PDA

View Full Version : Kerry has a plan!



johnwk
July 4th, 2004, 08:50 PM
Kerry has the nerve to advertise to the American People that he has a plan to reduce government paperwork so people on the public dole can get their medical needs attended to, when it was Kerry, the kingpin socialist himself, who helped to created the massive paper work via his presence in the U.S. Senate!

Freedom loving Americans know Kerry has a plan, just as our socialist President has a plan…tighten the noose of socialism around the American People’s neck and make them so dependent upon government hands outs that it is impossible for them to return to the freedom loving nation America once was.

Fact is, both Bush and Kerry are bribing the American People with their own tax dollars so one or the other will remain in power to assist in the ongoing plundering of money from the public treasury into the pockets of their buds, both domestic and international.

Witness the latest U.N. American taxpayer money laundering operation by which billions of dollars taxed away from poor working Americans have been funneled from the U.S. Treasury into hands of the United Nation, and then into the pockets of those claiming to help the poor and underprivileged.

And what about the billions taxed from poor working people in America, that have been funneled right under the American Peoples’ noses from the Department of Education (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20010531.shtml) into the pockets of those pretending to be concerned about the education of America’s children?

The truth is, the servant has become the master over those who have created a servant and it has been accomplished under the guise of “democracy“.

Wake up America___ the bread and circus game goes on, and on, and on……

JWK,
ACRS

’’A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.’’- Alexander Tyler, The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic 1748-1813

MidnightRambler
July 5th, 2004, 02:18 AM
bush is a fasicst, not a socialist, and kerry is neither.

so what's your point?

ZippyTheChimp
July 5th, 2004, 06:59 AM
Not that I disagree with much of what has been described, but I am always amused by phrases like "the freedom loving nation America once was."

It prods us to look at the past through the lens of our own nostalgia. I once found an old paycheck stub from my youth. City tax withholding was on the order of $1.00, but aside from some annoying aches and pains, I think my life is better now.

What freedom loving era should we return to? Should it be the America of segregation, or of unregulated business, or unchecked pollution?

johnwk
July 5th, 2004, 08:05 PM
What freedom loving era should we return to? Should it be the America of segregation, or of unregulated business, or unchecked pollution?



Zippy, sorry for not getting back to you sooner but I am very, very busy these days.


Should it be the America of segregation?

When the force of government is permitted to be used to enact laws based upon race, I would say that is not a freedom loving society. Likewise, when the force of government is used to interfere with the inalienable right of individuals to mutually agree in their contracts and association with each other, that too would not be a freedom loving society.

or of unregulated business

In a freedom loving society individuals have an inalienable right to engage in business and trade. It is also self-evident, however, that a freedom loving society may justifiably impose reasonable restrictions and regulations upon business and trade to insure the safety of the surrounding community and that it is not put in danger by such business or trade, or that patrons of such business or trade are not, without their knowing and willing consent, exposed to hidden dangers to their health and safety, or that fraud is perpetrated upon them. It should also be noted that when such regulations are adopted, they may not be imposed in a discriminatory fashion, nor in excess to relieve the actual threat to the surrounding community.

New York’s smoking ban, which affects privately owned businesses and property, does not meet the above criteria and has obviously been enacted, not for the health and safety of the surrounding community of the affected business establishments, or the community in general, but rather, has been enacted for the benefit of an intolerant group which chooses to use the force of government to control the property of others for their own personal comfort and enjoyment, and as such, is a threat to a freedom loving society.

Likewise, when the force of government is used to take the property of one individual with the intention to transfer that property to another individual for a profit making venture, such as was accomplished by The New York Times fascists, I would say that too is not an acceptable practice in a freedom loving society

unchecked pollution

See above___ regulation of business.

Sincerely,

JWK

Ninjahedge
July 6th, 2004, 02:47 PM
Um, your name is at the top. Unless you are writing in response to everyone you pissed off at other sites/mail rings, we really do not need a signature.

It seems very snooty and pompous.

Sincerely,

Your loving admirer,

me.


;)

Edward
July 6th, 2004, 06:04 PM
I think we should establish minimum levels for our discussions, so that when a thread deteriorates below these levels, it is closed or deleted.

In my opinion, calling either Bush or New York Times fascist makes it impossible to continue discussion in any meaningful way.

johnwk
July 6th, 2004, 08:12 PM
I think we should establish minimum levels for our discussions, so that when a thread deteriorates below these levels, it is closed or deleted.

In my opinion, calling either Bush or New York Times fascist makes it impossible to continue discussion in any meaningful way.


Sorry you have a problem with people using descriptive words such as fascism (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0818306.html). Fact is, the action of the state in taking an individual’s property and transferring that property to another for a profit making propaganda venture, or any other profit making venture, because the state believes that property will be better used and promotes the state‘s interest, is pretty much within the definition of fascism, and apparently supported by The New York Times which gained access to another’s property via the power of the state, and in so doing, aided in the violation of a fundamental inalienable right, the right of property ownership and its use.

JWK

ZippyTheChimp
July 6th, 2004, 09:01 PM
When the force of government is permitted to be used to enact laws based upon race, I would say that is not a freedom loving society.
And what would have been your alternative? Allow the private sector to just work it out?

Yeah, why can't we all just get along.

You seem to regard the government as some other species we have engaged, when obviously, they are us. Reduce the power of the govenment, and the bad behavior gets transferred to the private sector.

You still haven't told us about this era when America was so freedom loving.

Edward
July 6th, 2004, 09:39 PM
johnwk, I have a problem with people using the word "fascism" indiscriminately to label something they donít like. Any meaningful discussion is based on a common acceptance of definitions, so please spare us your creative interpretations.

MidnightRambler
July 6th, 2004, 11:21 PM
I used the word fascist in the exact same sense that Mussolini used it: a militaristic state in which government serves the corporations, and corporations serve the government.

Edward
July 6th, 2004, 11:41 PM
You used the word improperly, USA is officially a democracy.

MidnightRambler
July 7th, 2004, 07:16 AM
And China is officially a "people's republic", so what's your point?

ZippyTheChimp
July 7th, 2004, 07:59 AM
The point has been illustrated, in that the discussion has deteriorated to a justification of descriptive terms which those of opposing viewpoints may find offensive, rather than issues.

I forget which of the recent polls (maybe NY Times/CBS), but lost among the numbers which show a polarizing split: 80% of those polled think the political parties should compromise on issues.

Lemonsoda
July 7th, 2004, 08:08 AM
The point could be that you are using deafening language as a surrogate for discussion.

The Union's state is obviously not to your liking. Fine. I'd caution against measuring it according to visions of perfection incompatible with the human condition - that's following in the footsteps of destructive dreams like communism, national socialism, and political Islam, among others. Back to the real world: I've yet to hear of a fascist state where one could read antiwar.com and deduct contributions from one's taxes.

Your concern is valuable, and much more so when tempered by a little bit of cool deliberation.

johnwk
July 7th, 2004, 08:27 AM
You used the word improperly, USA is officially a democracy.



Officially a democracy? I think you are a bit confused. Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States guaranties a“Republican Form of Government”.

Democracy, can best be described as mob-rule government, very different from our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government...our constitution being designed to protect the individual and rights associated with property ownership, democracy yielding to mob-rule feeling and group theft!


Those who confuse our system of government with democracy, especially those in the big media, should find the following quite educational, that is, if they are willing to learn and are not merely out to promote a personal agenda.

.
Madison, who, in talking about "democracies", points out in Federalist Paper No. 10. "...have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths..."; and during the Convention which framed our Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."; and then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel...".

So, contrary to your assertion, and because of the historically known evils of democracy, our founding fathers intentionally created a “Republican Form of Government” as its official system of government. I suggest you study Federalist No. 10 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm)

Insidentally, MidnightRambler is correct concerning some of the characteristics which identify fascism, and, those characteristics are self evident in the manner in which The New York Times gained possession of another’s property so they can use that property for their propaganda operation.


JWK


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
- Alexander Tyler, The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic 1748-1813

Lemonsoda
July 7th, 2004, 08:48 AM
A side note in the interest of accuracy.

The term "political Islam" I used risks dumping people like the Turkish Prime Minister and his party, who definitely view western style democracy as indispensable and not merely "Anti-Islamic crusader infiltrations" (pooh) into the same vat as the living dead.

Jasonik
July 7th, 2004, 09:11 AM
You used the word improperly, USA is officially a democracy.
Since we are tring to be precise with our language, I'd like to point out that the USA is a constitutional republic, often referred to as a representative democracy, or democracy for short... there is a distinction. See REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY (http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm)

Related:
Natural rights
Liberty
Moral relativism
Tyranny of the masses

ps: johnwk beat me to it, anyway my 2 cents.

The Bill of Rights protects liberties, it does not confer rights, it speaks to the constitutionally guaranteed retention of individual freedoms.

MidnightRambler
July 7th, 2004, 09:40 AM
The point could be that you are using deafening language as a surrogate for discussion.

Point taken. I admit that at the age of seventeen I've grown tired of explaining my positions and beliefs to people I consider intellectually inferior and/or willfully ignorant of the truth (though that description doesn't apply in this case), and have decided to sum up my arguments using accurate descriptors, ie fascism. I know this is a terrible way of convincing other people of the appropriateness of my opinions, and that it makes me look arrogant, but it's actually because I'm disillusioned and lazy, and after all, this is the internet, so I don't much care.


The Union's state is obviously not to your liking. Fine. I'd caution against measuring it according to visions of perfection incompatible with the human condition - that's following in the footsteps of destructive dreams like communism, national socialism, and political Islam, among others. Back to the real world: I've yet to hear of a fascist state where one could read antiwar.com and deduct contributions from one's taxes.

Fascism is less a political system than a social and economic one. Thus, it's possible to have a fascist democracy, though such a thing is rather unlikely since the two don't function well together. Right now, in my estimation, we have a proto-fascist illuosory democracy, which may explain why so many tenets of our current government and society seem to be fundementally contradictory.


Your concern is valuable, and much more so when tempered by a little bit of cool deliberation.

I will make an effort to be less blunt in the future. But, as I said before, I have spent so much time studying and researching and debating that I am rather firmly entrenched in my beliefs, and therefore impatient when I come across someone who disputes them without offering considerable evidence (not that I'm saying that's what happened in this case) and I will be predisposed to respond in kind, with short, blustery, pronouncements.

Ninjahedge
July 7th, 2004, 09:58 AM
Ignoring JWK here for a moment.

What happened to my post?

:P

johnwk
July 7th, 2004, 09:29 PM
I wrote:

“When the force of government is permitted to be used to enact laws based upon race, I would say that is not a freedom loving society.”




And what would have been your alternative? Allow the private sector to just work it out?


There is no alternative nor should there be. Laws based upon race, such as Black Code Laws enacted prior to the 14th Amendment, are not compatible within a freedom loving society and were enacted to deny Blacks inalienable rights in addition to civil rights.



You still haven't told us about this era when America was so freedom loving.


Oh, but I did describe some of the particulars of a freedom loving society in my post posted Mon Jul 05, 2004 7:05 pm which was in response to a post of yours, and, those particulars identify the intentions of the people in our written federal constitution. So, the freedom loving nation I refer to is that when our federal Constitution was being observed and enforced.


JWK