Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Constitutional Guarantees

Related threads:
Lyr Add: Homeland Security (7)
BS: PATRIOT Act 2 (31)
BS: Ashcroft to face Congress over the Patri (18)
BS: Got Rights? Not For Long! (28) (closed)
BS: USA PATRIOT Act (Part 2) (51) (closed)
BS: Homeland Security Bill Passes Senate (55) (closed)
BS: Where's the thread on Homeland Security? (18) (closed)
BS: TIPS program/Homeland Security? (23) (closed)
BS: Health care or Homeland security? (22) (closed)
BS: Cities Revolt against US Patriot Act (30) (closed)
BS: New Rules for the Patriotic (61) (closed)


GUEST,Dreaded Guest 06 Mar 03 - 02:31 AM
Forum Lurker 06 Mar 03 - 12:28 AM
Bobert 05 Mar 03 - 10:16 PM
GUEST,Dreaded Guest 05 Mar 03 - 10:00 PM
Forum Lurker 05 Mar 03 - 09:44 PM
Bobert 05 Mar 03 - 09:34 PM
Forum Lurker 05 Mar 03 - 09:13 PM
Don Firth 05 Mar 03 - 08:58 PM
Forum Lurker 05 Mar 03 - 07:51 PM
Mark Clark 05 Mar 03 - 07:37 PM
Don Firth 05 Mar 03 - 07:27 PM
Greg F. 05 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM
Don Firth 01 Mar 03 - 03:18 PM
Forum Lurker 27 Feb 03 - 09:15 PM
GUEST,The Dreaded Guest 27 Feb 03 - 08:04 PM
Forum Lurker 27 Feb 03 - 07:41 PM
GUEST,The Dreaded Guest 27 Feb 03 - 07:18 PM
Don Firth 27 Feb 03 - 03:11 PM
GUEST,The Dreaded Guest 27 Feb 03 - 02:32 PM
GUEST,Forum Lurker 27 Feb 03 - 02:22 PM
GUEST,The Dreaded Guest 27 Feb 03 - 01:46 PM
DougR 27 Feb 03 - 01:24 PM
GUEST,The Dreaded Guest 27 Feb 03 - 12:02 PM
DougR 27 Feb 03 - 01:50 AM
GUEST,The Dreaded Guest 26 Feb 03 - 03:56 PM
Bobert 26 Feb 03 - 03:44 PM
Don Firth 26 Feb 03 - 02:25 PM
GUEST,The Dreaded Guest 26 Feb 03 - 01:12 PM
Greg F. 26 Feb 03 - 08:18 AM
JennyO 26 Feb 03 - 06:50 AM
DougR 26 Feb 03 - 02:07 AM
Forum Lurker 26 Feb 03 - 12:07 AM
Troll 25 Feb 03 - 11:07 PM
Forum Lurker 25 Feb 03 - 09:01 PM
GUEST,The Dreaded Guest 25 Feb 03 - 08:11 PM
Don Firth 25 Feb 03 - 08:10 PM
GUEST,The Dreaded Guest 25 Feb 03 - 07:57 PM
Forum Lurker 25 Feb 03 - 07:31 PM
Bobert 25 Feb 03 - 06:54 PM
Don Firth 25 Feb 03 - 06:25 PM
Kim C 25 Feb 03 - 02:29 PM
GUEST,The Dreaded Guest 25 Feb 03 - 02:28 PM
Don Firth 25 Feb 03 - 01:04 PM
GUEST,The Dreaded Guest 25 Feb 03 - 12:59 PM
GUEST,The Dreaded Guest 25 Feb 03 - 12:57 PM
Don Firth 25 Feb 03 - 12:41 PM
GUEST,The Dreaded Guest 25 Feb 03 - 12:35 AM
Forum Lurker 25 Feb 03 - 12:25 AM
Troll 25 Feb 03 - 12:16 AM
Forum Lurker 25 Feb 03 - 12:12 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:31 AM

You're wrong, Lurker. TV is insidious. The U.S. imported the Nazi death-camp psychologists in 1947 and they got right to work on brainwashing techniques utilizing the new medium of TV. So today, tens of millions of white men can watch a basketball game and have their most primal racial stereotypes reinforced when they see a black man grinning and swinging from a hoop.

Then you flip the channel and get a lecture on how the races should get along...intentional mixed messages designed to create guilt and confusion. This is Nazi brainwashing. Hundreds of groups have been set up to hate each other through subtle manipulation of television messages, and consequently, we now have a fragmented society that will be easier to conquer. Divide and conquer. The Nazis didn't LOSE WW2. Their work goes on.

I just came across some material on the guidelines Washington is setting for Hollywood regarding guns and will work that up into a post. Pretty distressing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 12:28 AM

DG-those divisions existed centuries before TV. It's what happens when you have a non-homogenous society: people are different. Differences of perspective lead to differences of opinion, which sometimes lead to conflict. That's the way the world works. If anything, TV lessens the differences, by eliminating cultural diversity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:16 PM

Yeah, DG, it is a kick in the gut. But ya' gotta do what ya' gotta do. The important thing now is to save *democracy* for the generations to come.

And given the *imposter government* we have now, we have our work cut out for us.

Dang it!

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:00 PM

Ain't it a kick in the gut, Bobert? We're all going to have to make some accomodations for alternate ways of thinking. What I hate most about our TV-fed society is the balkanization...black vs white, Democrat vs Republican, etc. Those divisions are sold to us like margarine while the most wicked crew of humans to ever breathe plots our enslavement. Disarmament and subjugation by psycho-killers is NOT on my list of options.

Stalin, Mao and Hitler agree...disarmament works!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 09:44 PM

I son't have a problem with gun ownership, so long as it's responsible. It's only the people who let unsupervised children get their hands on loaded firearms that's the problem. Unfortunately, I think we have more of those people than the rest of the world combined.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 09:34 PM

Danged, gotta agree with FL on this one. With the Ashcroft/Poindexter/Cheney Conspiracy very much underway, I'm beginning to see a coilition of folks who a few years ago wouldn't think of joining ina struggle with one another coming together to say "No thanks to the Bill of Rights going into the shreader."

Man, I hate this... but I can see having to stand with the "Gun Nuts" before this over. Hey, we may *have* to make some stinky deals along the way to stop a much stinkier deal...

Whew...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 09:13 PM

Some of us would still object (including me), on the principal that the people with swastikas are doing less damage with the armbands than the precedent will do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 08:58 PM

It might be a little hard for them to post all possible prohibitions where people could readily see them. Sometimes you see things like "No Eating in the Common Areas" and things like that, but it's pretty hard to anticipate everything they might encounter.

The way malls are usually set up is that the mall is owned, or at least managed, by some real estate management agency that leases space to individual businesses. They probably didn't tell the T-shirt shop what kind of T-shirts they could or could not print up and sell. Nor would they tell, say, a Radio Shack outlet what equipment they could sell. But should someone buy a bloody-great boom-box at the Radio Shack outlet, then go out in the common area of the mall with the boom-box turned on and cranked up, the mall management would be within their rights to insist that the customer turn it down, shut it off, or leave the mall. What the individual stores sell is, literally, their own business, although the mall management can exercise control there, too. You usually won't find a porn shop in a mall, because the mall management won't lease to them.   What the customer does in the common areas of the mall does fall under the jurisdiction of the mall management and security.

Frankly, I think they are being pretty damned snotty about the T-shirts, but that's because I sympathize with the T-shirt wearers' message. I wonder how the mall management might react if a couple of people walked through the mall wearing, say, swastika armbands. If they told them to take 'em off or get out, I don't think most of us would object. But there again. . . .

How people react seems to depend on whose ox is gored.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:51 PM

Mark Clark is right. It is one thing to have such a policy, and quite another to make seemingly arbitrary judgements. One is the exercise of property rights, the other is horribly open to exploitation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Mark Clark
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:37 PM

Yes, if the mall is private property, then as you say “they are within their constitutional rights to ban the wearing of such T-shirts in the mall.” But I think such bans must be posted at entrances to the mall. I don't think they can just make it up when they decide they don't like something. It's also interesting that they had the shirts in question made for them at the mall in which the arrest occurred.

      - Mark


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:27 PM

Whoa!! One must really be careful with something like this. I think that with the issue of the Crossgates Mall, the question is, "is this space public or private?" From the article, it looks like the ACLU might be about to go into the legal and constitutional aspects of that.

The immediate reaction that most people have is that this is an abridgment of the T-shirt wearers' freedom of speech. Indeed, that was my first reaction when I read the story. But—if the Crossgates Mall is private property, and if they in no way receive government funding (government grants or subsidies, Small Business Administration loans, etc.), then it's my understanding that, like it or not, they are within their constitutional rights to ban the wearing of such T-shirts in the mall. Local ordinance may say otherwise, but it isn't really a constitutional issue. The government is forbidden to abridge your freedom of speech, but private citizens are not.

In your own house, or in your own place of business, you are not required to put up with speech or behavior that you—for whatever reason—find disagreeable or unacceptable. To ask someone to refrain or take it elsewhere is within your constitutional rights. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a policy of many places of business, and I can't see where it runs afoul of the Constitution. Matters of dress are included in this: for example, many upscale restaurants won't let a man in without a jacket and tie. Even if he feels he's making a social statement.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM

Amerika the Bee-ootiful. These are the "freedoms"
the BuShites want to defend?
---------

Mall shopper charged after refusing to take off shirt with
peace slogan

He kept his shirt on -- and got arrested

By Carol DeMare, Albany NY, TIMES-UNION
First published: Wednesday, March 5, 2003

An attorney for the[New York] state was
arrested and hauled into court after refusing
to take off a T-shirt that said "Give Peace
a Chance" while shopping at Crossgates Mall...



FULL STORY HERE


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 03:18 PM

I watched "Now, with Bill Moyers" on Channel 9 last night after watching the special on Mr. Rogers. I really like the Bill Moyers show because it provides that rare treat these days of watching a news/current events program that doesn't try to feed me a load of crap, but tells me the things I really need to know. Last night's program consisted of a discussion with Nat Hentoff about the erosion of our civil liberties, another discussion with Joseph C. Wilson, a former ambassador and Presidential Advisor who says that trying to establish democracy in Iraq after a presumable successful war will be a can of worms far more slimy and tangled that the Bush Administration conceives of, and a personal statement by Bill Moyers which I think should be printed, framed, and hung on the wall. It should also be read aloud three times a day by anyone tempted to call someone who disagrees with government policy "un-American." I don't know if these shows are archived, so I'll post the statement in its entirety.
I wore my flag tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans.

Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15.

So what's this doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo — the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the good housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration's patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's little red book on every official's desk, omnipresent and unread.

But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They're in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as they call for more spending on war.

So I put this on as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don't have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash.) I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what Bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that war — except in self-defense — is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve, and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country.

What do you think?   
                                                                                                                                                    --Bill Moyers
Here is a TRANSCRIPT of the interview with Nat Hentoff.

Also, well worth reading is this TIMELINE of historical assaults on civil liberties.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 09:15 PM

No, TDG, I feel just fine. You, on the other hand, seem to still be suffering from inability to concentrate, and quite likely paranoid schizophrenia. Maybe if you could provide solid proof of your assertions, instead of the rantings of people as delusional as you, people might pay more attention.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 08:04 PM

Geez, Lurker. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism. Call it communism or fascism, democrat or republican, when Ashcroft is whining because he can't kill arbitrarily like Bush, we have a problem. Seems like you never get up from you 'lie down'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 07:41 PM

TDG-You throw around twice as many labels as the rest of us together, and fail to define them until it serves your purpose. The core of communism is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The core of fascism is that the good of the whole outweighs the good of the parts. What you are worried about is totalitarianism, the absolute control of all facets of life by one person or organisation. Your problem is that you can't even identify what you're worried about, so you pick everything and rant about it at the same time. Even if one scrap of your arguments was rational, it would be masked by the confusion and hysteria that makes up the rest of it. Go somewhere quiet and lie down until you feel better.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 07:18 PM

No, Don, with respect, YOU have confused communism and fascism. You have been taught there is a difference. There isn't. As someone (maybe on this forum) said, the only difference is the commies call them gulags and the fascists call them concentration camps. The upper 1% controls those underneath, and those underneath die. The President of Communist China called capitalism 'the ultimate flower of communism' once he saw how the corporations were going to take over America and mutate the country into a communist state.

You folks need to get beyond this labelling. Labels mean nothing. A straightforward dictatorship is being set up in America. Nothing less. Communist, fascist, Bushist, who cares what it's called? Uninformed and mis-informed bureaucrats (cops, military, people whose checks depend on govt) are about to train their weapons on you so the 1% in this country can utterly destroy our society. And once it's destroyed, you will be totally dependent on govt handouts. Communist state. It is here. It's not coming...it's here. One 'terrorist attack' away from chaos, out of which the terrorists themselves will establish a 'new world order' which will make you totally dependent on them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:11 PM

"This IS a different world that we live in now from the standpoint of dangers to the population from outside sources." I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. Ever since the rude awakening from our rosy dreams on the morning of December 7, 1941, we've lived in a world fraught with dangers from outside sources. The decades-long threat of the Cold War had some extremely close calls, including two B-47s sitting on the deck of an aircraft carrier off the islands of Quemoy and Matsu with engines running and nuclear weapons in their bomb bays, called off within a few minutes of take-off (this didn't make the news—I learned about it from a former crewman on the aircraft carrier), to the Berlin blockade, to the Cuban missile crisis and beyond, for the past sixty-some years we have lived in a world of almost constant threat. The government's abiding by the stipulations of the Constitution has waxed and waned a bit over those decades (internment of Japanese-Americans, the excesses of HUAC, etc.), but until now, the Constitution has never taken as severe a hit as the Patriot Act,. This is less an "amendment" (A reminder: no law passed by Congress can be construed as an "amendment," and it in no way alters what is set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights—it is neither legal nor constitutional unless it meets the requirement set forth in Article V) and more of an attempt to repeal, certainly to repeal crucial portions of the Bill of Rights. I don't like it. And I don't understand how anyone who respects the Constitution can fail to be, at the very least, apprehensive—if not downright furious at the current administration for attempting to do this.

On another matter—Social Security, as far as I can tell, is not explicitly mandated in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to impose taxes to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," and Social Security's constitutionality falls under the umbrella of this clause. This has been a matter of heated debate since 1935. Without getting into my particular preferences for how Social Security should be handled, I believe a healthy Social Security system is a good thing, and I would hate to see anything jeopardize that. Indeed, most modern nations have such systems (some far superior to our own). But it would be hard to argue the actual details of its administration by trying to cite the Constitution. Beyond various interpretations of the "general welfare" clause, whether it is a constitutional issue at all is moot.

Doug, I think we're probably on the same page when it comes to the inadequacies of political terminology. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" each cover a wide spectrum, with a blending in the middle, and there are some positions that don't even fit on that continuum. Trying to cram the broad range of political beliefs into two cramped pigeon-holes can really be misleading. Our terminology is antiquated.

Don Firth

P.S: Dreaded Guest, you have confused communism and fascism. Get a good, general book on political science and read it. I recommend Modern Political Philosophies and What They Mean by Louis Wasserman; Garden City Books; Garden City, New York; 1951. It's old, and it's later chapters listing the political systems of modern countries is outdated, but the main section is basic and still holds good. A library or a used book store may cough up a copy. In any case, get some good basic poly sci text and learn the differences.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 02:32 PM

It's not a contradiction in communism. This is the communist takeover of America. And they're doing it while their cheerleaders (unelected Executive Branch) distract people. But they're building CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND THREATENING TO INJECT YOU. This is not benign communism. It is fear-based tyrannical government. Stalinism.

Bush's 'Plunge Protection Team'...rushes in when there is a drastic drop in the stock market and buys stocks...it is SO obvious the govt is buying up the private sector. That is one of the REASONS we have daily and weekly 'terror alerts'...to create panic selling in the stock market. The U.S. govt is buying up the Dow. And soon, there will no discernible difference between Chinese Communism and American Corporate Fascism. Each will own their countries outright.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 02:22 PM

TDG-you just contradicted yourself wonderfully. First the government will own all private enterprise, then private enterprise will own government property. What would be so bad about that? Free food, clothing, cars, housing, medical care, etc., but we have to pay to go camping.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:46 PM

It's no conspiracy, Doug. In Communist China, the state owns the means of production. Same in the old Soviet Union. Before Sept. 11 the U.S. govt held nearly 70% of stock issued by privately-owned U.S. businesses. Now it'll be between 80-90%. So, what IS the difference between the upper 1% in the U.S. owning all business in the U.S. and the Chinese generals owning all business in China?

This is SO obvious, but your conservative talk show hosts are focusing you on Clinton's penis (still) and Michael Jackson while they cover up the communization of America.

I know this is a bitter pill to swallow, but you'd better wake up. All national parks and forests will soon be owned by the Bushes and the Fortune 500 companies, and even your city and county. This is all in plain sight. I'm just curious whether you acknowledge this phenomenon. Do you SEE this going on, or are you just in denial?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: DougR
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:24 PM

TDG: as I said, we have been down this road before and you might have some fun looking up those discussions in the archives. You can probably find lots of new ammunition to build a whole new conspiracy theory based only on that.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:02 PM

Even BEFORE he began his assigned task of brankrupting America, GWBush's proposal to put Social Security money into the stock market was a BAD idea. And since then, the market has died. DIED. It is only above 4,000 because the govt is pouring money into it and buying up publicly-issued stock for pennies on the dollar. This is the government takeover of private industry at it's simplest, and you don't see it yet. YOUR CONSERVATIVE LEADERS ARE MAKING YOU SUPPORT COMMUNISM. STATE-CONTROLLED INDUSTRY.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: DougR
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:50 AM

Don: I believe, were Barry Goldwater alive today, he would agree with me. This IS a different world that we live in now from the standpoint of dangers to the population from outside sources. Despite Greg F's snide remarks. I'll soften that a bit ...in my opinion that is. And some of the liberties we have taken for granted in the past may, of necessity, have to be amended to accommodate the outside threats. That's just my opinion.

The Barry Goldwater who wrote "The Concience of a Conservative" would not have been accepting of gays in the military, but in his later years he changed his attitude a bit on several things, including that.

I think the mistake liberals make is they try to paint conservatives into a box. Conservatives can never change their positions on issues. Conservatives are opposed to change, etc. etc. Those old definitions no longer apply. George W. Bush has recommended more progressive changes to government programs than most presidents to date (IMO). He wants, for example, to completely reorganize the social security program which is on its last legs and allow young people to invest a portion of the money they put into the program with a chance to have more money when they retire ...but we've been down that road before so no point in traveling it.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 03:56 PM

I, too, am puzzled by the statement that..."It may mean that some of the liberties we enjoyed in the old world will necessarily have to be amended."

Republicans are supposed to be the DEFENDERS against state intrusion on liberties. 'Amending liberties' is what Repub / Conservatives have always accused Democrats of wanting to do.

From what I can discern, this shift in thinking has been brought about by endless repitition of gradually-changing messages being spread by 'conservative' media people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage and others. They are converting their listenership to liberalism, and the listeners aren't even aware of it.

The purpose of the mass-conversion is to get 'conservatives' to unknowingly sign on to soviet-style govt. Republicans and conservatives are being converted to liberal 'neo-cons'. And in the process, our constitution is being trashed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 03:44 PM

JennyO: Hmmmmm? Iz sniffin' the motherload of conspiracies here. Pack enough lies around the truth that no one will be able to distinguish between the two.

Doug: I'm not on any medications, thank you. But I'm worried that you've overdosed on your PRTB's again. You know the "Partisan Republican True Believers". I don't think you have given any real thought to anything Don has written. And I'm as curious as Don about your rsponse to the question he has put before you. Doesn't seem to be much wiggle room.

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 02:25 PM

Doug, I'm curious. I trust you have read my post of 24 Feb 03 - 02:20 PM. I'll toss a quote at you and then ask you a question:—
. . . I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
                                                                         -- Barry Goldwater (from The Conscience of a Conservative)
Do you consider yourself to be one of the Neo-Conservatives (who, not only are not upset when the Constitution is by-passed, but who indeed advocate such ad hoc by-passing, and under stricter definitions than most Americans use, could easily be regarded as "Liberals"), or do you still regard yourself as a Goldwater Conservative? And if the latter, how to you square that with the position you take on the necessity of "amending" our liberties, as you put it (nice, delicate turn of phrase, by the way!). I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just curious.

Just to clarify my own position, I would regard myself as a social liberal--although not as liberal as a lot of Liberals. But when it comes to the Constitution, I am a stiff-lipped, hard-nosed, old-style Conservative.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 01:12 PM

But what has come out of this is the awareness on the part of Americans of the MECHANISM which controls terrorism. We haven't had to really analyze it until it hit home, and now some of us understand it. The most powerful financial interests on the planet are consolidating, and America is the last great impediment to global tyrannical govt. So America has now come directly under attack, and the social-engineers are using fear-based conditioning to get us to give up our legal gurantees of freedom. Simple as that.

But the variable in the equation is the internet. A bunch of college students with laptop computers in Tienamin Square held up China's entry into the WTO for ten years. This internet whining and sharing of info could completely de-rail the plans for global takeover.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 08:18 AM

A 'new world' of 'terrorism'? Absolute crap.

This so-called 'terrorism' is nothing new. The only thing that's 'new' is that is that some U.S. citizens have died for a change, and the U.S. can no longer sit back comfortably and consider itself exempt from the problems that the rest of the international community has had to deal with for yonks, or from the inevitable results of its history of heavy-handed interaction with the rest of the world.

The strident level of the whining, pissing, and moaning about this coming from the U.S. is amazing- grow up, boys & girls, and join the real world.

Best, Greg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: JennyO
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 06:50 AM

Thanks Bobert. You've given me an idea for a conspiracy theory! Supposing that the government has someone working for them full time inventing conspiracy theories and spreading them around, so that we will be so saturated with them that we end up dismissing them all as the rantings of a crackpot and tossing them all out, along with the stories that are actually true. That would be a good way of discrediting anybody who stumbles on the truth, wouldn't it!

Whaddaya think, Bobert and DG? Or is my mind just too devious for its own good?

Jenny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: DougR
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 02:07 AM

Don: I see nothing wrong with the Defense Department's position paper. It is disigned for the U. S. to function in a new world. A world of terror. It may mean that some of the liberties we enjoyed in the old world will necessarily have to be amended. If so, so be it. I don't think the founding fathers took into account that we someday would be faced with terrorism of the type we are faced with today.

Bobert: after reading many of your replies after reading tdg's posts, I can see why you two so often agree. I wonder? Are you both on the same medication? :>)

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 12:07 AM

I know, Troll, but there's something about him that I just can't ignore. It's like a poison ivy rash that you can't stop scratching.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Troll
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 11:07 PM

Think, Lurker, THINK!
You're looking for logical thought here and you won't find it in any of Dreadski's posts. The truth is what he wants it to be. They've been trying that "suspended Constitution" bit since WWI.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 09:01 PM

No, TDG, it is not legal by any definition, even the ones you come up with. Any law which violates the framework on whic it is based is, by definition, invalid. No law passed by Congress can violate the Constitution, or it is not law. No executive act can violate the constitution, or it is illegal. Think about the definitions of the words you throw around, instead of raving about a law which will never be called into effect.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:11 PM

Geez, Lurker. You really DO need to look at the Trading with the Enemy Act. That thing is the REASON the Bushes launched the Sept 11 attacks. The 'emergency' it created allowed GWBush to enact 500 dormant clauses to give himself dictatorial powers. Those powers come from the Act and from Executive Orders. And a month later the pre-constructed Patriot Act was passed, destroying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Now they have more of the same ready to pass, so they're going to launch another terrorist attack. Yes...a 1917 law WILL stand up in court. Bush can order you killed just because he has gas, and it's all legal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:10 PM

Right, Bobert. I consider the erosion of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments the biggest danger we face right now, and this is coming, not from some external enemy, but our own government—which is where all attempts to subvert the Constitution come from: those who have taken an oath to preserve it and protect it.

The real conspiracy:—
In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then the under secretary of defense for policy (the Pentagon's third-highest ranking civilian), takes the lead in drafting an internal set of military guidelines, called a "Defense Planning Guidance," which is routinely prepared every few years by the Defense Department.

Wolfowitz's draft argues for a new military and political strategy in a post-Cold War world. Containment, it says, is a relic of the Cold War. America should talk loudly, carry a big stick, and use its military power to preempt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). And if America has to act alone, so be it. (Read excerpts from the Wolfowitz draft.)

Controversy erupts after the draft is leaked to the press. The White House orders Defense Secretary Cheney to rewrite it. In the new draft there is no mention of preemption or U.S. willingness to act alone.
The report goes on to assert that "The number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower." This was detailed in the last Frontline on PBS. It goes a long way toward explaining the recent otherwise inexplicable behavior of the current administration.

The relationship to this thread is that the Constitution offers several impediments to the implementation of this policy. This is the latest attempt, made by various administrations during the history of the United States, to set the Constitution aside so it can carry out its ambitions.
It would be a dangerous delusion if our confidence in the men of our choice should silence our fears for the safety of our rights. Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded on jealousy, not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power. Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence will go. In question is a power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, that bind them down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
                                                                                                                                          -- Thomas Jefferson
Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:57 PM

Not a vengeance thing at all, old timer. I just don't understand why you feel free to trash people and then demand respect for yourself. Don't bite unless you're willing to be bit.

And no, Lurker, we have no constitution at this time. Sept 24, 2001 it was suspended for the 'national emergency', which Bush said was a 'war on terror' and then decided would be a 'perpetual war'. Refer to the Act mentioned above.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:31 PM

Kim C, that's what I'm talking about. It is now the case, but was not at the founding of the nation.

TDG-yes, we do have a constitution. As you might guess, any law that suspends the Constitution is unconctitutional and invalid. While a law passed in 1917 isn't going to stand up in courts, the Patriot act might, despite its invalidity. The worry is not that the Constitution doesn't apply, it's that ii will be violated. In that respect, we have some cause for concern.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 06:54 PM

Well, Don, that stuff cannot *all* be discounted. Sometimes ya' can sneak a little truth in among the conspiracy theories and have it laughed off as if it was *just one of them*. Now, I'm not going to get bogged down in the middle of the microscope here but there are definately some things going on here, which are scarey:

1. There has been an assault on the 1st Ammendment that goes beyond the limitations that a nation "at war" can tolerate. When the Bush administration framed the world situation in the "with us or against us" he sent a chilling message to not only free speech but the media. The media is doing a pretty good job in toeing the line by not consistently printing the numbers of folks at demonstrations against an invasion of Iraq.

2. The 5th Ammendment isn't fairing too well either with the Patriot Act. I know it seem far-fetched but if passed the way it is written, it would allow a home born American citizen who contributes a blanket or can of beans to an organization that John Ashcroft deems linked to terrorists... to be arrested, detained without counsel and eventually deported.

These are a couple of real scarey things that threaten democracy.

Throw in ex-con Johnny "I-lied-to-Congress-and-proud-of-it" Poindextrer to run an intellegence gathering agency that keeps track of everyone in the country, and we got a run away train.

Just thought I'd try to get this thread back on topic.

Sorry, HG, I love the conspiracy theories. Maybe you could just crank up a CT thread? Hey, I'd spend time there...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 06:25 PM

AHA!! So this is a vengeance thing with you, O Dreadful One. You are a real piece of work. Looks like I got you where you live.

(Cue theme from The Twilight Zone.)

Well, Dreaded Guest, let me save you some anxiety, mental strain, and a lot of typing. I recommend that all Mudcatters check these two websites:—
PING!
and
PONG!

If we all agree to read these, harken unto them, and be afraid—be very afraid—then Dreaded Guest's mission will be accomplished and he, she, or it can crawl back into the hermetically sealed bomb shelter and curl up in the fetal position.

Don't bother to thank me, DG. I'm glad to be of service.

Don Firth
Now, as we were saying before we were so rudely interrupted by the troll. . . .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Kim C
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 02:29 PM

Lurker, it may be true that the Governor can call up the National Guard in his/her own state - BUT the NATIONAL Guard is ultimately under the jurisdiction of the United States Government. All the Guard troops who have been mobilized lately, are under orders of the United States, not their individual states, and that's where their pay comes from too.

Some states, including Tennessee, still maintain a State Guard, which is, I believe, more in line with a militia than the National Guard. Their purpose is to fill in when Tennessee's National Guard troops are called up for duty, which many have been.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 02:28 PM

The meds will help you overcome your delusion of control, Don. And if you quit going to other threads and telling people to put on their aluminum hats, maybe those comments wouldn't come back to haunt YOUR threads.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 01:04 PM

I had hopes for this thread, but it looks like it's been hijacked, as have several other threads.

Speaking of "delusional. . . ."

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:59 PM

Or no...you have a 'conspiracy THEORY' that we're protected by the Constitution, Don. Look into that. Type it into a seach engine, R2D2.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:57 PM

I think you've been taking too many 'art therapy' classes at the Sand Point Naval Brig, Don, so I'll go over this once more:

On March 9, 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 was amended. "...other than citizens of the United States" was changed to "...ANY PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES." So, the power of the President to deny Constitutional rights during a 'national emergency' was extended to include Americans.

On Sept. 24, 2001, GWBush declared a 'national emergency'. So you HAVE no Constitution at this moment in time. Look up the Acts of 1917 and 1933 to see a list of what you could lose at any moment.

Trading with the Enemy Act

Your talk about the constitution is delusional, Don. It's been suspended. Put your aluminum foil hat back on now, take your meds, and go back to sleep. Your conspiracy that we're all protected by 'rights' is not only tiresome, it's dangerous.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:41 PM

Dreaded Guest, your conspiracy theories are becoming tiresome. Let's get back to discussing the Constitution.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:35 AM

You folks KNOW I'm right on the Clinton/Bush thing. And the Bush Company is laughing about it. This really WILL be a tag-team takedown, just like NWO wrestling. Bush Sr. even NAMED the global govt the 'New World Order'. They're just wrestling fans at heart. The ruling elite are wrestling fans. And they're smarter than we are. Man that's depressing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:25 AM

Ashcroft is scarier. He might be marginally saner, but I'm pretty sure that no one's given TDG power over the American Justice Department. Unless . . .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Troll
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:16 AM

And I thought Ashcroft was scary...

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional Guarantees
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:12 AM

TDG-Get back on the meds, they were helping. Is there ANYTHING that won't feed into yur conspiracy obsession?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 20 September 1:12 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.