The new racism -- shall we call it "neoracism?" It's time for political writers and those in government to cast aside their timidity about recognizing and publicizing politically correct racism.
Both sides have to stop this. It's unworthy of the Senate. All they are supposed to consider is whether the person has the credentials and the history to be fair and follow the law, whether he/she agrees with the law or not. The judiciary is supposed to be independent of politics, and so should be the approval of judges.
That said, Bill, I was actually addressing the larger issue of politically correct racism, in which conservative minority public figures are disdained because they don't follow the Democratic party line. They are considered traitors to their races by the left if they disagree with the policies that the party deems is good for them, and how dare they take a different stance?
The only people who are actually "Hate-Filled", are the people who deliberately demonize whole groups, simply because they do not share their own philosophy, and that is UN-Patriotic, above all else.
That fits a lot of liberals to a T. Here look through this, fold: Taraka Das "The Star Chamber II: Fair & Balanced Since 2002!" 9/2/03 11:08pm
New Hampshire residents donated $462 million, an average of about $2,400 per taxpayer, according to The Catalogue for Philanthropy. That looks especially stingy considering the state's relative wealth. Its average income of $51,000 is eighth-highest in the country, while its average giving ranks 48th.
By comparison, Mississippi, the most generous state, had an average income of $34,000 -- the lowest in the country. But residents still gave enough to match the national average of $3,500 a person.
Fortunately, jethro, most liberals are non-violence advocates who admire such figures as Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and the Siloist Movement. And so do I. Sometimes I display my frustration with the feckless opposition to the nazi pigs who control the republican party, most of the media, and most of the state and federal government these days AS WELL AS some of the most powerful corporations in the world, and sometimes that frustration is displayed in a desire to overthrow the fascists and create a new order that more closely resembles the liberal tradition of the USA in the principles of rule of law, self determination, guaranteed constitutional rights and social justice under representative government.
I'm surprised that you didn't post other comments I have made in the past advocating armed revolution. The rhetoric I have used is meant to put the fear of GOD into the greedy, exploitative, arrogant and criminal persons in this country who think that our social contract is just meaningless paper. My rhetoric is meant to serve notice to such people what the consequences could be when the liberal traditions are cast aside so cavalierly. Those who wish to turn to a tradition that embraces "might makes right" ought to be on notice that the Jeffersonian "right to revolution" is alive and well.
Having said all that, I firmly believe that revolution should indeed be a last resort. There are non-violent ways to address many of the evils that bedevil our liberal traditions today. However, I do not see anyone getting out there making the case for change.
There are at least TWO areas which MUST be addressed. A start must be made towards eliminating nuclear and fossil fuel energy production, and replacing these methods with hydrogen, biomass, solar, wind and other alternative methods of energy production. A part of this change must be the abandonment of the "industrial model" of energy distribution, which requires huge plants supplying vast areas with high voltage wires and stepdowns. The "internet model," which utilizes networks of smaller power plants, locally situated and controlled, is the future.
The other issue that needs to be addressed NOW is the issue of corporate governance. Quite simply, there must be an acknowledgement that corporations are being allowed to structure their organizations in the same model that was used by fascist states. There are a VARIETY of evils that are related to this issue, including the creation of extra-constitutional systems of power that are ideologically opposed to republican government. The answer to this is actually simpler than one might think: republican corporations. Corporations that are structured with an internal division of power similar to republican governments will provide REAL CAPITALIST COMPETITION for the nationalist-socialist organizations that we call corporations today.
There are practical and positive steps that can be made NOW to address both of these issues, and it should be done. The consequence of NOT making such changes will probably be a full scale social revolution. In terms of historical analysis, the clock is ticking, and every step taken to undermine or abolish our liberal traditions takes us closer to that day. The current government in Washington has an agenda that will take the US closer to internal revolution. So far the opposition party (if you can call them that) is not advocating a program for positive and non-violent change.
So just be aware, jethro, that if and when we must grab our guns and fight for our freedom, I'll be with those who are attempting to restore the constitution and our liberal traditions. If you would support the present government, you would be on the other side.
Bill, for starters try Clarence Thomas and any of GW's minority candidates for judgeships. All have been vilified by democrats and minority "leaders" for betraying their races.
...most liberals are non-violence advocateswho admire such figures as Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr,and the Siloist Movement. And so do I.
...if and when we mustgrab our guns and fight for our freedom, I'll bewith those who are...
Which is it?
If you want to restore our country to the original Constitution, let's abolish the income tax, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, the FCC, and on and on.
Clarence Thomas et al are not "vilified for betraying their races." They are opposed because they are ideological radicals who show more allegiance to an anti-liberal ideology than they do to our liberal constitution.
You either believe in the progressive ideals of our liberal constitution and accept that progress requires responsive change, or you believe in an anti-progressive agenda, supporting an abolishment of the institutions that have been created in response to progressive change.
Anti-progressive agendas are most often embraced by those who want to deny an expansion of the enfranchisement of rights and opportunities to those who have not.
Decide for yourself if you are in support of our liberal traditions or if you are in support of radicals who reject our liberal traditions.
I support and advocate non-violence. I'm just letting everyone know that armed revolution is no joke, and a very real possibility. And I'm letting everyone know what side I'm on. I reject the fascists. Clear enough, or do you want me to sing "God Bless America?"
So was Bill Clinton. That's why Gore spent a couple of years combing through federal regulations to strip away redundancy, contradictions and loopholes.
Dry boring work to be sure, but it coincided with a robust expansion for small and mid-size businesses who were at a disadvantage with regard to large corporations, who have teams of lawyers and lobbyists working ceaselessly to slant the regulations in their favor.
The libertarians would throw out the baby with the bathwater, abolishing regulation and allowing large corporations to trample competitors with unfair trade and labor practices, trample consumers with liability-free disregard for public safety, trample workers with unsafe working conditions and unfair labor practices, trample the environment and the public with poisonous dumping and pollution, and trample the rights of the citizenry through bribery and corruption.
And you wouldn't even get to complain about it. Take them to court! Say the libertarians! Here's a number. Your case will be heard twenty years from now. Libertarians come in two flavors: fascist or uninformed!
Fortunately, jethro, most liberals are non-violence advocates who admire such figures as Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and the Siloist Movement. Oh yes I forgot. Liberals wanted to bend over and let the Soviet Union give it to us.
And so do I. Sometimes I display my frustration with the feckless opposition to the nazi pigs who control the republican party, most of the media, and most of the state and federal government these days AS WELL AS some of the most powerful corporations in the world, and sometimes that frustration is displayed in a desire to overthrow the fascists and create a new order that more closely resembles the liberal tradition of the USA in the principles of rule of law, self determination, guaranteed constitutional rights and social justice under representative government.
Fold can't you see the hate?
So just be aware, jethro, that if and when we must grab our guns and fight for our freedom, I'll be with those who are attempting to restore the constitution and our liberal traditions. If you would support the present government, you would be on the other side.
You won't be fighting for the Constitution you will be fighting for your own view of what is right because you want to impose your will. You don't believe in freedom that is crystal clear. If you and your kind want a war I say bring it on because I have had about enough of your kind of stupidity.
Clarence Thomas et al are not "vilified for betraying their races." They are opposed because they are ideological radicals who show more allegiance to an anti-liberal ideology than they do to our liberal constitution.
You have bought into a lie and you are incapable of seeing what is going on. Clarence Thomas is no radical. He understands what the Constitution was meant to do and wants to see that it is given effect. You, on the other hand, do not understand the concepts of "liberal" or constitutional government. It is ignorance like yours that is undermining freedom.
Libertarians come in two flavors: fascist or uninformed!
Talk about uninformed! The libertarian concept certainly has nothing in it that is fascist. The concepts, to thinking people, are virtually mutually exclusive.
I feel the same way about fascists, jethro. I'm not the one supporting a president who has borrowed his foreign policy from Adolph Hitler and finds the Fourth Amendment to be an unreasonable obstacle to the expansion of federal power.
You don't believe in freedom that is crystal clear.
Your echo of Nazi propaganda is chilling. They also claimed to be defenders of freedom. They also said that "traitors" opposed to the nazi conspiracy to turn the Weimar Republic into a totalitarian state were enemies of "freedom."
Yes, I do oppose those who think they are "free" to create a police state. I do oppose those who want to overthrow the principle of rule of law. And if necessary, I will fight them. It is not those who embrace liberty and progress that are interested in asserting self-interest over common interest. Hopefully, we still have some time to change hearts and minds before revolution becomes necessary.
I feel the same way about fascists, jethro. I'm not the one supporting a president who has borrowed his foreign policy from Adolph Hitler and finds the Fourth Amendment to be an unreasonable obstacle to the expansion of federal power.
Unfortunately for America it is the above kind of nonsense that is becoming all to pervaise in the democrap party.
Clarence Thomas, like many radical thinkers, want to assert the 14th Amendment legal concepts about equality to dismantle a legal remedy meant to address inequities that grew up as a result of those 14th Amendment concepts being violated and ignored for a hundred years! And this view is amply demonstrated in his tenure as head of the EEOC during the Reagan Administration. I'm not the one with delusions in this matter.
It is ignorance like yours that is undermining freedom.
Please elaborate. How, exactly, do I "undermine freedom" by exercising my right of free speech to advocate an alternative to the fascist agenda and warning that following the fascist agenda will lead to revolution?
I do oppose those who want to overthrow the principle of rule of law.
You oppose the rule of law, dude.
It is not those who embrace liberty and progress that are interested in asserting self-interest over common interest.
Those that proclaim to want to assert "common interest" do not embrace liberty and progress. They simply want to impose their will in spite of the Constitution.
It does for people capable of looking past slogans and analyzing what results libertarian public policies would have.
For example, I gave an exhaustive list of social evils that would ensue if the radical deregulation advocated by libertarians placed the country at the mercy of large corporations who are internally organized like fascist states. Just scroll back. I haven't made that many posts today.
Clarence Thomas, like many radical thinkers, want to assert the 14th Amendment legal concepts about equality to dismantle a legal remedy meant to address inequities that grew up as a result of those 14th Amendment concepts being violated and ignored for a hundred years!
Could you make any less sense? I don't think so but I'll be waiting for your next attempt.
How, exactly, do I "undermine freedom" by exercising my right of free speech to advocate an alternative to the fascist agenda and warning that following the fascist agenda will lead to revolution?
Because you have no understanding of the constitution. Apparently you want to impose some utopian ideal despite the clear limitations of power set forth in the document.
It does for people capable of looking past slogans and analyzing what results libertarian public policies would have.
Clearly the libertarians want less government control over people which is quite different than fascism. Fascism is by definition lot of government control.
For example, I gave an exhaustive list of social evils that would ensue if the radical deregulation advocated by libertarians placed the country at the mercy of large corporations who are internally organized like fascist states.
Maybe social evils would occur maybe they wouldn't, but that is not fascism.
Those that proclaim to want to assert "common interest" do not embrace liberty and progress.
Are you saying that self interest alone leads to liberty and progress? If so, consider Saddam Hussein, who had lots of "self interest."
Asserting self-interest over common interest is a practice that leads to tyranny when applied in law, business, and politics. Perhaps you are worried about those who claim to want an assertion of common interest over self interest in the absolute sense? You should be worried about them. They are fascists who disguise themselves as advocates of the people. Like Hitler and Stalin, for example. Different propaganda, same agenda. And if you study these case examples and apply what you learn to events in the US, then I don't know how you aren't alarmed.
Try this: Clarence Thomas opposes affirmative action, which was meant to be a legal remedy to the persistent institutional violations of the 14th Amendment. Why does he oppose it? He claims that affirmative action violates the 14th Amendment! Is that more clear?
you have no understanding of the constitution.
You are mistaken. I was a political science major in college, and I have been studying political theory for 27 years, including intensive study of the constitution. I'm a poli sci buff.
Apparently you want to impose some utopian ideal despite the clear limitations of power set forth in the document.
Impose? Despite? Nope. You misread me. The same encouragements by the political structure that led to nuclear and fossil fuel infrastructure can be applied to create a different infrastructure. Also, the corporate governance issue contradicts the constitution. It is yet another anomaly that stands in the way of realizing the progressive ideals of the constitution. And addressing it doesn't require changing the constitution.
Fascism calls for a conflation of corporate and government leadership. Take a look at the government structures of Hitler's and Mussolini's governments.
If we follow libertarian policies to their logical conclusion, the massive shift in power from regulatory agencies to corporations would facilitate the creation of a fascist government structure. Remember, regulatory agencies exist in order to make corporations (for the most part) accountable to a government of elected leaders.
So libertarians can claim that they advocate "individual freedom" in their slogans, but practically, the "individuals" who receive the greatest benefit from their policies are corporations that are internally organized like fascist states.
So if you support them, you are either uninformed about the consequences of their policies, or you are in favor of those consequences.
Not at all. I'm a liberal. I'm a constitutionalist.
As I explained in my previous post, there are constitutional means to acheive the positive agenda I advocate. It DOES mean less power for some corporate elites. But defending their power and privilidge in opposition to a reasonable progressive change is akin to opposing civil rights for blacks because white supremacists might lose some power.
there are constitutional means to acheive the positive agenda I advocate.
But if I don't get what I want, by God I'll kill you!!!
So just be aware, jethro, that if and when we mustgrab our guns and fight for our freedom, I'll bewith those who are attempting to restore theconstitution and our liberal traditions. If youwould support the present government, you wouldbe on the other side.
Asserting self-interest over common interest is a practice that leads to tyranny when applied in law, business, and politics.
Self interest constrained by constituional government works just fine. That is not what you want. What you want is the "common interest" imposed on everyone. Just who decides what the "common interest" is?
It may surprise you to learn that I am an ardent defender of the Second Amendment.
Or...maybe not! :^D
I oppose you.
Me? Personally? So you think Taraka Das is an ample enough target for social revolution, eh? Never mind the multi-billion dollar global deathculture based on oil, uranium, gold, diamonds, rare earths and weapons for the wars over them! This Taraka Das must be stamped out! Citizens to arms!
Try this: Clarence Thomas opposes affirmative action, which was meant to be a legal remedy to the persistent institutional violations of the 14th Amendment. Why does he oppose it? He claims that affirmative action violates the 14th Amendment! Is that more clear?
Affirmative action does violate the 14th amendment. It couldn't be any more clear.
you have no understanding of the constitution.
You are mistaken. I was a political science major in college, and I have been studying political theory for 27 years, including intensive study of the constitution. I'm a poli sci buff.
What you learned in college most likely was left wing propaganda not constitutional history. I know that because all my college offered was left wing propaganda. I had one professor that was honest enough to say he was a socialist.
Apparently you want to impose some utopian ideal despite the clear limitations of power set forth in the document.
Impose? Despite? Nope. You misread me. The same encouragements by the political structure that led to nuclear and fossil fuel infrastructure can be applied to create a different infrastructure.
I knew it wouldn't take long for you to write something that made less sense than what you wrote before!
Also, the corporate governance issue contradicts the constitution. It is yet another anomaly that stands in the way of realizing the progressive ideals of the constitution.
That comment without question shows your lack of understanding of the constitution.
Self interest constrained by constituional government works just fine.
The corporate governance issue is an example of self interest operating in a manner UNRESTRAINED by constitutional limits. That's the point I was making earlier.
What you want is the "common interest" imposed on everyone.
Common interests aren't imposed. They are consensed, preferably by institutions of self government. That's the element missing in corporate governance.
Just who decides what the "common interest" is?
Necessarily, the public in consensous, if we believe in the liberal tradition. But ANYONE can articulate what they think the common interest IS, in a free society. When there are limits on what can be discussed, we have an imposition of limitation contrary to our liberal tradition. How much air-time is being given to a discussion of creating an energy structure devoid of nuclear and fossil fuel technologies? The imbalance is glaring.
If we follow libertarian policies to their logical conclusion, the massive shift in power from regulatory agencies to corporations would facilitate the creation of a fascist government structure. If the big bad corporations were to obtain all the freedom they could get through libertarian policies, why would they then turn around and give their new found unfettered power to government?
So libertarians can claim that they advocate "individual freedom" in their slogans, but practically, the "individuals" who receive the greatest benefit from their policies are corporations that are internally organized like fascist states.
Why are you so concerned about the INTERNAL organization of corporations?
The corporate governance issue is an example of self interest operating in a manner UNRESTRAINED by constitutional limits. That's the point I was making earlier.
Your point, at the very best, is unclear. What the hell is "corporate governace issue" and just how is it unrestrained?
Common interests aren't imposed. They are consensed, preferably by institutions of self government. That's the element missing in corporate governance.
You must be kidding. Just like my good friend crabs, you reveal your romantic notion of politics. As I told him it is based on a poor conception of human nature. A fundamental failing of liberals.
Just who decides what the "common interest" is?
Necessarily, the public in consensous, if we believe in the liberal tradition.
But of course we must ignore certain interests such as corporate interest because their interests aren't legitimate, right?
When there are limits on what can be discussed, we have an imposition of limitation contrary to our liberal tradition.
What limits? It is you liberals want to limit what can be discussed. You liberals demonize anyone with contrary views.
How much air-time is being given to a discussion of creating an energy structure devoid of nuclear and fossil fuel technologies?
Little because very few are interested. So you want to make everyone discuss this issue? How you gonna do that?
You might as well say that legal remedies can't be imposed at all, since they violate a person's right to be deprived of property without compensation. It's nonsensical.
What you learned in college most likely was left wing propaganda not constitutional history. Â Â
That is, unless I agree with your viewpoint, right?
I knew it wouldn't take long for you to write something that made less sense than what you wrote before!
Sorry I keep bumping up against your limited comprehensive abilities. Here is an easier version: If the government can pay subsidies to develop A, they can pay subsidies to develop B, and for the same reasons.
That comment without question shows your lack of understanding of the constitution. Â Â
Really? Explain what the constitution has to say about corporations.
I thought that I explained that there are alternatives to the rather extreme path of social revolution.
However, the arrogance of powerful authority figures in this country in recent times makes me think they need a reminder of where the sovereign will rests.
The new racism -- shall we call it "neoracism?" It's time for political writers and those in government to cast aside their timidity about recognizing and publicizing politically correct racism.
During the 90's, the conservatives held them up. Now the shoe is on the other foot. There is nothing new about that.
Yes there is a new tactic employed by liberals. If you were informed you would know that. But as we all know that is way to much to expect from you.
Both sides have to stop this. It's unworthy of the Senate. All they are supposed to consider is whether the person has the credentials and the history to be fair and follow the law, whether he/she agrees with the law or not. The judiciary is supposed to be independent of politics, and so should be the approval of judges.
That said, Bill, I was actually addressing the larger issue of politically correct racism, in which conservative minority public figures are disdained because they don't follow the Democratic party line. They are considered traitors to their races by the left if they disagree with the policies that the party deems is good for them, and how dare they take a different stance?
Take a look around some threads here at Peoplesforum.com that are frequented by Liberals, and you'll understand what "Hate Filled Liberal" means.
Two big wins yesterday for Republicans. Kentucky & Mississippi elected Republican Governors.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102211,00.html
It doesn't mean anything, because it is a ludicrous LIE.
Like I said, take a look for yourself.
Some of the best examples are from around the time of Wellstone's death.
Hatred?
I don't know about you, but I consider wishing someone dead as hatred.
But hey, I'm just weird that way.
Like I said, check it out yourself.
Show me where the tolerance and diversity is.
Don't believe me, take a look for yourself.
I did. I don't see it!
You're either a liar, or you're blind.
The only people who are actually "Hate-Filled", are the people who deliberately demonize whole groups, simply because they do not share their own philosophy, and that is UN-Patriotic, above all else.
That fits a lot of liberals to a T. Here look through this, fold: Taraka Das "The Star Chamber II: Fair & Balanced Since 2002!" 9/2/03 11:08pm
enjoy, fold. they are your kind of people.
Start with this: deborah grabien "Post rants and raves here..." 10/26/02 8:45pm
I've got hundreds of them, but that's all the work I'm going to do for you.
Shit, I just noticed... Their heading proudly spotlights their lack of tolerance or diversity.
New Hampshire residents donated $462 million, an average of about $2,400 per taxpayer, according to The Catalogue for Philanthropy. That looks especially stingy considering the state's relative wealth. Its average income of $51,000 is eighth-highest in the country, while its average giving ranks 48th.
By comparison, Mississippi, the most generous state, had an average income of $34,000 -- the lowest in the country. But residents still gave enough to match the national average of $3,500 a person.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102208,00.html
And which state is conservative? and there is more:
New Hampshire's New England neighbors -- Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut and Maine -- are all among the 20 least generous states.
By comparison, Bible Belt states like Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana and South Carolina are all among the top 10.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 6:30am
Fortunately, jethro, most liberals are non-violence advocates
who admire such figures as Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr,
and the Siloist Movement. And so do I. Sometimes I display my
frustration with the feckless opposition to the nazi
pigs who control the republican party, most of the media,
and most of the state and federal government these days
AS WELL AS some of the most powerful corporations in the
world, and sometimes that frustration is displayed in a
desire to overthrow the fascists and create a new order
that more closely resembles the liberal tradition of
the USA in the principles of rule of law, self determination,
guaranteed constitutional rights and social justice
under representative government.
I'm surprised that you didn't post other comments I have
made in the past advocating armed revolution. The rhetoric
I have used is meant to put the fear of GOD into the greedy,
exploitative, arrogant and criminal persons in this country
who think that our social contract is just meaningless
paper. My rhetoric is meant to serve notice to such people
what the consequences could be when the liberal traditions
are cast aside so cavalierly. Those who wish to turn to a
tradition that embraces "might makes right" ought to be on
notice that the Jeffersonian "right to revolution" is alive
and well.
Having said all that, I firmly believe that revolution
should indeed be a last resort. There are non-violent
ways to address many of the evils that bedevil our
liberal traditions today. However, I do not see anyone
getting out there making the case for change.
There are at least TWO areas which MUST be addressed.
A start must be made towards eliminating nuclear and
fossil fuel energy production, and replacing these methods
with hydrogen, biomass, solar, wind and other alternative
methods of energy production. A part of this change must be
the abandonment of the "industrial model" of energy distribution,
which requires huge plants supplying vast areas with high
voltage wires and stepdowns. The "internet model," which
utilizes networks of smaller power plants, locally
situated and controlled, is the future.
The other issue that needs to be addressed NOW is the
issue of corporate governance. Quite simply, there must
be an acknowledgement that corporations are being allowed to
structure their organizations in the same model that
was used by fascist states. There are a VARIETY of
evils that are related to this issue, including the
creation of extra-constitutional systems of power
that are ideologically opposed to republican government.
The answer to this is actually simpler than one might
think: republican corporations. Corporations that are
structured with an internal division of power similar
to republican governments will provide REAL CAPITALIST
COMPETITION for the nationalist-socialist organizations
that we call corporations today.
There are practical and positive steps that can be
made NOW to address both of these issues, and it should
be done. The consequence of NOT making such changes
will probably be a full scale social revolution. In
terms of historical analysis, the clock is ticking,
and every step taken to undermine or abolish our
liberal traditions takes us closer to that day.
The current government in Washington has an agenda
that will take the US closer to internal revolution.
So far the opposition party (if you can call them that)
is not advocating a program for positive and
non-violent change.
So just be aware, jethro, that if and when we must
grab our guns and fight for our freedom, I'll be
with those who are attempting to restore the
constitution and our liberal traditions. If you
would support the present government, you would
be on the other side.
Bill, for starters try Clarence Thomas and any of GW's minority candidates for judgeships. All have been vilified by democrats and minority "leaders" for betraying their races.
...most liberals are non-violence advocates who admire such figures as Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and the Siloist Movement. And so do I.
...if and when we must grab our guns and fight for our freedom, I'll be with those who are...
Which is it?
If you want to restore our country to the original Constitution, let's abolish the income tax, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, the FCC, and on and on.
Taraka Das 11/5/03 7:27am
Look at that Bill Fold, we have a visitor.
Which is it?
I noticed that too.
let's abolish the income tax, the Department of Education....
I'm no Libertarian, but I gotta agree with your general idea of too much Government.
Quad 4 PalinaJOE!
Muskwa 11/5/03 7:27am
Clarence Thomas et al are not "vilified for betraying their
races." They are opposed because they are ideological radicals
who show more allegiance to an anti-liberal ideology than
they do to our liberal constitution.
Muskwa 11/5/03 7:33am
You either believe in the progressive ideals of our liberal
constitution and accept that progress requires responsive
change, or you believe in an anti-progressive agenda,
supporting an abolishment of the institutions that have
been created in response to progressive change.
Anti-progressive agendas are most often embraced by
those who want to deny an expansion of the enfranchisement
of rights and opportunities to those who have not.
Decide for yourself if you are in support of our liberal
traditions or if you are in support of radicals who
reject our liberal traditions.
I support and advocate non-violence. I'm just letting
everyone know that armed revolution is no joke, and
a very real possibility. And I'm letting everyone know
what side I'm on. I reject the fascists. Clear enough,
or do you want me to sing "God Bless America?"
THX 1138 11/5/03 7:36am
So was Bill Clinton. That's why Gore spent a couple of
years combing through federal regulations to strip
away redundancy, contradictions and loopholes.
Dry boring work to be sure, but it coincided with a
robust expansion for small and mid-size businesses
who were at a disadvantage with regard to large
corporations, who have teams of lawyers and lobbyists
working ceaselessly to slant the regulations in their
favor.
The libertarians would throw out the baby with the
bathwater, abolishing regulation and allowing large
corporations to trample competitors with unfair
trade and labor practices, trample consumers with
liability-free disregard for public safety, trample
workers with unsafe working conditions and unfair
labor practices, trample the environment and the public
with poisonous dumping and pollution, and trample the
rights of the citizenry through bribery and corruption.
And you wouldn't even get to complain about it. Take them
to court! Say the libertarians! Here's a number. Your case
will be heard twenty years from now. Libertarians come in
two flavors: fascist or uninformed!
Fortunately, jethro, most liberals are non-violence advocates
who admire such figures as Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr,
and the Siloist Movement. Oh yes I forgot. Liberals wanted to bend over and let the Soviet Union give it to us.
And so do I. Sometimes I display my
frustration with the feckless opposition to the nazi pigs who control the republican party, most of the media,
and most of the state and federal government these days
AS WELL AS some of the most powerful corporations in the
world, and sometimes that frustration is displayed in a
desire to overthrow the fascists and create a new order
that more closely resembles the liberal tradition of
the USA in the principles of rule of law, self determination,
guaranteed constitutional rights and social justice
under representative government.
Fold can't you see the hate?
So just be aware, jethro, that if and when we must
grab our guns and fight for our freedom, I'll be
with those who are attempting to restore the
constitution and our liberal traditions. If you
would support the present government, you would
be on the other side.
You won't be fighting for the Constitution you will be fighting for your own view of what is right because you want to impose your will. You don't believe in freedom that is crystal clear. If you and your kind want a war I say bring it on because I have had about enough of your kind of stupidity.
Clarence Thomas et al are not "vilified for betraying their
races." They are opposed because they are ideological radicals
who show more allegiance to an anti-liberal ideology than
they do to our liberal constitution.
You have bought into a lie and you are incapable of seeing what is going on. Clarence Thomas is no radical. He understands what the Constitution was meant to do and wants to see that it is given effect. You, on the other hand, do not understand the concepts of "liberal" or constitutional government. It is ignorance like yours that is undermining freedom.
Libertarians come in two flavors: fascist or uninformed!
Talk about uninformed! The libertarian concept certainly has nothing in it that is fascist. The concepts, to thinking people, are virtually mutually exclusive.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 8:18am
I feel the same way about fascists, jethro.
I'm not the one supporting a president who
has borrowed his foreign policy from Adolph
Hitler and finds the Fourth Amendment to be
an unreasonable obstacle to the expansion
of federal power.
Your echo of Nazi propaganda is chilling. They
also claimed to be defenders of freedom. They also said
that "traitors" opposed to the nazi conspiracy to turn
the Weimar Republic into a totalitarian state
were enemies of "freedom."
Yes, I do oppose those who think they are
"free" to create a police state. I do oppose
those who want to overthrow the principle
of rule of law. And if necessary, I will
fight them. It is not those who embrace
liberty and progress that are interested
in asserting self-interest over common
interest. Hopefully, we still have some time
to change hearts and minds before revolution
becomes necessary.
I feel the same way about fascists, jethro.
I'm not the one supporting a president who
has borrowed his foreign policy from Adolph
Hitler and finds the Fourth Amendment to be
an unreasonable obstacle to the expansion
of federal power.
Unfortunately for America it is the above kind of nonsense that is becoming all to pervaise in the democrap party.
Your echo of Nazi propaganda is chilling. They
also claimed to be defenders of freedom.
I think you need to examine your own propaganda. Because your point of view is accurately described by your above statement.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 8:21am
Clarence Thomas, like many radical thinkers, want to assert
the 14th Amendment legal concepts about equality to
dismantle a legal remedy meant to address inequities
that grew up as a result of those 14th Amendment
concepts being violated and ignored for a hundred
years! And this view is amply demonstrated in his
tenure as head of the EEOC during the Reagan
Administration. I'm not the one with delusions
in this matter.
Please elaborate. How, exactly, do I "undermine freedom"
by exercising my right of free speech to advocate an
alternative to the fascist agenda and warning that
following the fascist agenda will lead to revolution?
I do oppose those who want to overthrow the principle
of rule of law.
You oppose the rule of law, dude.
It is not those who embrace
liberty and progress that are interested
in asserting self-interest over common
interest.
Those that proclaim to want to assert "common interest" do not embrace liberty and progress. They simply want to impose their will in spite of the Constitution.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 8:25am
It does for people capable of looking past slogans
and analyzing what results libertarian public policies
would have.
For example, I gave an exhaustive list of social
evils that would ensue if the radical deregulation
advocated by libertarians placed the country at
the mercy of large corporations who are internally
organized like fascist states. Just scroll back.
I haven't made that many posts today.
Clarence Thomas, like many radical thinkers, want to assert
the 14th Amendment legal concepts about equality to
dismantle a legal remedy meant to address inequities
that grew up as a result of those 14th Amendment
concepts being violated and ignored for a hundred
years!
Could you make any less sense? I don't think so but I'll be waiting for your next attempt.
How, exactly, do I "undermine freedom"
by exercising my right of free speech to advocate an
alternative to the fascist agenda and warning that
following the fascist agenda will lead to revolution?
Because you have no understanding of the constitution. Apparently you want to impose some utopian ideal despite the clear limitations of power set forth in the document.
It does for people capable of looking past slogans
and analyzing what results libertarian public policies
would have.
Clearly the libertarians want less government control over people which is quite different than fascism. Fascism is by definition lot of government control.
For example, I gave an exhaustive list of social
evils that would ensue if the radical deregulation
advocated by libertarians placed the country at
the mercy of large corporations who are internally
organized like fascist states.
Maybe social evils would occur maybe they wouldn't, but that is not fascism.
It appears, dude, what you are advocating IS fascism. In fact, it may be the only way to achieve the goals you apparently desire.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 8:46am
Not at all. I oppose tyranny.
Are you saying that self interest alone leads to
liberty and progress? If so, consider Saddam Hussein,
who had lots of "self interest."
Asserting self-interest over common interest is
a practice that leads to tyranny when applied
in law, business, and politics. Perhaps you
are worried about those who claim to want
an assertion of common interest over self
interest in the absolute sense? You should
be worried about them. They are fascists
who disguise themselves as advocates of the
people. Like Hitler and Stalin, for example.
Different propaganda, same agenda. And if
you study these case examples and apply
what you learn to events in the US, then
I don't know how you aren't alarmed.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 8:51am
Try this: Clarence Thomas opposes affirmative action,
which was meant to be a legal remedy to the persistent
institutional violations of the 14th Amendment. Why does
he oppose it? He claims that affirmative action violates
the 14th Amendment! Is that more clear?
You are mistaken. I was a political science major
in college, and I have been studying political theory
for 27 years, including intensive study of the constitution.
I'm a poli sci buff.
Impose? Despite? Nope. You misread me. The same
encouragements by the political structure that led
to nuclear and fossil fuel infrastructure can
be applied to create a different infrastructure.
Also, the corporate governance issue contradicts
the constitution. It is yet another anomaly that
stands in the way of realizing the progressive
ideals of the constitution. And addressing it doesn't
require changing the constitution.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 8:55am
Fascism calls for a conflation of corporate and government
leadership. Take a look at the government structures
of Hitler's and Mussolini's governments.
If we follow libertarian policies to their logical
conclusion, the massive shift in power from regulatory
agencies to corporations would facilitate the creation
of a fascist government structure. Remember, regulatory
agencies exist in order to make corporations (for the most
part) accountable to a government of elected leaders.
So libertarians can claim that they advocate "individual
freedom" in their slogans, but practically, the "individuals"
who receive the greatest benefit from their policies are
corporations that are internally organized like fascist
states.
So if you support them, you are either uninformed about
the consequences of their policies, or you are in favor
of those consequences.
See what I mean, Bill Fold?
I told ya, check it out for yourself.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 8:57am
Not at all. I'm a liberal. I'm a constitutionalist.
As I explained in my previous post, there are
constitutional means to acheive the positive
agenda I advocate. It DOES mean less power
for some corporate elites. But defending
their power and privilidge in opposition
to a reasonable progressive change is akin
to opposing civil rights for blacks because
white supremacists might lose some power.
there are constitutional means to acheive the positive agenda I advocate.
But if I don't get what I want, by God I'll kill you!!!
So just be aware, jethro, that if and when we must grab our guns and fight for our freedom, I'll be with those who are attempting to restore the constitution and our liberal traditions. If you would support the present government, you would be on the other side.
THX 1138 11/5/03 9:31am
I take it that you oppose social revolution under any circumstances?
I take it that you oppose social revolution under any circumstances?
No, I oppose you.
Know what's ironic about this?
If you Liberals have your way, you won't have any guns to kill us with.
Asserting self-interest over common interest is
a practice that leads to tyranny when applied
in law, business, and politics.
Self interest constrained by constituional government works just fine. That is not what you want. What you want is the "common interest" imposed on everyone. Just who decides what the "common interest" is?
THX 1138 11/5/03 9:40am
It may surprise you to learn that I am an ardent
defender of the Second Amendment.
Or...maybe not! :^D
Me? Personally? So you think Taraka Das
is an ample enough target for social revolution,
eh? Never mind the multi-billion dollar
global deathculture based on oil, uranium,
gold, diamonds, rare earths and weapons
for the wars over them! This Taraka Das
must be stamped out! Citizens to arms!
Try this: Clarence Thomas opposes affirmative action,
which was meant to be a legal remedy to the persistent
institutional violations of the 14th Amendment. Why does
he oppose it? He claims that affirmative action violates
the 14th Amendment! Is that more clear?
Affirmative action does violate the 14th amendment. It couldn't be any more clear.
you have no understanding of the constitution.
You are mistaken. I was a political science major
in college, and I have been studying political theory
for 27 years, including intensive study of the constitution.
I'm a poli sci buff.
What you learned in college most likely was left wing propaganda not constitutional history. I know that because all my college offered was left wing propaganda. I had one professor that was honest enough to say he was a socialist.
Apparently you want to impose some utopian ideal despite the clear limitations of power set forth in the document.
Impose? Despite? Nope. You misread me. The same
encouragements by the political structure that led
to nuclear and fossil fuel infrastructure can
be applied to create a different infrastructure.
I knew it wouldn't take long for you to write something that made less sense than what you wrote before!
Also, the corporate governance issue contradicts
the constitution. It is yet another anomaly that
stands in the way of realizing the progressive
ideals of the constitution.
That comment without question shows your lack of understanding of the constitution.
Self interest constrained by constituional government works just fine.
The corporate governance issue is an example of
self interest operating in a manner UNRESTRAINED
by constitutional limits. That's the point I was
making earlier.
Common interests aren't imposed. They are consensed,
preferably by institutions of self government. That's
the element missing in corporate governance.
Necessarily, the public in consensous, if we believe
in the liberal tradition. But ANYONE can articulate
what they think the common interest IS, in a free
society. When there are limits on what can be discussed,
we have an imposition of limitation contrary to our
liberal tradition. How much air-time is being given
to a discussion of creating an energy structure
devoid of nuclear and fossil fuel technologies?
The imbalance is glaring.
If we follow libertarian policies to their logical
conclusion, the massive shift in power from regulatory
agencies to corporations would facilitate the creation
of a fascist government structure. If the big bad corporations were to obtain all the freedom they could get through libertarian policies, why would they then turn around and give their new found unfettered power to government?
So libertarians can claim that they advocate "individual
freedom" in their slogans, but practically, the "individuals"
who receive the greatest benefit from their policies are
corporations that are internally organized like fascist
states.
Why are you so concerned about the INTERNAL organization of corporations?
It may surprise you to learn that I am an ardent defender of the Second Amendment.
That surprises the hell out of me.
Me? Personally?
Not you personally, but those with your mentality. It's not that you don't have valid points, you just seem to take everything to the extreme.
The corporate governance issue is an example of
self interest operating in a manner UNRESTRAINED
by constitutional limits. That's the point I was
making earlier.
Your point, at the very best, is unclear. What the hell is "corporate governace issue" and just how is it unrestrained?
Common interests aren't imposed. They are consensed,
preferably by institutions of self government. That's
the element missing in corporate governance.
You must be kidding. Just like my good friend crabs, you reveal your romantic notion of politics. As I told him it is based on a poor conception of human nature. A fundamental failing of liberals.
Just who decides what the "common interest" is?
Necessarily, the public in consensous, if we believe
in the liberal tradition.
But of course we must ignore certain interests such as corporate interest because their interests aren't legitimate, right?
When there are limits on what can be discussed,
we have an imposition of limitation contrary to our
liberal tradition.
What limits? It is you liberals want to limit what can be discussed. You liberals demonize anyone with contrary views.
How much air-time is being given
to a discussion of creating an energy structure
devoid of nuclear and fossil fuel technologies?
Little because very few are interested. So you want to make everyone discuss this issue? How you gonna do that?
jethro bodine 11/5/03 9:52am
You might as well say that legal remedies can't be
imposed at all, since they violate a person's right
to be deprived of property without compensation.
It's nonsensical.
That is, unless I agree with your viewpoint, right?
Sorry I keep bumping up against your limited
comprehensive abilities. Here is an easier
version: If the government can pay subsidies
to develop A, they can pay subsidies to develop
B, and for the same reasons.
Really? Explain what the constitution has to say
about corporations.
THX 1138 11/5/03 10:05am
heh! Now I'msurprised!
I thought that I explained that there are
alternatives to the rather extreme path
of social revolution.
However, the arrogance of powerful authority
figures in this country in recent times
makes me think they need a reminder of
where the sovereign will rests.