 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / July 2007Police state declared? 'What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all.'
Read about it at http://Muvy.org > Read about it at http://Muvy.org You wouldnt know what a real police state was if it bit you on the lard arse, gutless. > > Read about it at http://Muvy.org > > You wouldnt know what a real police state was if it bit you on the lard arse, > gutless. Rod, the President and his puppetmasters are hoping that you don't notice the groundwork that's being laid. Take a look at this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html Discussion here: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers?  SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Read about it at http://Muvy.org >> You wouldnt know what a real police state was if it bit you on the lard arse, gutless. > Rod, the President and his puppetmasters are hoping > that you don't notice the groundwork that's being laid. Utterly silly conspiracy theory. That ape will be gone come election time. > Take a look at this: > http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html Nothing like a police state. > Discussion here: > http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml Usual mindlessly silly hyperventilation, as always from those fools. We saw MUCH worse than that during WW2 and that didnt produce anything like a police state. > What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers? The supremes would stop any police state from happening. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > The supremes would stop any police state from happening. How??? > Rod Speed wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Read about it at http://Muvy.org >>>> You wouldnt know what a real police state was if it bit you on the lard arse, gutless. >>> Rod, the President and his puppetmasters are hoping >>> that you don't notice the groundwork that's being laid. >> Utterly silly conspiracy theory. That ape will be gone come election time. >>> Take a look at this: >>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html >> Nothing like a police state. >>> Discussion here: >>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml >> Usual mindlessly silly hyperventilation, as always from those fools. >> We saw MUCH worse than that during WW2 and that didnt produce anything like a police state. >>> What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers? >> The supremes would stop any police state from happening. > How??? By stomping on what is unconstitutional. What is in that whitehouse press release isnt. > > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Nothing like a police state. Only the power to determine, secretly and without judicial review, that someone is interfering with the President's political goals and then, again without judicial review, seize all their financial assets. > > Discussion here: > > http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml > > Usual mindlessly silly hyperventilation, as always from those fools. I see you didn't actually read the discussion. > We saw MUCH worse than that during WW2 and that didnt produce anything like a > police state. Yeah, only a whole bunch of Americans got put in jail for the duration. No big deal. > > What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers? > > The supremes would stop any police state from happening. Only if someone can prove harm and then can afford an appeal up to that level. But with the secrecy rules, that would be next to impossible, especially if someone's money has all been taken away. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. an important web site: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/ > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Read about it at http://Muvy.org >>>> You wouldnt know what a real police state was if it bit you on the lard arse, gutless. >>> Rod, the President and his puppetmasters are hoping >>> that you don't notice the groundwork that's being laid. >> Utterly silly conspiracy theory. That ape will be gone come election time. >>> Take a look at this: >>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html >> Nothing like a police state. > Only the power to determine, secretly and without judicial review, > that someone is interfering with the President's political goals and > then, again without judicial review, seize all their financial assets. Same thing happened during WW2 and that didnt produce a police state. >>> Discussion here: >>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml >> Usual mindlessly silly hyperventilation, as always from those fools. > I see you didn't actually read the discussion. Corse I did. >> We saw MUCH worse than that during WW2 and >> that didnt produce anything like a police state. > Yeah, only a whole bunch of Americans got put in jail for the duration. No big deal. Yep, there is no viable alternative. Beats shooting them etc. >>> What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers? >> The supremes would stop any police state from happening. > Only if someone can prove harm and then can afford an appeal > up to that level. But with the secrecy rules, that would be next to > impossible, especially if someone's money has all been taken away. Mindlessly silly. Its never going to be possible to secretly take all of someone's money away with anyone who actually matters a damn. And the lack of money didnt stop the supremes shafting the prez over Guantanomo etc etc etc. > > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Same thing happened during WW2 and that didnt produce a police state. Nevertheless, the US interned more than a hundred thousand Americans on nothing more than suspicion. > >>> Discussion here: > >>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Yep, there is no viable alternative. Beats shooting them etc. One alternative would be to not put them in jail. Those prisoners were, after all, Americans. > >>> What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Mindlessly silly. Its never going to be possible to secretly take all of > someone's money away with anyone who actually matters a damn. In other words, if it's some middle-class bloke who spoke out of turn, it doesn't matter. > And the lack of money didnt stop the supremes shafting the prez over > Guantanomo etc etc etc. Oh, never mind. You're one of the whackos who agrees that skirting the intent of the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions by holding those prisoners in Guantanamo was an ethical thing to do. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. an important web site: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/ > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Read about it at http://Muvy.org >>>>>> You wouldnt know what a real police state was if it bit you on the lard arse, gutless. >>>>> Rod, the President and his puppetmasters are hoping >>>>> that you don't notice the groundwork that's being laid. >>>> Utterly silly conspiracy theory. That ape will be gone come election time. >>>>> Take a look at this: >>>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html >>>> Nothing like a police state. >>> Only the power to determine, secretly and without judicial review, >>> that someone is interfering with the President's political goals and >>> then, again without judicial review, seize all their financial assets. >> Same thing happened during WW2 and that didnt produce a police state. > Nevertheless, the US interned more than a hundred > thousand Americans on nothing more than suspicion. Yes, everyone did. There is no viable alternative. Least they didnt deliberately kill them like the krauts and japs did. >>>>> Discussion here: >>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml >>>> Usual mindlessly silly hyperventilation, as always from those fools. >>> I see you didn't actually read the discussion. >> Corse I did. >>>> We saw MUCH worse than that during WW2 and >>>> that didnt produce anything like a police state. >>> Yeah, only a whole bunch of Americans >>> got put in jail for the duration. No big deal. >> Yep, there is no viable alternative. Beats shooting them etc. > One alternative would be to not put them in jail. They didnt put them all in jail. Quite a few ended up in the military. > Those prisoners were, after all, Americans. And every other country did the same thing with some of their citizens too. And the krauts and the japs killed quite a few of their citizens too. >>>>> What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers? >>>> The supremes would stop any police state from happening. >>> Only if someone can prove harm and then can afford an appeal >>> up to that level. But with the secrecy rules, that would be next to >>> impossible, especially if someone's money has all been taken away. >> Mindlessly silly. Its never going to be possible to secretly take all of >> someone's money away with anyone who actually matters a damn. > In other words, if it's some middle-class bloke who spoke out of turn, it doesn't matter. It doesnt happen with those, and supremes would f.ck over any prez stupid enough to try that very comprehensively indeed. >> And the lack of money didnt stop the supremes >> shafting the prez over Guantanomo etc etc etc. > Oh, never mind. You're one of the whackos who agrees that skirting > the intent of the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions by > holding those prisoners in Guantanamo was an ethical thing to do. Wrong again. I dont. > > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Least they didnt deliberately kill them like the krauts and japs did. Stupid f.cking unamerican self-deluded "patriotic" shithead. You should hold the US up to higher standards than whatever enemy the country happens to be facing at the time. I'm so tired of merkin apologists saying that kind of stupid sh.t. "Well, at least we're better than the japs or the krauts." "Well, at least we're better than Saddam." "Well, at least we're better than the terrorists." Bla bla bla I've heard the list of all the low-life scum that America is better than and it doesn't impress me. If you want to say that the US is a great nation, then compare it to other great nations, like Japan today, or Germany today, or Canada. You're better than France, right? > >>>>> Discussion here: > >>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > And the krauts and the japs killed quite a few of their citizens too. Stupid f.cking unamerican self-deluded "patriotic" shithead. That does not make it right for the US to do it. > >>>>> What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It doesnt happen with those, and supremes would f.ck over > any prez stupid enough to try that very comprehensively indeed. You mean like they did Bush... > >> And the lack of money didnt stop the supremes > >> shafting the prez over Guantanomo etc etc etc. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Wrong again. I dont. You said "shafting the prez over Guantanomo", not I. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> Read about it at http://Muvy.org >>>>>>>> You wouldnt know what a real police state >>>>>>>> was if it bit you on the lard arse, gutless. >>>>>>> Rod, the President and his puppetmasters are hoping >>>>>>> that you don't notice the groundwork that's being laid. >>>>>> Utterly silly conspiracy theory. That ape will be gone come election time. >>>>>>> Take a look at this: >>>>>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html >>>>>> Nothing like a police state. >>>>> Only the power to determine, secretly and without judicial review, >>>>> that someone is interfering with the President's political goals and >>>>> then, again without judicial review, seize all their financial assets. >>>> Same thing happened during WW2 and that didnt produce a police state. >>> Nevertheless, the US interned more than a hundred >>> thousand Americans on nothing more than suspicion. >> Yes, everyone did. There is no viable alternative. >> Least they didnt deliberately kill them like the krauts and japs did. > Stupid f.cking unamerican self-deluded "patriotic" shithead. Bit hard to be unamerican when I'm not even american, fuckwit child. > You should hold the US up to higher standards than whatever > enemy the country happens to be facing at the time. Maybe. They did that stuff a lot better than the enemy did. And still do with terrorists too. > I'm so tired of merkin apologists saying that kind of stupid sh.t. You have always been and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. What you may or may not claim to be tired of in spades. > "Well, at least we're better than the japs or the krauts." > "Well, at least we're better than Saddam." > "Well, at least we're better than the terrorists." Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that, and that WE doesnt even arise, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit child. > Bla bla bla I've heard the list of all the low-life scum > that America is better than and it doesn't impress me. You have always been and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. What you may or may not claim to be impressed by in spades. > If you want to say that the US is a great nation, Wasnt saying anything even remotely resembling anything like that. > then compare it to other great nations, like > Japan today, or Germany today, or Canada. The US does fine in comparison to all of them except on that terminal stupidity of being the last modern first world country thats actually stupid enough to stick to the insurance system instead of a decent modern universal health care funding system > You're better than France, right? My country certainly is. Pity it aint even the US, fuckwit child. >>>>>>> Discussion here: >>>>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml >>>>>> Usual mindlessly silly hyperventilation, as always from those fools. >>>>> I see you didn't actually read the discussion. >>>> Corse I did. >>>>>> We saw MUCH worse than that during WW2 and >>>>>> that didnt produce anything like a police state. >>>>> Yeah, only a whole bunch of Americans >>>>> got put in jail for the duration. No big deal. >>>> Yep, there is no viable alternative. Beats shooting them etc. >>> One alternative would be to not put them in jail. >> They didnt put them all in jail. Quite a few ended up in the military. >>> Those prisoners were, after all, Americans. >> And every other country did the same thing with some of their citizens too. >> And the krauts and the japs killed quite a few of their citizens too. > Stupid f.cking unamerican self-deluded "patriotic" shithead. Stupid fuckwit child. > That does not make it right for the US to do it. No one ever said it did, fuckwit child. >>>>>>> What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers? >>>>>> The supremes would stop any police state from happening. >>>>> Only if someone can prove harm and then can afford an appeal >>>>> up to that level. But with the secrecy rules, that would be next to >>>>> impossible, especially if someone's money has all been taken away. >>>> Mindlessly silly. Its never going to be possible to secretly take all of >>>> someone's money away with anyone who actually matters a damn. >>> In other words, if it's some middle-class bloke who spoke out of >>> turn, it doesn't matter. >> It doesnt happen with those, and supremes would f.ck over >> any prez stupid enough to try that very comprehensively indeed. > You mean like they did Bush... He hasnt done anything like that, fuckwit child. >>>> And the lack of money didnt stop the supremes >>>> shafting the prez over Guantanomo etc etc etc. >>> Oh, never mind. You're one of the whackos who agrees that skirting >>> the intent of the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions by >>> holding those prisoners in Guantanamo was an ethical thing to do. >> Wrong again. I dont. > You said "shafting the prez over Guantanomo", not I. Pity thats nothing like what you claimed I said, fuckwit child. AND those in Guantanamo aint relevant to the US constitution, they aint even US citizens, fuckwit child. AND those in Guantanamo aint relevant to the Geneva Conventions, their countrys arent even signatorys, fuckwit child. > fuckwit child. > stupid pig ignorant fuckwit child. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fuckwit child. > fuckwit child. Plonk. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you. Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind the entirely appropriate Ghettopiedog <timberwoof@infernosoft.com> wrote > Plonk. Typical when done like a f.cking dinner, as always. Fat lot of good that will ever do you, fuckwit child. In article <timberwoof.spam-6D9E27.18240020072007@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>, > You're better than France, right? Like that's real difficult. In article <kurtullman-D9AA1D.00450321072007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx >, > In article > <timberwoof.spam-6D9E27.18240020072007@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>, some more stuff in addition to... > > You're better than France, right? > > > Like that's real difficult. But more difficult, I think, than being better than WWII Japan or Germany, and thus still a better comparison for what people like to think is the greatest country in the world. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you. In article <timberwoof.spam-508D52.22480620072007@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>, > But more difficult, I think, than being better than WWII Japan or > Germany, and thus still a better comparison for what people like to > think is the greatest country in the world. I don't know. The French are rather insteresting, especially in their actions in WWII. You had some of the bravest and best fighters in the Underground, yet the Vichy volunteered and ably assisted the Germans in any number of atrocities. I guess the question is which is worse the primary infection (Germany) or the secondary infection. Way over my pay grade as a philosopher (g). In article <timberwoof.spam-AD685C.16243920072007@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>, >tc. > > Oh, never mind. You're one of the whackos who agrees that skirting the > intent of the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions by holding > those prisoners in Guantanamo was an ethical thing to do. You do of course realize that a strict constructionist reading of the Geneva Conventions would have allowed for summary executions of everyone of them. >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > level. But with the secrecy rules, that would be next to impossible, > especially if someone's money has all been taken away. This is real simple. If the 2008 elections take place as planned and Bush is out in early 2009, then this is all just a case of mindless fear-mongering. If he does declare himself dictator, we'll all just have to rise-up and throw him out bodily. With a <30% approval rate, I doubt seriously if Bush could muster enough support to stage any kind of a coup or if he did, make it stick. I mean does anybody seriously think that Bush is smart enough to pull anything like that off? I damn doubt it! >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > I doubt seriously if Bush could muster enough support to stage any > kind of a coup or if he did, make it stick. > I mean does anybody seriously think that Bush is smart > enough to pull anything like that off? I damn doubt it! And we aint had a coup in any of the great democracys since Cromwell either. It aint gunna happen, you watch. > >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > >>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > And we aint had a coup in any of the great democracys since Cromwell either. Only in the small democracies when they voted in directions the US didn't like. > It aint gunna happen, you watch. It's not going to happen in any obvious way. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. an important web site: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/ > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Timberwoof wrote >>>>> Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote >>>>>>> Sparrow <funnybunnyfive@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>>> Read about it at http://Muvy.org >>>>>>> You wouldnt know what a real police state was if it bit you on the lard arse, gutless. >>>>>> Rod, the President and his puppetmasters are hoping >>>>>> that you don't notice the groundwork that's being laid. >>>>> Utterly silly conspiracy theory. That ape will be gone come election time. >>>>>> Take a look at this: >>>>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html >>>>> Nothing like a police state. >>>> Only the power to determine, secretly and without judicial review, >>>> that someone is interfering with the President's political goals and >>>> then, again without judicial review, seize all their financial assets. >>>>>> Discussion here: >>>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml >>>>> Usual mindlessly silly hyperventilation, as always from those fools. >>>> I see you didn't actually read the discussion. >>>>> We saw MUCH worse than that during WW2 and that didnt produce >>>>> anything like a police state. >>>> Yeah, only a whole bunch of Americans got put in jail for the duration. No big deal. >>>>>> What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers? >>>>> The supremes would stop any police state from happening. >>>> Only if someone can prove harm and then can afford an appeal >>>> up to that level. But with the secrecy rules, that would be next to >>>> impossible, especially if someone's money has all been taken away. >>> This is real simple. If the 2008 elections take place as planned and >>> Bush is out in early 2009, then this is all just a case of mindless >>> fear-mongering. If he does declare himself dictator, we'll all just >>> have to rise-up and throw him out bodily. With a <30% approval rate, >>> I doubt seriously if Bush could muster enough support to stage any >>> kind of a coup or if he did, make it stick. >>> I mean does anybody seriously think that Bush is smart >>> enough to pull anything like that off? I damn doubt it! >> And we aint had a coup in any of the great democracys since Cromwell either. > Only in the small democracies when they voted in directions the US didn't like. That aint a coup in a great democracy. That cant fly anymore. >> It aint gunna happen, you watch. > It's not going to happen in any obvious way. It isnt even possible to have a coup in a non obvious way. >>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > It's not going to happen in any obvious way. Now, that's another issue, I think that our freedoms, liberties and rights are definately slowly being eaten-away by huge Federal and state bureaucracies. Laws are being passed by extremely polarized legislatures at all levels which seriously undermine our Constitutional rights (Patriot Act). Add to that, Presidential decrees proclaimed out of knee-jerk hysteria, and you have a headlong plunge into gradual totalitarianism. Maybe it's on purpose, maybe it's simply the only way to govern the huge and multicultural populace that the US is becoming. I simply don't know. >>>>>>>> You wouldnt know what a real police state was if it bit you on >>>>>>>> the lard arse, gutless. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>> Utterly silly conspiracy theory. That ape will be gone come >>>>>> election time. And some other ape will take his place. >>>>>>> Take a look at this: >>>>>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>>> then, again without judicial review, seize all their financial >>>>> assets. It's done all the time under RICO and it's very easy to imagine that political opponents may be viewed as terrorists and a criminal conspiracy at some appointed prosecutors whim just as political opponents or critics find themselves being audited by the IRS.. Property is confiscated before a person is convicted of anything. Even when the person is acquited he still has a problem getting the property back. There's no law against a citizen carrying cash regardless of the amount. But there have been numerous incidents where a cop might stop someone for a traffic violation and either see some money(usually an unlawful search he claimed was in plain sight)or the person may be arrested for some trivial traffic violation like DWI and the cash is confiscated. Even when the person is released his money is not returned but he has to "prove" it's lawfully his and he wasn't even allowed to use HIS money to bail himself out. I'm afraid that people have become so pussy whipped that they don't even know anymore that this whole thing is backwards. >>>>>>> Discussion here: >>>>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>>>> anything like a >>>>>> police state. You weren't even around back then idiot and NO it was not much worse. It's worse NOW. Citizens did not carry identity cards then or were SS numbers used as a universal identifying number on everything. Bank accounts were private and banks didn't have to report to the government or was there withholding tax. You could open an account under any name you choose and were identified by your signature and other things. You didn't need a SS # to get a driving lisense so that your whole life is available to every nosy cop on those little laptops we pay for them to use. There was no DEA to snoop around on legitimate patients and doctors. You didn't have a million lawyers trying to invent new areas of law for their own profit. I could go on and on but it would be lost on someone like you. >>>>> Yeah, only a whole bunch of Americans got put in jail for the >>>>> duration. No big deal. The Japanese were interned but 1/2 of them were citizens of Japan. Some Germans and Italians were also interned and had their property confiscated. All of the countries in the war did this. Many of those Japanese were spys and had to be removed from the coastal areas. Many were released to areas not along the coast where they could signal ships or submarines. And don't forget that the Japanese did occupy US territory. >>>>>>> What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers? >>>>>> >>>>>> The supremes would stop any police state from happening. The US Supreme Court only accepts about 3% of the cases appealed to it. THEY decide which ones to take. >>>>> Only if someone can prove harm and then can afford an appeal up to >>>>> that level. But with the secrecy rules, that would be next to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> Bush is out in early 2009, then this is all just a case of mindless >>>> fear-mongering Wrong. Bush is just one little cog in the wheel of oppressive government. . If he does declare himself dictator, we'll all just >>>> have to rise-up and throw him out bodily. With a <30% approval rate, >>>> I doubt seriously if Bush could muster enough support to stage any >>>> kind of a coup or if he did, make it stick. >>> >>>> I mean does anybody seriously think that Bush is smart >>>> enough to pull anything like that off? I damn doubt it! He was smart enough to get elected. 2 times! >>> And we aint had a coup in any of the great democracys since Cromwell >>> either. US Civil War? >> Only in the small democracies when they voted in directions the US >> didn't like. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > multicultural > populace that the US is becoming. I simply don't know. >>>>>>>>> You wouldnt know what a real police state was if it bit you on the lard arse, gutless. >>>>>>>> Rod, the President and his puppetmasters are hoping >>>>>>>> that you don't notice the groundwork that's being laid. >>>>>>> Utterly silly conspiracy theory. That ape will be gone come election time. > And some other ape will take his place. Some of the apes cause a lot less problems than some of the others. In spades with that mindless silly 'police state' claim. >>>>>>>> Take a look at this: >>>>>>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html >>>>>>> Nothing like a police state. >>>>>> Only the power to determine, secretly and without judicial >>>>>> review, that someone is interfering with the President's >>>>>> political goals and then, again without judicial review, seize >>>>>> all their financial assets. > It's done all the time under RICO and it's very easy to imagine that > political opponents may be viewed as terrorists and a criminal > conspiracy at some appointed prosecutors whim just as political > opponents or critics find themselves being audited by the IRS.. RICO isnt at the whim of prosecutors. > Property is confiscated before a person is convicted of anything. But not at the whim of prosecutors when they are just political opponents. > Even when the person is acquited he still has a problem getting the property back. > There's no law against a citizen carrying cash regardless of the amount. But there have been > numerous incidents where a cop might stop someone for a traffic violation and either see some > money(usually an unlawful search he claimed was in plain sight)or the person may be arrested for > some trivial traffic violation like DWI and the cash is confiscated. Even when the person is > released his money is not returned but he has to "prove" it's lawfully his and he wasn't even > allowed to use HIS money to bail himself out. It would be stupid to allow the worst of the criminals to use the proceeds of their crime for that. > I'm afraid that people have become so pussy whipped that they don't even know anymore that this > whole thing is backwards. Or fools like you havent got a clue about what makes any sense. >>>>>>>> Discussion here: >>>>>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml >>>>>>> Usual mindlessly silly hyperventilation, as always from those fools. >>>>>> I see you didn't actually read the discussion. >>>>>>> We saw MUCH worse than that during WW2 and that didnt produce anything like a police state. > You weren't even around back then idiot Dont need to have been, fuckwit. > and NO it was not much worse. Corse it was on what was being discussed. > It's worse NOW. Not on that stuff in the executive order being discussed it wasnt. > Citizens did not carry identity cards then Plenty did then. > or were SS numbers used as a universal identifying number on everything. Irrelevant to that stuff in the executive order being discussed. > Bank accounts were private and banks didn't have to report to the government or was there > withholding tax. Irrelevant to that stuff in the executive order being discussed. > You could open an account under any name you choose and were identified by your signature and > other things. Irrelevant to that stuff in the executive order being discussed. > You didn't need a SS # to get a driving lisense so that your whole life is available to every nosy > cop on those little laptops we pay for them to use. Irrelevant to that stuff in the executive order being discussed. > There was no DEA to snoop around on legitimate patients and doctors. Irrelevant to that stuff in the executive order being discussed. > You didn't have a million lawyers trying to invent new areas of law for their own profit. Irrelevant to that stuff in the executive order being discussed. > I could go on and on And your mindless raving would STILL be irrelevant to that stuff in the executive order being discussed. > but it would be lost on someone like you. What was being discussed was clearly lost on you. >>>>>> Yeah, only a whole bunch of Americans got put in jail for the duration. No big deal. > The Japanese were interned but 1/2 of them were citizens of Japan. > Some Germans and Italians were also interned and had their property > confiscated. All of the countries in the war did this. Many of those > Japanese were spys and had to be removed from the coastal areas. Many > were released to areas not along the coast where they could signal ships or submarines. And don't > forget that the Japanese did occupy US territory. >>>>>>>> What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers? >>>>>>> The supremes would stop any police state from happening. > The US Supreme Court only accepts about 3% of the cases appealed to it. THEY decide which ones to > take. And they would decide to take those if that silly cow abused those executive powers. >>>>>> Only if someone can prove harm and then can afford an appeal up to that level. But with the >>>>>> secrecy rules, that would be next to >>>>>> impossible, especially if someone's money has all been taken away. >>>>> This is real simple. If the 2008 elections take place as planned and Bush is out in early >>>>> 2009, then this is all just a case of mindless fear-mongering > Wrong. Bush is just one little cog in the wheel of oppressive government. Yeah, yeah, its all those conspiring in smoke filled rooms to shaft us all. Watch out for those black helicopters, loony. >>>>> If he does declare himself dictator, Even he aint actually that stupid. >>>>> we'll all just have to rise-up and throw him out bodily. With a <30% approval rate, I doubt >>>>> seriously if Bush could muster enough support to stage any kind of a coup or if he did, make >>>>> it stick. >>>>> I mean does anybody seriously think that Bush is smart >>>>> enough to pull anything like that off? I damn doubt it! > He was smart enough to get elected. 2 times! Different matter entirely. All that took was to get the repugs to make him the monkey on their ticket. >>>> And we aint had a coup in any of the great democracys since Cromwell either. > US Civil War? That wasnt a coup. >>> Only in the small democracies when they voted in directions the US didn't like. >>>> It aint gunna happen, you watch. >>> It's not going to happen in any obvious way. >> Now, that's another issue, I think that our freedoms, liberties and rights are definately slowly >> being eaten-away by huge Federal and state bureaucracies. More fool you. We actually have a lot more freedoms, rights and libertys than say during the McCarthy era or WW2. >> Laws are being passed by extremely polarized legislatures at all levels which seriously undermine >> our Constitutional rights (Patriot Act). The supremes clearly disagree. >> Add to that, Presidential decrees proclaimed out of knee-jerk hysteria, and you have a headlong >> plunge into gradual totalitarianism. You wouldnt know what real totalitarianism was if it bit you on your lard arse. >> Maybe it's on purpose, maybe it's simply the only way to govern the huge and multicultural >> populace that the US is becoming. I simply don't know. That last bit is the only thing you did manage to get right. >>>>>>>>>> You wouldnt know what a real police state was if it bit you on >>>>>>>>>> the lard arse, gutless. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > It would be stupid to allow the worst of the criminals > to use the proceeds of their crime for that. These are ordinary citizens who were just caught carrying a lot of cash. Besides, suspecion is not grounds to confiscate a person's cash. >> I'm afraid that people have become so pussy whipped that they don't even >> know anymore that this whole thing is backwards. > > Or fools like you havent got a clue about what makes any sense. Go back to Podunk fool. >>>>>>>>> Discussion here: >>>>>>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml [quoted text clipped - 151 lines] > > That last bit is the only thing you did manage to get right. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>> You wouldnt know what a real police state was if it bit you on the lard arse, gutless. >>>>>>>>>> Rod, the President and his puppetmasters are hoping >>>>>>>>>> that you don't notice the groundwork that's being laid. >>>>>>>>> Utterly silly conspiracy theory. That ape will be gone come election time. >>> And some other ape will take his place. >> Some of the apes cause a lot less problems than some of the others. >> In spades with that mindless silly 'police state' claim. >>>>>>>>>> Take a look at this: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html >>>>>>>>> Nothing like a police state. >>>>>>>> Only the power to determine, secretly and without judicial >>>>>>>> review, that someone is interfering with the President's >>>>>>>> political goals and then, again without judicial review, seize >>>>>>>> all their financial assets. >>> It's done all the time under RICO and it's very easy to imagine that >>> political opponents may be viewed as terrorists and a criminal >>> conspiracy at some appointed prosecutors whim just as political >>> opponents or critics find themselves being audited by the IRS.. >> RICO isnt at the whim of prosecutors. >>> Property is confiscated before a person is convicted of anything. >> But not at the whim of prosecutors when they are just political opponents. >>> Even when the person is acquited he still has a problem getting the property back. >>> There's no law against a citizen carrying cash regardless of the >>> amount. But there have been numerous incidents where a cop might [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> his money is not returned but he has to "prove" it's lawfully his >>> and he wasn't even allowed to use HIS money to bail himself out. >> It would be stupid to allow the worst of the criminals >> to use the proceeds of their crime for that. > These are ordinary citizens who were just caught carrying a lot of cash. Nope, they are mostly criminals. > Besides, suspecion is not grounds to confiscate a person's cash. It isnt permanently confiscated if you can show that its not the result of criminal activity. >>> I'm afraid that people have become so pussy whipped that they don't even know anymore that this >>> whole thing is backwards. >> Or fools like you havent got a clue about what makes any sense. > Go back to Podunk fool. Bit hard to go back to where you have never been, fuckwit. >>>>>>>>>> Discussion here: >>>>>>>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml >>>>>>>>> Usual mindlessly silly hyperventilation, as always from those fools. >>>>>>>> I see you didn't actually read the discussion. >>>>>>>>> We saw MUCH worse than that during WW2 and that didnt produce anything like a police >>>>>>>>> state. >>> You weren't even around back then idiot >> Dont need to have been, fuckwit. >>> and NO it was not much worse. >> Corse it was on what was being discussed. >>> It's worse NOW. >> Not on that stuff in the executive order being discussed it wasnt. >>> Citizens did not carry identity cards then >> Plenty did then. >>> or were SS numbers used as a universal identifying number on everything. >> Irrelevant to that stuff in the executive order being discussed. >>> Bank accounts were private and banks didn't have to report to the government or was there >>> withholding tax. >> Irrelevant to that stuff in the executive order being discussed. >>> You could open an account under any name you choose and were identified by your signature and >>> other things. >> Irrelevant to that stuff in the executive order being discussed. >>> You didn't need a SS # to get a driving lisense so that your whole >>> life is available to every nosy cop on those little laptops we pay >>> for them to use. >> Irrelevant to that stuff in the executive order being discussed. >> [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] >> >> That last bit is the only thing you did manage to get right. >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > And we aint had a coup in any of the great democracys since Cromwell either. As usual, you show us your stupidity (or ignorance, at best). 1) Cromwell did not pull a "coup". He led a REVOLUTION (with the help of his House of Commons, but NOT the majority of the King's House of Lords) against the ruling King of England. He called himself "Lord High Protector" of the Kingdom (he kept the office of King (with the King imprisoned), but took it's teeth out "for the duration". His revolution was a revolution against the CATHOLIC King by PURITANS (Right-wing Christians of the time). 2) The Empire of Great Britain (at that time) was NOT A "GREAT DEMOCRACY". It was an "absolute Monarchy", ruled by a hereditary King and his Lords. Today, it is no longer an "absolute Monarchy". It is a "Constitutional Monarchy" with a figure-head Queen, ruled by HER supposedly "democratic" Parliament (more properly by the House of Commons, with the grudging consent of HER House of Lords.) Additionally, the old hereditary Monarchy and its framework are STILL there, in all fullness, with all members of the House of Lords (possessing considerable power, BTW) holding hereditary office, and NEVER elected by the People, while the members of the House of Commons are. Please sir, do a little research the next time? > It aint gunna happen, you watch. We're watching. But not just "watching" statically. We're preparing for the day. If we aren't prepared, we might as well say "goodbye" to our "great democracy". Don't put your trust in our "great democracy", which has never (supposedly) suffered a coup. The American people are, for the most part, as easily-manipulated by a few as they are by many. Take away their "beer, bread, and circuses", and they will follow after ANYONE who offers them to them. So don't be so sure, bud... > Rod Speed wrote >>> Timberwoof wrote >>>>> Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote >>>>>>> Sparrow <funnybunnyfive@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Read about it at http://Muvy.org >>>>>>> You wouldnt know what a real police state >>>>>>> was if it bit you on the lard arse, gutless. >>>>>> Rod, the President and his puppetmasters are hoping >>>>>> that you don't notice the groundwork that's being laid. >>>>> Utterly silly conspiracy theory. That ape will be gone come election time. >>>>>> Take a look at this: >>>>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html >>>>> Nothing like a police state. >>>> Only the power to determine, secretly and without judicial review, >>>> that someone is interfering with the President's political goals and >>>> then, again without judicial review, seize all their financial assets. >>>>>> Discussion here: >>>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml >>>>> Usual mindlessly silly hyperventilation, as always from those fools. >>>> I see you didn't actually read the discussion. >>>>> We saw MUCH worse than that during WW2 and >>>>> that didnt produce anything like a police state. >>>> Yeah, only a whole bunch of Americans got put in jail for the duration. No big deal. >>>>>> What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers? >>>>> The supremes would stop any police state from happening. >>>> Only if someone can prove harm and then can afford an appeal >>>> up to that level. But with the secrecy rules, that would be next to >>>> impossible, especially if someone's money has all been taken away. >>> This is real simple. If the 2008 elections take place as planned and >>> Bush is out in early 2009, then this is all just a case of mindless >>> fear-mongering. If he does declare himself dictator, we'll all just >>> have to rise-up and throw him out bodily. With a <30% approval rate, >>> I doubt seriously if Bush could muster enough support to stage any >>> kind of a coup or if he did, make it stick. >>> I mean does anybody seriously think that Bush is smart >>> enough to pull anything like that off? I damn doubt it! >> And we aint had a coup in any of the great >> democracys since Cromwell either. > As usual, you show us your stupidity (or ignorance, at best). We'll see... > 1) Cromwell did not pull a "coup". Fraid so. > He led a REVOLUTION (with the help of his House of Commons, but NOT > the majority of the King's House of Lords) against the ruling King of England. > He called himself "Lord High Protector" of the Kingdom (he kept the office > of King (with the King imprisoned), but took it's teeth out "for the duration". So it was a coup. > His revolution was a revolution against the CATHOLIC > King by PURITANS (Right-wing Christians of the time). Still a coup. > 2) The Empire of Great Britain (at that time) was NOT A "GREAT DEMOCRACY". > It was an "absolute Monarchy", ruled by a hereditary King and his Lords. Pig ignorant lie. > Today, it is no longer an "absolute Monarchy". It is a "Constitutional > Monarchy" with a figure-head Queen, ruled by HER supposedly > "democratic" Parliament (more properly by the House of > Commons, with the grudging consent of HER House of Lords.) > Additionally, the old hereditary Monarchy and its framework are > STILL there, in all fullness, with all members of the House of Lords > (possessing considerable power, BTW) holding hereditary office, Pig ignorant lie. > and NEVER elected by the People, while the > members of the House of Commons are. > Please sir, do a little research the next time? f.ck off cur and do some yourself. >> It aint gunna happen, you watch. > We're watching. But not just "watching" statically. We're preparing for the day. And will get stomped as comprehensively as those other fools in the 60s were. > If we aren't prepared, we might as well say "goodbye" to our "great democracy". Thats what those other fools in the 60s claimed too. Look at them now. > Don't put your trust in our "great democracy", Get f.cked. > which has never (supposedly) suffered a coup. > The American people are, for the most part, as easily-manipulated > by a few as they are by many. Take away their "beer, bread, and > circuses", and they will follow after ANYONE who offers them to them. Not a f.cking clue... > So don't be so sure, bud... Fraid so, dud... There aint gunna be no coup by the shrub, you watch. > As usual, you show us your stupidity (or ignorance, at best). > 1) Cromwell did not pull a "coup". He led a REVOLUTION (with the help of his [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 2) The Empire of Great Britain (at that time) was NOT A "GREAT DEMOCRACY". > It was an "absolute Monarchy", ruled by a hereditary King and his Lords. Of course that is largely a function of who is talking and who won. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. I am sure that the Royalists viewed the proceedings as something akin to a coup. >> As usual, you show us your stupidity (or ignorance, at best). >> 1) Cromwell did not pull a "coup". He led a REVOLUTION (with the help of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. I am sure that the > Royalists viewed the proceedings as something akin to a coup. You know, Kurt, whether it was a "coup" or a "revolution" was kind of irrelevant to the Loyalists -- their Catholic King was removed from office, and a Right-Wing Evangelical (who was a member of the HoL himself) named himself "Lord High Protector" and Regent with the help of all the anti-Catholics (who were at that time a MINORITY in the HoC and HoL. What the people wanted was not considered by Lord Cromwell. Only what the Evangelicals might have wanted). So no matter how you say it, he usurped the rights of the majority. So how was this a "democratic" action by a "Great Democracy"? The fact is, the Catholic Kingdom was destroyed forever by his actions, and a weak, ineffectual and non-Catholic kingdom replaced it, with Cromwell as Regent and Head of State. If that's not a "revolution" I don't know what to call it. Of course, the houses saw the foolishness of their hasty actions a few (about 30) years later, and tossed him out on his behonkus (in fact they took off his head, if memory serves me), and returned the King's dynasty to power. I'm not sure if the King himself was left by Cromwell to waste away in the Tower, or beheaded. Either way, the same thing was accomplished. One man decided that HE knew what was in "the best interests of the people", got enough weapons together, and OVERTHREW the constituted authority of the time. While that may not technically be a "revolution", the same results transpired. Actually, it was closer to a Civil War, than either a revolution or a Coup, with the winner calling himself "Lord Protector of the Kingdom" rather than "hereditary monarch". Nothing that most would call "revolutionary" transpired in Great Britain during the Civil War. One really-evil hereditary ruler just replaced another less-evil hereditary ruler. The Kingdom wasn't even repudiated and replaced by a better form of government. Just a more evil version of the same government, and called a "Regency" instead of a "Hereditary Kingdom". Of course, that would not be unusual almost anywhere on the Earth at that time, so I do not fault him for doing to his enemies exactly what they would have done to him. As a Catholic Christian however, I must, since Christ demands that we feed and clothe our enemies, not cast them in prison and throw away the key. Lord Cromwell was definitely no more a "Christian" or "democrat" than the reigning Catholic King he usurped was, though he boasted in the spiritual superiority of his Puritanism. Cromwell was certainly no "democrat", by any stretch of of the imagination, nor were ANY of members of the two Houses of Parliament (for that matter, none of the people were "democrats" themselves, either -- at least as we in the US understand the meaning of the word.) He never rejected the Monarchy entirely, as we in the West have, nor did he repudiate his hereditary office as one of the Monarchy's Peers. So let's get real, and stop trying to justify the Butcher, Lord Cromwell, or compare our supposedly-representative democracies of today with the Parliaments of England in the 1600's. There are simply no valid grounds for comparison. Actually, most of our current "Representative Democracies" are "Representative Democracies", in name only, and are actually more like "Oligarchic (sic) Republics" (my word), with so-called "elected representatives of the people", who claim to know and be protecting their "best interests", but are actually representing and protecting the fortunes and best interests of "Old Wealth", along the lines of the early Roman Republic (before the first Emperor), as "republics" always have, while throwing the People a few loaves of bread and gallons of beer, along with incessant, continual, circuses now and then, to keep the riff-raf quiet (read, "to keep the people from taking their heads off, and replacing them with worse "representatives"). The "People" have little to say in this (their "sacred vote" not withstanding), as History (both modern and ancient) has proven time and time again. Anyway, enough, already, Don! You are probably drowning them in useful knowledge, rather than feeding it to them in a healthful manner, a bite at a time. > Kurt Ullman wrote >>> As usual, you show us your stupidity (or ignorance, at best). We'll see... >>> 1) Cromwell did not pull a "coup". He led a REVOLUTION >>> (with the help of his House of Commons, but NOT the majority [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> out "for the duration". His revolution was a revolution against the >>> CATHOLIC King by PURITANS (Right-wing Christians of the time). >> Of course that is largely a function of who is talking and who won. >> One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. I am sure that >> the Royalists viewed the proceedings as something akin to a coup. > You know, Kurt, whether it was a "coup" or a > "revolution" was kind of irrelevant to the Loyalists But not to YOUR claim at the top. > -- their Catholic King was removed from office, In a coup. > and a Right-Wing Evangelical (who was a member of the HoL himself) Wrong again. He was a member of the HoC. > named himself "Lord High Protector" and Regent Which makes it a coup. > with the help of all the anti-Catholics (who were > at that time a MINORITY in the HoC and HoL. Irrelevant to the coup. > What the people wanted was not considered by Lord Cromwell. Nor by most of those who do a coup. > Only what the Evangelicals might have wanted). So no > matter how you say it, he usurped the rights of the majority. And did a coup when he replaced the king. > So how was this a "democratic" action by a "Great Democracy"? No one ever said it was that. > The fact is, the Catholic Kingdom was destroyed forever by his > actions, and a weak, ineffectual and non-Catholic kingdom > replaced it, with Cromwell as Regent and Head of State. In a coup. > If that's not a "revolution" I don't know what to call it. Its both a coup and a revolution. > Of course, the houses saw the foolishness of their hasty actions > a few (about 30) years later, and tossed him out on his behonkus Irrelevant to the coup. > (in fact they took off his head, if memory serves me), Nope. That happened to his exhumed corpse well after his death. > and returned the King's dynasty to power. I'm not sure if the King > himself was left by Cromwell to waste away in the Tower, or beheaded. He was beheaded. > Either way, the same thing was accomplished. So much for your claim at the top. > One man decided that HE knew what was in "the best interests of the > people", got enough weapons together, and OVERTHREW the constituted > authority of the time. While that may not technically be a "revolution", Yep it was a coup. > the same results transpired. Actually, it was closer to a Civil War, That came afterwards. And it was called the english civil war. > than either a revolution or a Coup, with the winner calling himself > "Lord Protector of the Kingdom" rather than "hereditary monarch". Those that do coups call themselves all sorts of things. > Nothing that most would call "revolutionary" > transpired in Great Britain during the Civil War. You've just contradicted yourself. > One really-evil hereditary ruler just replaced another less-evil hereditary ruler. Pity about the parliaments. > The Kingdom wasn't even repudiated and replaced by a better form > of government. Just a more evil version of the same government, > and called a "Regency" instead of a "Hereditary Kingdom". And it was still a coup that got rid of the king for a time. > Of course, that would not be unusual almost > anywhere on the Earth at that time, It was quite unusual at that time, actually. > so I do not fault him for doing to his enemies > exactly what they would have done to him. Still a coup. > As a Catholic Christian however, I must, since Christ > demands that we feed and clothe our enemies, not > cast them in prison and throw away the key. But its fine to chop their heads off. Yeah, right. > Lord Cromwell was definitely no more a "Christian" or "democrat" > than the reigning Catholic King he usurped was, though he boasted > in the spiritual superiority of his Puritanism. > Cromwell was certainly no "democrat", by any stretch of of the imagination, No one said he was. > nor were ANY of members of the two Houses of Parliament (for that > matter, none of the people were "democrats" themselves, either > -- at least as we in the US understand the meaning of the word.) There's more than one meaning of that word. > He never rejected the Monarchy entirely, as we in the West have, nor > did he repudiate his hereditary office as one of the Monarchy's Peers. That came later. > So let's get real, and stop trying to justify the Butcher, Lord Cromwell, No one did anything of the sort. > or compare our supposedly-representative democracies > of today with the Parliaments of England in the 1600's. Or that either. > There are simply no valid grounds for comparison. Pity no one compared them. > Actually, most of our current "Representative Democracies" > are "Representative Democracies", in name only, and are > actually more like "Oligarchic (sic) Republics" (my word), Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant rabid drug crazed fantasys. > with so-called "elected representatives of the people", Nothing so called about them. > who claim to know and be protecting their "best interests", > but are actually representing and protecting the fortunes > and best interests of "Old Wealth", Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant rabid drug crazed fantasys. > along the lines of the early Roman Republic (before the first Emperor), Nothing like it. > as "republics" always have, while throwing the People a few loaves of > bread and gallons of beer, along with incessant, continual, circuses now > and then, to keep the riff-raf quiet (read, "to keep the people from > taking their heads off, and replacing them with worse "representatives"). Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant rabid drug crazed fantasys. > The "People" have little to say in this (their "sacred vote" not withstanding), > as History (both modern and ancient) has proven time and time again. Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant rabid drug crazed fantasys. > Anyway, enough, already, Don! You are probably drowning them in useful knowledge, Your mindless pathetic little pig ignorant rabid drug crazed fantasys dont qualify. > rather than feeding it to them in a healthful manner, a bite at a time. Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant rabid drug crazed fantasys. > >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > I mean does anybody seriously think that Bush is smart enough to pull > anything like that off? I damn doubt it! It's probably more likely that the Republicans will have found a way to subvert the closed-source trail-less unverifiable electronic voting machines in a few key states and swing the next presidential election in favor of their pupp--I mean candidate. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you. >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > machines in a few key states and swing the next presidential election > in favor of their pupp--I mean candidate. Not a chance. It wont be that close the next time, you watch. > >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Not a chance. It wont be that close the next time, you watch. All the more reason not to grant those kinds of executive powers. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> Read about it at http://Muvy.org >>>>>>>> You wouldnt know what a real police state was if it bit you on the lard arse, gutless. >>>>>>> Rod, the President and his puppetmasters are hoping >>>>>>> that you don't notice the groundwork that's being laid. >>>>>> Utterly silly conspiracy theory. That ape will be gone come election time. >>>>>>> Take a look at this: >>>>>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html >>>>>> Nothing like a police state. >>>>> Only the power to determine, secretly and without judicial review, >>>>> that someone is interfering with the President's political goals and >>>>> then, again without judicial review, seize all their financial assets. >>>>>>> Discussion here: >>>>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/19/1551242.shtml >>>>>> Usual mindlessly silly hyperventilation, as always from those fools. >>>>> I see you didn't actually read the discussion. >>>>>> We saw MUCH worse than that during WW2 and that didnt produce >>>>>> anything like a police state. >>>>> Yeah, only a whole bunch of Americans got put in jail for the duration. No big deal. >>>>>>> What if Hillary got hold of those executive powers? >>>>>> The supremes would stop any police state from happening. >>>>> Only if someone can prove harm and then can afford an appeal >>>>> up to that level. But with the secrecy rules, that would be next to >>>>> impossible, especially if someone's money has all been taken away. >>>> This is real simple. If the 2008 elections take place as planned >>>> and Bush is out in early 2009, then this is all just a case of >>>> mindless fear-mongering. If he does declare himself dictator, >>>> we'll all just have to rise-up and throw him out bodily. With a >>>> <30% approval rate, I doubt seriously if Bush could muster enough >>>> support to stage any kind of a coup or if he did, make it stick. >>>> I mean does anybody seriously think that Bush is smart >>>> enough to pull anything like that off? I damn doubt it! >>> It's probably more likely that the Republicans will have found a >>> way to subvert the closed-source trail-less unverifiable electronic >>> voting machines in a few key states and swing the next presidential >>> election in favor of their pupp--I mean candidate. >> Not a chance. It wont be that close the next time, you watch. > All the more reason not to grant those kinds of executive powers. Go tell that to the supremes, fuckwit child. Dont be too surprised when they just laugh in your face, just like everyone else does. >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > machines in a few key states and swing the next presidential election in > favor of their pupp--I mean candidate. No amount of dirty tricks and skull-duggery could "swing" the next election the Republican's way. The Democrats will win so big-time, that it will be a landslide victory for them. The Republicans would have to fix a WHOLE bunch of voting machines to effect such an outcome. I see by the way that you speak of Republicans that you are in favor of a single party system where only Democrats can win power. If that is so, It's a sad commentary on this country's political system, that people could become so extremely polarized. >>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > landslide victory for them. The Republicans would have to fix a WHOLE bunch > of voting machines to effect such an outcome. George, you say this as if the Republicans like to play fair. But its been proven time and time again they DON'T. Why do you think now, when they are threatened by removal and possible legal problems from the Left, they will really play fair and let go of the reins of power? It's in their best interest to not let go, as well as the best interests of their political and financial partners. I don't believe Mr. Bush and Co. want to lose all that lovely money and power, and possibly their own freedom. I really don't believe they will let it all go without a fight, especially when they have been preparing for just such a fight (which will NOT be without considerable blood.) > I see by the way that you speak of Republicans that you are in favor of a > single party system where only Democrats can win power. If that is so, It's a > sad commentary on this country's political system, that people could become > so extremely polarized. So, how is a TWO-Party system any better? Has it helped the American people much? I think not. But a single party system, while it would ensuring that things would ultimately get accomplished (unlike our so-called "two-party, bi-cameral system", which seems to never get anything important done, and supposedly-controlled by the will of the people -- Read Mr. Lincoln's Address in Gettysburg), will be just as easily-manipulated by the power-mongers, whoever they are (democrat or republican). George, if you read more History that the last century or so, you would soon see that ANYTHING can happen if the "right" man has enough political power, and an excuse to use it, with the Army backing him up. But somehow, I suspect you do read enough, but your atheism is blinding you to the facts of History. Political polarization in our government has nothing to do with our situation. It is NOT a "political struggle". It's a SECTARIAN struggle, just as it is in Iraq, and the REST of the inhabited world. It's a case of "TRUE RELIGION versus everything else", being further complicated by "false conservatism versus false liberalism", with all being couched in POLITICAL and FISCAL terminology instead of sectarian terminology. And to make it worse, only the rich have any true political power. While the struggle has not yet entered into the violent phase here in the States (or is currently barely-noticeable), it will eventually come here. The divide between political and sectarian is becoming narrower here in the States and elsewhere, as well as the divide between the rich (a small minority) and the poor (the "great unwashed multitudes". Consider that the Middle-class, which in the past was a bulwark of Constitutional democracy everywhere, is fast disappearing all over the world.) While K. Marx and V.I. Lenin were wrong about non-religion and forced-communism as th |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message