ANOTHER ROUGH WEEK FOR AMERICAN LIBERALISM/SOCIALISM

[angelofdeath]

supporting [/url]articles.

 

maybe so.

but you did discredit the constitution as being legitimate because ONE guy wrote it that owned slaves.

(do you really still believe only one guy wrote it? i thought even a marxist college professor would tell you that it was a collaborative effort)

[angelofdeath]

I'm not entering in to the weathermen discussion as I'm not interested in doing the research. I'm just saying that if one wants to dig up skeletons in one national leader's closet you may as well generalise it across the board geographically, ideologically and historically because that's the way power has worked since day dot.

 

agreed on this.

however because every other skeleton wasnt raised up in the discussion doesnt discredit the one being talked about.

just sayin'

 

i dont really sympathize with ayers/weather underground to much. but i do know that US government policies all have 'blow back.' from carl drega being harrassed by zoning/environmental authorities for years driving him nuts enough to have a shoot out with the same people agitating him, to the vietnam protesters/weather underground to timothy mcveigh's response to waco by blowing up the building that planned the raid (if you believe the official story that is)......

 

the government creates a lot of resentment in people, and they should fully expect blow back to come around. not that it is all justified. but at least understand where people are coming from. which is why if we had a small government doing only enumerated duties defined in the constitution or the articles of confederation in place forbidding federal police power and taxation, this stuff would not be happening.

[angelofdeath]

We got on this whole debate because AOW brought up the point that a government instated public health option is unconstitutional. All i said was "well the constitution also says all men are created equal but jefferson owned slaves." Which in the context of this debate meant "how the fuck are you going to argue what that constituion said about public health?"

 

is AOW referring to me?

as i previously stated, the constitution doesnt say all men are created equal. the declaration of independence does. the constitution is the governing document of the US. the declaration of independence declared independence from unjust and tyrannical powers and listed the reasons why we seceded.

 

constitutionality doesnt mean anything today. you are right. we havent declared war since ww2. are we better off not declaring war? or should we follow the constitution and declare wars? should we follow the constitution and recognize free speech rights or should we throw your ass in a military brig and throw away the key without habeus corpus rights, trial by jury rights etc

 

one of these days if true totalitarianism comes to the US, you will be begging for that constitution.

[angelofdeath]

Obamacare is supported by insurance companies and big pharma. It's obviously bad if those two entities support it. They will line their pockets with more of our money and totally wipe out

the middle class.

 

but casek obama is a prole. he is one of the people. he is against all the corporations that the government has given their power too... duh.

[angelofdeath]

Maybe the only knowledgeable person...I'm sure you'll have plenty of people to endlessly argue with.

 

I wasn't surprised when Obama won, nor was I surprised when he couldn't deliver on some of the planks of his campaign and I'm definitely not surprised by the spreading conservative backlash. That's how things work here...nobody feels happy or secure besides the obscenely wealthy, and the gap between the haves and the have-nots is beginning to look like the Grand Canyon.

 

If people weren't so faked out/lulled into indifference by consumer culture/mass media and the feeling that "you can't win," we'd be perfectly primed for a second American revolution motivated by economic and class differences....the only hindrance being the tendency of Americans to get swoll about the principles the US was founded on yet lack the conviction to sacrifice any aspect of their lifestyle, much less actually go fight in the streets for them. Therefore, I view most of the talk about liberalism/socialism/conservatism and people using their version of history in Crossfire as being a sample of what most people are thinking right now...which is why I don't give 90% of what is said here too much credence. (Sorry guys, just being honest.)

 

It's a stacked deck anyway. The Man keeps moving the line back, to the point that what seemed totalitarian fifty years ago makes perfect sense now because the media tells you that it's reasonable to value security over freedom...the only way left to be free in this society is to be an outlaw, which has its strengths and weaknesses. That doesn't mean you have to fuck anyone over or be an asshole criminal, it just means opting out of playing a game where the rules are arbitrary...money and connections (and failing that, creativity and discretion) can get you out of almost any predicament imaginable.

 

And that's what it all comes down to, really...people lack imagination as far as what's possible, and they don't seem to miss it. They want to believe that they're in the driver's seat, but they aren't really paying attention to what's going on.

 

 

i know ideologically we arent always on the same page on every issue, but....

there is nothing in here i can really disagree with.

 

men without backbones. very few stand up to totalitarianism. most value wealth more than liberty.

 

you are 100% correct. 50 years ago all of this stuff going on today would be thought of as total tyranny. now we all fully embrace it and think there is no other way.

 

i dont talk about a lot personal things on here. im sure some people could figure out why

[Soup]

maybe so.

but you did discredit the constitution as being legitimate because ONE guy wrote it that owned slaves.

(do you really still believe only one guy wrote it? i thought even a marxist college professor would tell you that it was a collaborative effort)

 

 

Angel neither I nor you should be here to just play the devil's advocate against one another's opinions, so please, do me the service that I've done you and try to read everything I've written in its entirety, as well as understand it for what it really means. Also I'm asking you to think bigger than "marxist this" and "neoconservative that." What it sounds like to me is you being dismissive, basically you're calling them crazy, which robs them of their humanity and denies them their struggle as human beings.

 

First of all, let me just say for the umpteenth time that I am not discrediting the value of the constitution to civilrights movements throughout the history of America and even other countries. Nor am I discrediting the work that men like Thomas Jefferson put in. Im just saying Jefferson didnt put in that much.

 

Secondly, everybody owned slaves. Every elitist, every politician, everyone of political or social power at that time owned them. The whitehouse was built by slaves and the statue crowning it is in fact of a slave. So was much of newyork and every city on the east coast. Jefferson owned hundreds and freed two. Those two were his illegitimate children he had out of wedlock, so Jefferson isnt my favorite person in the world either-- and not because he couldnt resist brown sugar, but because he denied to be those kids' father and didnt have the balls to free his mistress from slavery while at the same time preaching equality for all. "For all" is a moot term as well since he openly refused to support abolitionist movements. To the point: everyone involved in the writing of the constitution owned slaves with no intention of abolishing it.

 

Third, Jame Madison is in fact considered the "father of the constitution." The constitution has been written and rewritten so many fucking times that the original version of "All men have certain inalienable rights" basically said "Slave owners will recieve as many as votes as 3 votes for every 5 slaves they own." So even then if you were rich you controlled the government. In places like Virginia the state constitution apportioned voting districts by population, and the count included slaves even though slaves could not vote. In short, all white men weren't equal at the ballots, and with all of west virginia being non slave-owning white people, the then state representative of Virginia, James Madison, sought to rewrite the US constitution so that poor white men had as much of a vote as rich white slave owners, hence the modern version of the state constitution.

[angelofdeath]

First of all, let me just say for the umpteenth time that I am not discrediting the value of the constitution to civilrights movements throughout the history of America and even other countries. Nor am I discrediting the work that men like Thomas Jefferson put in. Im just saying Jefferson didnt put in that much.

 

if you are referring to actual work on the constitution, you are correct he didnt have anything at all to do with it. it is my understanding he was in france during the entire debate.

 

Third, Jame Madison is in fact considered the "father of the constitution." The constitution has been written and rewritten so many fucking times that the original version of "All men have certain inalienable rights" basically said "Slave owners will recieve as many as votes as 3 votes for every 5 slaves they own." So even then if you were rich you controlled the government. In places like Virginia the state constitution apportioned voting districts by population, and the count included slaves even though slaves could not vote. In short, all white men weren't equal at the ballots, and with all of west virginia being non slave-owning white people, the then state representative of Virginia, James Madison, sought to rewrite the US constitution so that poor white men had as much of a vote as rich white slave owners, hence the modern version of the state constitution.

 

there is much to say about james madison being the father of the constitution. many scholars have addressed his role in its construction and concluded that it wasnt as big as previously thought.

 

but i'll point out once again, 'all men have certain inalienable rights' is not written in the constitution it was is part of the declaration of independence.

 

the constitutions dictates that the states set up voting requirements.

most states eventually set rules that property owners are only allowed to vote. i dont agree with slavery one bit and think any person regardless of race color or creed could vote. the idea behind property owners voting was more or less that 'tax payers' voted, not tax consumers. if only tax payers could vote today there would be conflict of interest like today where welfare recipients can simply vote themselves more money out of the pockets of the rich. the US was originally a republic, not a democracy. rights are supposed to be protected by a republican government. but with our democratic government today, people can literally vote away the rights of others.

[Decyferon]

I don't think people should be discrediting the Constitution, to me it is like the bible, it is something that is there to offer guidelines but gived no definitive truth. I am sorry but any document that was written so long ago is not going to be completely relevant in the modern times we live in.

 

As for the comments about Obama, yea obviously he couldn't keep all the promises he made, did anyone actually think he would? It is impossible in the first year of office to turn round everything that was done before you, however he was surely the better choice of candidates when it came to the election in the US.

 

As for the all men are created equal, yea in theory that is correct, in practise it isn't. Someone born into a poor gghetto background is not born equal to a white rich child - simple as that. The poor ghetto kid will not have healthcare, access to a great education, financial support for his family to help them survive and better themselves, yea I admit his parents could work 3 jobs to make ends meet and send him to school, but he is not equal to the rich white kid. America has a huge disproportion between it's citizens and to think that every man is equal in the world e live in is laughable in my eyes.

 

As for health insurance, to me that is disgusting, who gives a shit if you have pre existing conditions, you shouldnt have to pay more, everyone should contribute to a universal healthcare system that doesn't discriminate against you if you have a history of heart disease. It makes me laugh that the conservatives in America don't want it when they are the ones that can afford private healthcare. Ask the poor people who need healthcare and sure they are for it.

 

Then again I am some dirty Brit who doesn't know enough about America to really contribute anymore lol half the people you guys mention I haven't heard of and the constitution really means nothing to me, I know Americans love it for some reason but as I said before I hold it on equal terms to the bible just a document nothing important just some guidelines and not hte written rule of life.

[Mainframe]

the US would have the 'best' healthcare system in the world if we had a free market healthcare system instead of the fascist one we have now.

 

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Wait Brock Lesnar supports a free market system?

 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/573877_5

[lord_casek]

As for the all men are created equal, yea in theory that is correct, in practise it isn't. Someone born into a poor gghetto background is not born equal to a white rich child - simple as that. The poor ghetto kid will not have healthcare, access to a great education, financial support for his family to help them survive and better themselves, yea I admit his parents could work 3 jobs to make ends meet and send him to school, but he is not equal to the rich white kid. America has a huge disproportion between it's citizens and to think that every man is equal in the world e live in is laughable in my eyes.

 

 

"All men are created equally" means that we all have basic rights no matter where we live

in this world, no matter what conditions, etc. We all have the right to speak our minds, defend ourselves, and be safe and secure in our persons and possessions.

 

Whether or not we fight for those rights and topple those who would rule under tyranny is

another thing.

 

But do you not agree that whether we are black, white, purple, rich, poor, etc. that we have these rights no matter what country, state, etc we are born into?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

The whole men are created equal thing has nothing to do with material possessions.

[lord_casek]

The whole men are created equal thing has nothing to do with material possessions.

 

 

Exactly.

[angelofdeath]

yeah.

equality before the law. the pursuit of happiness or exercising your rights to do whatever you want so long as you dont infringe on someone else's. not equality of outcome, income, results, abilities, intellegence, etc.

this egalitarianism is nothing more than a revolt against nature.

 

a mentally retarded person cannot win the worlds smartest man contest anymore than a 400 lb man can win foot races against sprint atheletes or a guy who has never heard the word football cannot coach alabama the way bear bryant did.

[christo-f]

Have a question for AOD.

 

If you have a state where government only covers property rights and murder (would assume that environmental protection may be an issue as well) and there are no restrictions on people's freedom to own arms. Thinking that means large calibre weapons, explosive material, rocket and ballistics propelled missiles (to a certain size otherwise one could target a neighbouring state). What methods would you see the government using to enforce the law, say arresting some one for murder or fraud/breach of contract, firing an RPG into the neighbour's house when the society/perpetrators are so well armed? Especially if there were to be a criminal organisation to be confronted?

[angelofdeath]

american society is already well armed. what are they doing now? there are numerous people that own class III weapons, destructive devices, etc. already. both legally through the NFA process and illegally. im not well versed in what the authorities encounter with large crime syndicates that are armed with illegal and/or 'crazy' weapons.

 

ironically its usually the people with the legally owned crazy weapons that are obviously the most stand up law abiding types to be found.

[christo-f]

There are not many people out there with mortars, RPGs, land mines, grenades and so on that the law enforcement deal with them on a regular basis. However if the restrictions on anyone owning what they wanted were lifted do you think it would become much more common to find RPGs, large calibre weapons and explosive devices throughout society?

 

But if you'd like an example of how well armed (or those imagined to be) people are dealt with by law enforcement take a look at the Waco siege for starters. The only answer to the question is through infiltration and/or greater firepower.

 

In Australia when the police are targeting anyone with military training they will call in the special operations group. If they are dealing with organised groups that possibly have automatic weapons and explosive devices the army is called in. Superior power and training/experience.

[angelofdeath]

first off... waco. those people never were found guilty of any crime nor did the feds serve any warrant without firing first. would you rather have people just being killed by law enforcement when under attack from them unjustly?

 

that aside.

 

mortars are not 'common,' but they are held in numbers by NFA license holders.

the swiss are issued full auto weapons, plastic explosives, rpg's and i've even heard it rumored some have APC or tanks on their property and hold these in their homes. how do law enforcement handle these situations there? im not really sure, but i never hear of mass murders with rpgs and semtex from the swiss.

 

im not really scared of the boogeymen that are 'large caliber weapons, grenades or rpg's' any more than i im scared of a guy slicing me with a kitchen knife. fire power doesnt mean much in reality in the situations you are talking about. i think to much concern is placed on it.

anyone can mix together common house hold chemicals to create a device that could blow up a neighborhood. i dont think legality has to much to do with the actions of people. people are going to do dumb shit no matter what.

 

but i'll concede if there is a legitimate threat and the police are up holding just and constitutional laws, following their oaths and their moral conscience, and a proper warrant is issued with proper probable cause for arrest or search of the property in question, then they have to do what they have to do. however mass murdering 80 people to serve a warrant for one person in the branch davidian compound even after invitations in previous encounters were given.... is NOT justified.

 

neither waco nor ruby ridge fit those criteria i just laid out.

[christo-f]

first off... waco. those people never were found guilty of any crime nor did the feds serve any warrant without firing first. would you rather have people just being killed by law enforcement when under attack from them unjustly?

Haha, dude, WTF??!! All I did was say that this is how law is enforced when they believe they are coming up against serious firepower. Put it back in your pants, I wasn't passing any judgement on anyone, just pointing out tactics employed in particular situations.

 

mortars are not 'common,' but they are held in numbers by NFA license holders.

the swiss are issued full auto weapons, plastic explosives, rpg's and i've even heard it rumored some have APC or tanks on their property and hold these in their homes. how do law enforcement handle these situations there? im not really sure, but i never hear of mass murders with rpgs and semtex from the swiss.

You're going to have to show me some kind of reliable documentation that they have anything more than rifles at home.

 

 

 

but i'll concede if there is a legitimate threat and the police are up holding just and constitutional laws, following their oaths and their moral conscience, and a proper warrant is issued with proper probable cause for arrest or search of the property in question, then they have to do what they have to do. however mass murdering 80 people to serve a warrant for one person in the branch davidian compound even after invitations in previous encounters were given.... is NOT justified.

 

neither waco nor ruby ridge fit those criteria i just laid out.

 

Haha, dude, you are really coming off a little obsessive and abnormal here. All I had to do was mention the "W" word and look at you go off like a frog in a sock!!

 

Go back and look at how neutral I was when I mentioned Waco and then take a look at your reaction.

[angelofdeath]

well, with all due respect, you cant expect me to equate a waco situation with a constitutional and legitimate police stand off. i cant look at things from a mere tactical stand point if the justifications just arent there. sorry.

 

you were more or less neutral, but i had to make totally clear that you werent equating waco with a legitimate, lawful, constitutional and moral police confrontation.

 

the tank/apc rumor was repeated on a few blogs over the years. rpg's were mentioned in the book 'target switzerland' by stephen halbrook. obviously rpgs are not issue in the same quantity as sig 550's.

however, sig 550's should constitute 'big fire power' for the discussion at hand.

[christo-f]

Jesus AOD, read what is on the screen mate.

 

All I said is that if you want to see what the law does when they are or when they think they are coming up against firepower look at Waco. I'm not asking anyone to equate shit with shit nor am I implying anything at all! I'm just using an example of how the law will attempt to use superior fire power to carry out their goals.

 

You're the one who's banging on about justice and morality dude. Now, come back to the conversation that is actually being had because you're going off in to ranting and raving lala land.

 

Talk about obsessed!!

[Decyferon]

"All men are created equally" means that we all have basic rights no matter where we live

in this world, no matter what conditions, etc. We all have the right to speak our minds, defend ourselves, and be safe and secure in our persons and possessions.

 

Whether or not we fight for those rights and topple those who would rule under tyranny is

another thing.

 

But do you not agree that whether we are black, white, purple, rich, poor, etc. that we have these rights no matter what country, state, etc we are born into?

 

No I don't believe that whether we are black, white or purple no matter what country you are from are equal. I wish we were, I wish every person were equal.

 

Just look at the Caste system in India, people are born into a caste that creates them as unequal to higher castes. The same could have been said of apartheid times in South Africa, blacks were not born equal. People are born into inequality due to race and prejudices on a daily basis around the world.

 

While in the US you may have the right to free speech etc, I don't believe you are born on a equal standing, nothing to do with material possessions, but prejudices etc creates inequalities.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

christo-f---

 

aod told you everything you asked bro...why are you getting all defensive about his "obsessive" "ranting and raving"? Hes merely clarifying that in the miniscule possibility you proposed that law enforcement might be in a situation where they face possible heavy firepower/ individuals with a military background, waco is not a good example of how it would go down.

Your original question asked AOD what methods he thinks the govt. would use if put in a similar situation, then used waco as an example to clarify the type of heavy weaponary we are terming here. AOD said he didnt know how law enforcement would handle a similar situation, because there HAS NEVER BEEN ONE in America. Waco, as he mentioned, was NOT a normal police situation that would "commonly" happen on the streets, so he cant give you an idea based on precedent.

 

The LA bank robbery/shootout in the early '90's might be a better example to work with. The robbers had fully auto ak47s, semi auto pistols, body armor(which is illegal, btw), mad amounts of ammo, and went on a rampage. The police, with the absence of such firepower, handled it how they were trained to handle it. They immediately went to local gun stores and grabbed what assault weapons were available(mostly ar15's and other semiauto civilian versions of assault weapons), cleared the area for blocks of civilians, set a perimeter, then isolated and eliminated the threat.

 

But for a straight up answer from me(if you care), is that indeed the chances of people going out and buying $5000 machine guns and $12000 rpgs if restrictive laws were revoked is slim to none. Sure you would have some, very very isolated incidents of abuse by htose who did happen to purchase these weapons, and in these cases i think law enforcement would deal with it based on itellegence.

 

if theres 20 guys and an approximate number of pimped out weapons and explosives, they would most likely call in fed related team(such as the SEALs, Delta, local Marine Recon force in the area, etc.) that trains for that type of situation, because thats BIG. They would most likely clear the area and use what methods were necessary to neutralize the threat.

If theres 5 guys with a smaller amount, but a plethora of heavy arms, they would use the local SWAT team to deal with it.

 

...or just watch what they do in the "numerous" occasions Hollywood depicts. Those are as close as any of the methods law enforcement would use in real life, I'm assuming..

[lord_casek]

No I don't believe that whether we are black, white or purple no matter what country you are from are equal. I wish we were, I wish every person were equal.

 

Just look at the Caste system in India, people are born into a caste that creates them as unequal to higher castes. The same could have been said of apartheid times in South Africa, blacks were not born equal. People are born into inequality due to race and prejudices on a daily basis around the world.

 

While in the US you may have the right to free speech etc, I don't believe you are born on a equal standing, nothing to do with material possessions, but prejudices etc creates inequalities.

 

 

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

[Decyferon]

Yea that is all good in theory, as is much of the stuff discussed in Crossfire however in the practical realities of the world we live in it doesn't work that way, people are not born equal, they are not born with the same rights, some countries people do not have the right to free speech, they do not have the right to education.

 

The laws of nature do not govern the way we live, the rule of law in the country we are from does.

[lord_casek]

Yea that is all good in theory, as is much of the stuff discussed in Crossfire however in the practical realities of the world we live in it doesn't work that way, people are not born equal, they are not born with the same rights, some countries people do not have the right to free speech, they do not have the right to education.

 

The laws of nature do not govern the way we live, the rule of law in the country we are from does.

 

 

Don't you see what I'm saying? We're all born with those rights no matter where we are born.

Whether we fight to take them from men who would have us believe that they are our rulers is another thing.

 

Remember why those Brits left and came to the new land? Remember why the first Americans fought the king?

[Decyferon]

Yea I do understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is that in an ideal world what you are saying is completely right, OK in lots of western countries like the ones we are priviledged to live in then yea we have those rights, try comparing that to people suffering genocide in places like Rwanda, the caste system in india, they dont have a voice and if they stood up for these natural rights they are slaughtered.

[angelofdeath]

i think you are confusing a few things.

 

just because all people are born with natural rights doesnt mean that governments or other people arent taking them away.

 

we are talking about negative rights... freedom of speech, religion, basically the ability to do anything you want to do as long as you dont mess with anyone elses life or property.

 

positive rights like free healthcare and free education are not 'rights' they are simply privileges or wealth redistribution. not rights

[Decyferon]

yea but that is not applicable in the world we live in, it is that simple. You are talking about an ideological viewpoint that doesn't have any real bearing in the real world we live in. People are downtrodden and abused all around the world from the second they are born, you try telling them they have these rights and they will laugh in your face.

 

I only think of how things are in the real world, it is like my view point on guns, I know it has no bearing in real life because there is nothing that can be done about them so nothing will happen, I could take that you have the right to bear arms to mean you have the right to defend yourself, it has nothing to do with your rights to own a gun, therefore guns can be illegal. (not that I want to get in the gun debate arena again lol I have retired from that because it is my ideological view and will not make a damn difference in the real world)

 

All of these rights we discuss so freely because we live in western countries are not so applicable around the world.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

Decyferon-

 

true, but that is not our as western country residents fault(not that you were implying it is), its just legitimately, EVERYONE (meaning every human being) in the world is born with the natural law rights, whether its rwanda or canada. But you are right when you say those rights are taken away from them by others in their country after birth. America is differant because we said 'eff that' and took the risk of dying by revolting against the king of England.

 

People in other countries have no right to complain if they do not have the same rights we have, because they have not been smart enough to organize and take the risk of dying and "re-earning" those rights from the people in power in their countries.