The leader that takes over the US will only have approx. 5% of the people who dislike/hate. them. (Maybe less)
|
Post #190,490
1/17/05 2:45:16 PM
|
Nazi's best result at the polls were 38%
They never had majority of popular vote nor of seats in parliament before Hitler was appointer the Chancelor.
[link|http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp|http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp]
--
- I was involuntarily self-promoted into management.
[link|http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484|Richard Stallman]
|
Post #190,491
1/17/05 2:58:47 PM
|
Cogent link. Thanks.
|
Post #190,503
1/17/05 6:05:32 PM
1/17/05 6:06:09 PM
|
Hmmm -- Sound familiar?
From the linked article: Why would Hitler and his associates turn a blind eye to an impending terrorist attack on their national congressional building or actually assist with such a horrific deed? Because they knew what government officials have known throughout history \ufffd that during extreme national emergencies, people are most scared and thus much more willing to surrender their liberties in return for \ufffdsecurity.\ufffd And that\ufffds exactly what happened during the Reichstag terrorist crisis. And has happened here as well. That's why I'm not as sanguine as Simon_Jester. Here, we've already got over 50% of the sacks-of-hair wanting to sacrifice real liberty for "security", and that number is not getting smaller. (And just wait until "No Child Left StandingBehind becomes fully "effective"....) [edit: Correctly referenced previous poster] jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
Edited by jb4
Jan. 17, 2005, 06:06:09 PM EST
|
Post #190,565
1/18/05 8:19:12 AM
|
You're right, of course.
And for all the hand-wringing over my posts of late, the point as you so accurately state is moot. Liberty in a democracy cannot long last when the majority don't want it to. And I find myself ever refining my question. Now it is akin to, "Must our democracy be curtailed in the interest of the continuation of liberty?"
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,567
1/18/05 8:53:43 AM
|
A much more civilized way of saying
should we burn the village in order to save it... *chuckle*
You assume that liberty and democracy are not related, though. How can one be free, if there is no self-determination? How can one have self-determination, if one is part of a class denied representation in government?
What you advocate, IMO, is a hierarchy of privelege, determined by 'right thinking'. By political correctness.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,653
1/18/05 6:29:40 PM
|
Oh.. we *haven't* a 'hierarchy of privilege', then?
|
Post #190,658
1/18/05 6:43:07 PM
1/18/05 6:43:52 PM
|
Succinct. Love it.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Edited by mmoffitt
Jan. 18, 2005, 06:43:52 PM EST
|
Post #190,660
1/18/05 6:45:34 PM
|
It's the "Dogma of Otherness" all over again...
|
Post #190,681
1/18/05 8:02:06 PM
|
Not legislated.
As you two evidently want.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,752
1/19/05 9:45:55 AM
|
Sure it is
it's legislated by birth.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #190,761
1/19/05 10:27:07 AM
|
Care to elaborate?
--
- I was involuntarily self-promoted into management.
[link|http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484|Richard Stallman]
|
Post #190,779
1/19/05 11:49:45 AM
|
Yep
If you are born rich, you're likely to remain that way. If you're born poor, ditto.
Thems that has, gets, thems that don't, don't.
Individual success stories exist, but they are statistically irrelevant. Furthermore, the pattern of the last twenty or so years has the getting going more and more to thems that has, while the taking has been coming more and more from thems that don't.
If you don't believe me, go take a walk around a poor part of town sometime. I can see what's happened to mine over the last 25 years, and the differences are remarkable.
I understand that a GREAT way to see this in action in the US is to compare the schools in the low-rent districts to the schools in the high rent districts.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #190,780
1/19/05 11:55:03 AM
1/19/05 11:56:45 AM
|
How is that legislated?
Don't tell me how the legislature has failed to fix problems, tell me how a two-class system is written into law. Show me how that 2nd class of citizens have laws that explicitly limit thier rights; show me the laws that say they have fewer rights (especially re: participation in government) than the ruling class.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
Jan. 19, 2005, 11:56:45 AM EST
|
Post #190,789
1/19/05 12:05:33 PM
|
You're kidding, right?
All of our laws are written to support and defend the inequitable distribution of wealth because our laws are written by the plutocracy.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,791
1/19/05 12:06:48 PM
|
Don't bother...
...it's like trying to explain to a fish he's swimming in water.
(No offense meant, Imric - I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to use that one)
"Here at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal hundred megawatt laser beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his 'SMITE' button for our fire control system."
|
Post #190,796
1/19/05 12:11:44 PM
|
Sure they are.
It should be EASY to cite one that legislates a second class with fewer rights than the 'elite', then, shouldn't it? (Especially one based on 'right thinking') SHOULDN'T IT?
Pretend I'm from Missouri.
SHOW ME.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,799
1/19/05 12:22:27 PM
|
No, not easy
Look imric, there are many ways to enforce class, and not all of them need be active.
Answer this: is a rich person more likely to get away with murder than a poor person? Why?
This is not something that is "legislated" in the sense of their being a statute. However, it is legislated by the law that states that Only The Rich Can Afford Good Lawyers. If you want to find out about that, take a look at some of the recent events in Tucson wrt the prosecutor's office to see this in action.
Legislated \\= By Statute
unless you're a lawyer of course... and you have to think like a lawyer to justify the position you're trying to take.
Here's another question. Is there class in the US? If it's not legislated, why does it still exist?
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #190,800
1/19/05 12:33:39 PM
|
Bah.
We do NOT have a system that legislates an ELITE with more rights than the second class.
It has gotten better WRT classes based on economics since our founding.
Are we 'there' yet? Is everything perfect and hunky-dory WRT classes based on 'fame or fortune'? No. Of course not.
Will we get there by MANDATING such a system based on 'political correctness' (instead of 'fame and fortune') determined by an elite?
Feh.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #191,113
1/21/05 6:03:21 PM
|
{sheesh} Take 2 aspirin and read Animal Farm again..
|
Post #191,378
1/24/05 1:39:16 PM
|
How can you say that...
We do NOT have a system that legislates an ELITE with more rights than the second class. I don't know how you can say that w/ a straignt face, whan all you have to do is look at the last set of tax "equalization" legislation, or the proposed legislation to "save" social security. It's all there, Skip....blackletter law that confirms jake123's point. jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #191,388
1/24/05 2:09:11 PM
|
And these things infringe on rights exactly how?
What does cash have to do with ANY of this? Money and privelege, OK. Yes, the monied have more priveleges.
Money and rights, where? Where do the wealthy have more rights than the poor under law?
WHERE?
They DON'T.
Look - I don't like the inequity in our society; I don't particularly like the fact that the middle class is being eaten alive. I don't like the social stigma we lavish on the poor. We can do better. I've been on the poor end of the 'stick'. Too many times in my life. The law never took away my rights because of that. I could still vote for whomever I wanted to; I could still complain about things to anybody I wanted. All my RIGHTS remained intact. I had a right to trial, and representation even if I couldn't afford it.
Where did I ever say that our society or people are perfect, above reproach? No. What I said was that there is NO legislation that mandates an elite and a second class, and there isn't any.
I'm right in this; you know it.
My problem was with the idea that an elite would be formed. That only those with politically correct thoughts should be allowed to participate in government. The idea is appling to me.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #191,395
1/24/05 3:24:40 PM
|
Clue 1: According to the US Supreme Court, Money == Speech.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #191,400
1/24/05 4:14:44 PM
|
Izzatso?
Show me the ruling that says that. Show me the ruling that says I can't speak my mind if I have no money.
DON'T show a ruling that says either: the wealthy can use thier money to make thier 'speech' louder, or a ruling that says the wealthy aren't required to use thier money to help the poor to 'speak'.
Don't give me some bs rationale that tells me that ANYBODY has a right to an audience.
'Clue', my ass. I think you guys are reaching, hard.
Here's a clue for you: not everybody has equal means; not everybody has equal power, not everybody has equal privilege. Everybody starts out with the same basic rights, however.
Or do you think that privilege=rights, rights=privilege?
Privileges are NOT protected under law the way that rights are.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,801
1/19/05 12:39:44 PM
|
Rich and poor alike have the same prohibition.
Neither are allowed to sleep under a bridge.
-----------------------------------------
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
-- H. L. Mencken
|
Post #190,806
1/19/05 1:26:02 PM
|
Well, that's not legislated
Imric got you to admit that it's more of "natural order of things" under our corrupt system than any specific legislation. Good
Now, since you seem to dislike "Thems that has, gets, thems that don't, don't", let's consider the alternative.
Let's see...
Thems that has, LOSES, thems that don't, GETS.
Do I get it right? As soon as I have something, it gets taken away from me and re-distributed to "have nots". Is this the idea?
The difference beween the rule you dislike and the rule I dislike is that the current rule does not prohibit the poor to own things, it is simply harder for them to get things - they don't get automatic benefits such as parent-sponsored college or dividents on inheritance, but they are not prohibited from going to college, if they value education more than food. The new rule prohibits rich people to own anything. As soon as you have excess, it gets redistributed.
Yes, I am using Reduction Ad Absurdum. I think it's justified, though, because all attempts to implement the new rule did end up in bloody absurd.
--
- I was involuntarily self-promoted into management.
[link|http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484|Richard Stallman]
|
Post #190,550
1/18/05 1:32:13 AM
|
The acronym TPOTPS doesn't have quite the ring of,
(\ufffd..for the Protection of the People and the State.\ufffd) The pat/RIOT Act, of course. But the sediments seem farmily-valuez familiar, to coin a pharse Almost exactly 70 years following The Enabling Act the US launched its first-ever invasion of a State which had exhibited no aggressive action towards the US. Except say, not liking US very much.. Sudetenland? Danzig? the beat goes on --> (Of course too, the US has The People's Court exterritorially: on its own Devil's Island portion (\ufffd l\ufffd Haiti/Dominican) of that dangerously non-Republican embarrassment, just south of the Florida Keys.) Scary bit of deja vu - The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation.... The Nazi terror in the early years affected the lives of relatively few Germans and a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed.... On the contrary, they supported it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country. Hornberger's quite a [link|http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/press/fc.asp| trip.] But I like [link|http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/gandhihitler.html| Mahatma Gandhi's letters to Hitler] for a change of pace. The remainder and substance of this short letter reads: "It is quite clear that you are today the one person in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to the savage state. Must you pay that price for an object however worthy it may appear to you to be? Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success?" Before that-all and Lindbergh's rah rah Nazi apologia, we had our home-grown Father Coughlan - no doubt the model for the preacher/dictator in It Can't Happen Here. As to what the combo of 'sheeple' + nukes might wrought? cha cha cha '04 Synchronicity? or just
In the final analysis, everything is related to everything else
Ashley Brilliant
|
Post #190,485
1/17/05 2:06:07 PM
|
Now THAT'S a question
I wish I had an answer to!
Rebellion?
I hope it doesn't come to that; I fear it might. I find myself unable to recommend bloody rebellion - and if the 2/3 majority is against it, any rebellion would prove futile, IMO.
I dunno.
I have no new, novel form of government to suggest.
In the past, people could flee to the wilderness and start over; are we now doomed to be stuck until we create wilderness out of our own country?
Let me know if you think of anything that doesn't either a) require a ruling elite & underclasses based on either physical or philosophical differences, or b) relies on a level of self-sacrifice and/or maturity that the human race has yet to demonstrate and c) resists stagnation and decay.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,504
1/17/05 6:08:07 PM
|
Like Picard said to the Borg...
Resistance is not futile!
After, all, it's working in Iraq....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
