Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

REVOLUTION

82 replies to this topic
Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#31

Posted 05 December 2004 - 09:20 PM

I fail to see how gays getting married destroys our moral fabric. I just don't see why people care so much about it. If your against gay marriage, DON'T GET MARRIED TO A GAY PERSON.

done.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#32

Posted 05 December 2004 - 09:33 PM

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for letting the gays get their marital tax breaks and all. They should be able to do what they want. I'm just saying that this is a matter of law and the citizens should be in control in one way or another.

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#33

Posted 06 December 2004 - 12:20 AM

QUOTE
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for letting the gays get their marital tax breaks and all.  They should be able to do what they want.  I'm just saying that this is a matter of law and the citizens should be in control in one way or another.
 

       

That's totaly understandable. What I don't want to see (and this has to do more with issues other than gay marriage) is citizens forcing the judicial branch to allow laws to be passed even though they violate the constitution.
In other words, I don't want citizens overiding the constitution. I believe the constitution is there for a reason and should not be undermind.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#34

Posted 06 December 2004 - 02:01 AM

I see what you're saying but still, there's no citizen power check over the judiciary branch. The citizens can bring an issue to the supreme court, but in the end it's those judges who make the decisions.

That being said, it's also noteworthy that a precedent has been set deeming the judiciary branch the sole interpretors of the constitution. What they say with regards to the consititution really can't be wrong.

mjsmithz
  • mjsmithz

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 May 2003

#35

Posted 06 December 2004 - 05:13 AM

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Dec 6 2004, 02:01)
I see what you're saying but still, there's no citizen power check over the judiciary branch. The citizens can bring an issue to the supreme court, but in the end it's those judges who make the decisions.

That being said, it's also noteworthy that a precedent has been set deeming the judiciary branch the sole interpretors of the constitution. What they say with regards to the consititution really can't be wrong.

thats exactly why supreme court nominations are challenged so fiercely when they come up.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#36

Posted 06 December 2004 - 11:32 AM

What's your point?

ZiggyTosh
  • ZiggyTosh

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2004

#37

Posted 06 December 2004 - 10:41 PM

Lots of things in America are silly; some things are bad. But it's not as bad as a state of civil war, and there is no clear indication that a "revolution" would result in anything better. More often than not, it doesn't. So yeah, I would contemplate revolution at some point. But not when the revolutionizers' biggest complaints are that the president is stupid and that Starbuck's is moving too many units of snobbish coffee.

Bush is not good, honest, or intelligent. But give me a break. Look through history. How many chief executives have NOT been stupid and dishonest?!?! So unless you're going to promise me that your revolution will result in universally intelligent chief executives who always tell the truth and only pursue policies that create good in the world without hidden agendas of national interest ... I'm not interested. You ask me for a contribution, well you know, we're all doing what we can.

I'm sure you think that's a weak way to look at it. But the fact that you are sitting on your a$$ right now, and that your "revolution" consists mainly of saying silly things on the Internet, shows that you basically agree with me when it really counts.

There are things I would like to change in the world, but not if it involves ceding power to upper middle class white boy dilletantes like you who think that revolution is some sort of advanced form of "alternative" rock. You're a moron.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#38

Posted 06 December 2004 - 10:58 PM

Eviscero claps.



I like this one.

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#39

Posted 07 December 2004 - 06:20 AM

QUOTE
I see what you're saying but still, there's no citizen power check over the judiciary branch.  The citizens can bring an issue to the supreme court, but in the end it's those judges who make the decisions.

That being said, it's also noteworthy that a precedent has been set deeming the judiciary branch the sole interpretors of the constitution.  What they say with regards to the consititution really can't be wrong. 


I was pretty sure you would bring this up, I would have written this in my last post, but I was in a hurry. In short, I know what your saying and this is the way I want it to stay.
On a side note, If I could have my way, I would not have the conservatives kicked off the board (as liberal as I may be). I think the Judiciary should be well ballanced so that no political extreme can get what ever they want.

On another side note, I think this is the only thing we have ever agreed upon.

Creflo
  • Creflo

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2004

#40

Posted 07 December 2004 - 06:51 PM

I find it odd that people choose the word "facist" for President Bush.

When I think about facists from a historical perspective, I think about governments that:

- First made registration of all weapons mandatory, then took the weapons away.

- Legislated what was allowed to be taught in schools

- Removed organized religion from schools and government

- Took $$$ from the well-to-do and "empowered" the working class

These are fundamental tenents of Liberalism, not conservatism, which teaches that you are what you make of yourself.


As far as the recent election...

If you look at a county-by-county breakdown of voting, you'll see that the vast majority of the country went to the Republican candidates.

user posted image

While they were at it, they voted down a large number of liberal Congressional candidates as well. This was NOT simply a result of the gay marriage issue. People are not longer subject to a 1-sided media and have become tired of Socialist agendas. More people are becoming successful without the help of government handouts, and they are voting against tax-and-spend.

For anyone who bitches about how the electoral college robbed Gore, think of it this way:

If I play you in Street Fighter for best 2/3 rounds, It doesn't matter that you won a round with a perfect defeat in which I scored no damage and my 2 wins were by the slightest margin (the old R.C.H., as it's known). What counts is how many rounds were won.

Each state is its own electoral fight.

This time around, Kerry spent all his time and $$$ winning "battleground" states. Bush beat his ass in 'fly-over country'. This is the heart of America.


Move on.

BrassKnuckles
  • BrassKnuckles

    Iconic

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2002

#41

Posted 07 December 2004 - 11:38 PM

QUOTE (Creflo @ Dec 7 2004, 18:51)
I find it odd that people choose the word "facist" for President Bush.

When I think about facists from a historical perspective, I think about governments that:

- First made registration of all weapons mandatory, then took the weapons away.

- Legislated what was allowed to be taught in schools

- Removed organized religion from schools and government

- Took $$$ from the well-to-do and "empowered" the working class

These are fundamental tenents of Liberalism, not conservatism, which teaches that you are what you make of yourself.


As far as the recent election...

If you look at a county-by-county breakdown of voting, you'll see that the vast majority of the country went to the Republican candidates.

user posted image

While they were at it, they voted down a large number of liberal Congressional candidates as well. This was NOT simply a result of the gay marriage issue. People are not longer subject to a 1-sided media and have become tired of Socialist agendas. More people are becoming successful without the help of government handouts, and they are voting against tax-and-spend.

For anyone who bitches about how the electoral college robbed Gore, think of it this way:

If I play you in Street Fighter for best 2/3 rounds, It doesn't matter that you won a round with a perfect defeat in which I scored no damage and my 2 wins were by the slightest margin (the old R.C.H., as it's known). What counts is how many rounds were won.

Each state is its own electoral fight.

This time around, Kerry spent all his time and $$$ winning "battleground" states. Bush beat his ass in 'fly-over country'. This is the heart of America.


Move on.

You know, I just saw that same map today on the door of my English class. Under it was a night-time satellite photo of the United States' population centers. Unsurprisingly...

For your "fascism" study, would "theocracy" work?

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#42

Posted 08 December 2004 - 03:42 AM

QUOTE
When I think about facists from a historical perspective, I think about governments that:

- First made registration of all weapons mandatory, then took the weapons away.

- Legislated what was allowed to be taught in schools

- Removed organized religion from schools and government

- Took $$$ from the well-to-do and "empowered" the working class


Bust out your dictionary and read the definition of facism. The above does not have much to do with it.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#43

Posted 08 December 2004 - 06:48 PM

"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."


No dictator, no stringent socioeconomic controls, no suppression through terror, minimal censorship, racism is outlawed. That leaves us with nationalism and a little censorship. If you call the United States of America fascist, I call you a dumbf*ck stupid idiot.

BrassKnuckles
  • BrassKnuckles

    Iconic

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2002

#44

Posted 09 December 2004 - 12:25 AM

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Dec 8 2004, 18:48)
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."


No dictator, no stringent socioeconomic controls, no suppression through terror, minimal censorship, racism is outlawed. That leaves us with nationalism and a little censorship. If you call the United States of America fascist, I call you a dumbf*ck stupid idiot.

Would you endorse Creflo calling the democratic position "socialism" then? Double standard, eh?

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#45

Posted 11 December 2004 - 12:21 AM

Don't know what you're talking about. Little background?

BrassKnuckles
  • BrassKnuckles

    Iconic

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2002

#46

Posted 11 December 2004 - 11:15 PM

You had no qualms about labeling the liberal position a "socialist agenda," but you're quick on the dictionary draw when we say the f-word.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#47

Posted 13 December 2004 - 09:55 PM

Well, yeah, I'd say the democratic agenda does resemble socialism. Slightly. Far more than a republican resembles a fascist.

BrassKnuckles
  • BrassKnuckles

    Iconic

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2002

#48

Posted 14 December 2004 - 03:33 AM

In what ways? I would argue that today's Republican agenda is based on severe ultra-nationalism--which we've defined as a tenet of fascism.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#49

Posted 14 December 2004 - 03:53 AM

QUOTE (dictionary.com)
Socialism - Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.


Democrats (liberals especially) have always been for big federal government which includes a tax and spend approach to the economy. Federal regulation of production and distribution of goods has also been favored by the liberals and the democratic party. I don't think the relations are too hard to see.

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#50

Posted 14 December 2004 - 06:03 AM

I have to say that I agree with both your statements, evis about the last post defining socailist agendas and brass knuckles noting a very common (dictionary definition) trait of facism. Where does this leads?
Honestly I would like to think that the democratic agenda has some socialist aspects to it, it's supposed to be left slanted, right? As far as the republicans and facism, well the TRUE republicans don't realy have too much in common with facism, [Like john mccain (even though he seems to lack the balls to publicaly critisize bush), and a few others who's names I can't remember, I'll edit when I do)

Swarz
  • Swarz

    Council of Elders

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2002

#51

Posted 14 December 2004 - 03:02 PM

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Dec 14 2004, 03:53)
QUOTE (dictionary.com)
Socialism - Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.


Democrats (liberals especially) have always been for big federal government which includes a tax and spend approach to the economy. Federal regulation of production and distribution of goods has also been favored by the liberals and the democratic party. I don't think the relations are too hard to see.

Have you ever studied politics at a high level - say, degree level? Do you have any idea how horribly vague your description is right there. When you're attacking a particular political affiliation / movement, you have to be a little more specific.


You're trying to make the democrats look like some far-left socialist group by looking at one particular issue area and immediately assuming that the democrats have gone to the extreme side of it - how silly of you.


Although I'm pretty weak on American politics- Yes, Democrats are located to the left of the political spectrum. Yes, they do advocate a larger more centralised Government. Yes, they do believe in greater intervention the economy. You're very smart.

However, trying to draw a comparison between a centre-left party and socialism is pure foolishness. They're hardly going to act like the Labour party in the UK in 1945 and put through 10 Acts of Nationalisation, nor do they use the Communist Manifesto as the framework for their policies. In todays developed world politics is so moderate that a party on the centre-left could well spread slightly to the right in some policy areas, and vice-versa.

For example, the current "centre-left" Labour party is hugely laissez-faire on its economic policy, while you get many Conservatives who are right-wing in most aspects but very supportive of the EU.


Would recommend many of you read some higher level politics books and look up the "Horse-shoe" political spectrum - might enlighten you somewhat.

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#52

Posted 21 December 2004 - 07:45 AM

Swarz, well put. I have to ask, why are you not so well informed with american politics (no diserespect, just wondering about your worldly place and perspective), at least some americans still care what the rest of the world thinks.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#53

Posted 21 December 2004 - 11:54 AM

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was specifically refering to the liberals, not the Democratic party as a whole. Everyone knows that party is extremely diverse. Everyone also knows that liberals are very extreme. Most of the people posting around here are either extremely left liberals, or would like to make it appear that way.

Mortukai
  • Mortukai

    Merciless Rancor

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2003

#54

Posted 21 December 2004 - 01:47 PM

QUOTE
Most of the people posting around here are either extremely left liberals, or would like to make it appear that way.

Or maybe they just don't agree with you.

QUOTE
Everyone also knows that liberals are very extreme.

Everyone knows that conservatives are very extreme.

What the hell is "extreme" anyway? Is supporting abortion extreme? Or is opposing abortion extreme? I supporting gay rights to marriage extreme? Or is opposing gay rights to marriage extreme? Or does it simply matter on your perspective? If so, does this not make it a meaningless term, used only to marginalise those who disagree with you?

Here's my view: If some people have a right to do something, then ALL people must have that same right, or those people who have the right should have it taken away. This is a fundamental principle of equal rights. Equality of rights, for all people, regardless of race, culture, socio-economic background, heritage, gender, sexual orientation, group affiliation, nationality, or whatever. Equality for everyone regardless of everything.

Funnily enough, I can't see how anyone could ever have freedom without equal rights. 200 years ago you Americans were "fighting for your freedom", despite the fact that women and black people were far from free to do almost everything. I think what Americans now call freedom, is actually "more rights than you have". You can't give up rights for freedom. That is impossible, because freedom is dependant on your rights. Saying "there is a limit to how much freedom we should have" is misleading. What you should say is "there is a limit to the rights we should have", which is far more true. It also allows you to be more accurate. Instead of saying "we want freedom, so I'll give up my rights", you can see that any relinquishing of any rights is giving up the very thing that makes you "free". Saying "I can live without privacy if it'll keep me free" is stupid. How are you free if you have no right to privacy? Would you actually feel free if someone followed you around 24/7 and never took their eyes off you? What about if a computer chip in your body constantly sent every single little bit of information about you, like where you were and what you were doing, to the authorities. Would you feel free then? What about if you simply knew that at any given time anyone could discover anything about you that they wanted, and you couldn't do anything, because you don't have the right to be informed? Would you feel free?

I know what you are thinking. "But Mortukai, the government almost never uses those powers, so the chance of my privacy being infringed upon is tiny". And to that I say "How many times has a terrorist threatened your own life?" I don't care how often they use those powers, the fact remains that they CAN use those powers and you have NO RIGHT to privacy. You don't have the right to privacy when you are being secretly investigated, and you don't have the right to privacy when you are being left alone. You don't have the right to privacy, and you don't care, because you sold it for "protection". You know who else offers protection in exchange for things? That's right. The Mafia. And guess what? They also used fear to convince people to pay for protection. The difference, of course, is that the Mafia only asked for money. Your government asked for your rights. That which gives you freedom. That which you so boldly (yet falsely) proclaim to hold advantage of over "lesser" countries. How many more rights will you give up before you realise this "protection" from the unseen enemy just isn't worth it?

Oh, and while I'm on the subject of freedom, I might as well bring this up: anyone who believes that terrorists are "jealous of your freedom" is seriously f*cking deluded. Just which part of your magical freedom are they jealous of? Do you have the right to take up arms against your enemies? No? They do. Do you have the right to beat your women? No? Many of them do. Do you have the right to be learn about bomb-making? No? They do. Do you have the right to steal from your enemies? No? They do. Do you have the right to practise all principles of your religion? No? They do. (and no, if you are an American Christian, then you do not have the right to practise almost all of God's laws as prescribed in the Bible). What rights do you have that these terrorists don't have? What freedom do you have that they do not? I'd say these guys are far from jealous of your way of life. In fact, they seem to love their own way of life alot. Enough to kill themselves for it. If they wanted your way of life so badly, why the hell are they so resistant to you trying to force it onto them? These iraqis and terrorists are people who have the balls to do what almost no-one here would ever do: fight and die for their way of life. They are running their own revolution already, rising up against their oppressors (America), while you guys sit here in mild debate over whether or not liberals should revolt against the conservatives. I know who I respect more.

Also, I know that last paragraph may have seemed like it came out of nowhere, but it was relevant to my train of thought, and also needed to be said, because I've seen that "terrorists are jealous of our freedom" bullsh*t many times before, if not in this thread, then in others on this forum.

jizzyman
  • jizzyman

    BB(Q)King

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004

#55

Posted 26 December 2004 - 02:02 AM

QUOTE (8ballsoffire @ Nov 17 2004, 21:29)
it is common for computer's to malfunction. there's more than a 1/1,000,000 chance of it happening. so if more than a million of these machines are all being used on the same day it's obvious that more than one error will occur. just because of a technical fault you can't claim a government is corrupt. if there was serious evidence to show the election was rigged the UN would have done something by now.

if Kerry had one there would be millions of Bush supporters claiming that voting doesn't work. it's just being a bad loser, which is perfectly normal if you just lost something that greatly affects your life. This isn't a valid reason to call a world leader a corrupt fascist though.

but you see if you depend on international aid associations like the umited nations its likely that they have many other problems on their hands like putting an end to the genocide in sudan, the rwanda holocaust, and ease tensions in iraq and palestine

jizzyman
  • jizzyman

    BB(Q)King

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004

#56

Posted 26 December 2004 - 02:11 AM Edited by jizzyman, 26 December 2004 - 02:22 AM.

[QUOTE=Eviscero,Dec 8 2004, 18:48] "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."


No dictator, no stringent socioeconomic controls, no suppression through terror, minimal censorship, racism is outlawed. That leaves us with nationalism and a little censorship. If you call the United States of America fascist, I call you a dumbf*ck stupid idiot.
[/QUOTE]



first of all the view of the united states that you have is pretty peachie.
racism is rampant and uncontrolled, many racist cops by the way. censorship is not minimal but offers minimal freedom of expression. and after all what is a dictator, if a dictator rules without question theres bush and his conservative buddies, if you think a dictator gives people no rights, well thats bush and his buddy ashcroft
[/QUOTE]democratic agenda resembles socialism
and who told you socialism is that bad.
have you ever been to cuba? i think i you visit havana you'll notice something quite odd
shelter, health, and cheap food is provided to everyone
no children begging on the streets (wow)
an educated population
and a poor economy thanks to the U.S.As economic blockade on the place (isolated)

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#57

Posted 26 December 2004 - 05:11 AM

Anyone think they can fix that?

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#58

Posted 26 December 2004 - 06:29 AM

QUOTE
Anyone think they can fix that? 

       

The answer would be yes, but, I don't think we are willing enough to compromise.
I hope we can all agree that we (america and the world) could benefit from compromise.

zon
  • zon

    I eat babies

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2003

#59

Posted 08 January 2005 - 03:11 AM

Some day if it comes down to it then yes. But not now. I'll wait till the day Soldiers are used as police men and they take away our books and guns. No one will take my books or the 9MM pistol I have hidden in my house.

Red Hat Girl
  • Red Hat Girl

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2004

#60

Posted 09 January 2005 - 07:57 PM

Hey,

I just happen to be believe in communist revolution so I'm very interested in this discussed.

This question increasingly becomes more serious (beyond everyone who already knew first hand about all the racism, poverty, jailing and other outrages in this country). And, if you all wait until it really is fascism or the equivalant, it's going to be too late to organize to stop it (like Germany, which even though its not going to go down the same way its still worth looking at how that country got there and what people tried to do to stop it).

In light of that, I wanted to post this statement on exactly this question from The Revolutionary Communist Party of the US.


Statement from the Revolutionary Communist Party:
THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE WILL BE FOUGHT
FROM HERE FORWARD!

YOU THINK YOU KNOW.... BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA.... JUST WHAT BUSH HAS IN STORE FOR.... YOU.... US.... THE WORLD.... OUR FUTURE!

Straight up—Bush and his people aren’t just ordinary Republicans. And they’re not ordinary Christians either. They are Christian Fascists—dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world. If they get their way—and they are very far along the road to getting it—society will be plunged into a high-tech Dark Ages....
full statement at

Circulate this statement online and off -- it needs to reach millions! http://rwor.org


Let's keep talking about this!
Red Hat Girl




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users