They hate us for our freedoms! Thank gawd they're being taken away!!!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Interesting... Lanny's the only one in this thread who's done anything other than provide pure opinion, he's posted facts and commented (albeit slanted towards his political bias). Pretty lame statement here though, considering you haven't posted any 'hard evidence' to counter what he's saying. I guess thats how 'you folk work'.

Don't you know? That's how us "conspiracy theorists" work. Come on. The government would never pass these laws and then try to use them! They are only there for the "worst case scenario". Just like the government would never invade another soverign nation without just cause. Yes, us "conspiracy theorists" will continue to be accused of being nutbars as we post the evidence to support our suspicions, while the "real patriots" will continue to follow the "official story" no matter how littel evidence there is to support the claim.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Interesting... Lanny's the only one in this thread who's done anything other than provide pure opinion, he's posted facts and commented (albeit slanted towards his political bias). Pretty lame statement here though, considering you haven't posted any 'hard evidence' to counter what he's saying. I guess thats how 'you folk work'.

Again Agamemnon....did you read what I POSTED?

I agreed with him. Good lord man...do you hate me that much that you will take any chance to give me a shot even though it totaly wrong?

Read it again....I was commenting on the fact that Lanny was saying "stupid people" cannot get it, after directly quoting another quote who did not agree with him. Is it that hard to but two and two together?

Man

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Don't you know? That's how us "conspiracy theorists" work. Come on. The government would never pass these laws and then try to use them! They are only there for the "worst case scenario". Just like the government would never invade another soverign nation without just cause. Yes, us "conspiracy theorists" will continue to be accused of being nutbars as we post the evidence to support our suspicions, while the "real patriots" will continue to follow the "official story" no matter how littel evidence there is to support the claim.

Did you read what I wrote??????????????

I agreed with you.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Did you read what I wrote??????????????

I agreed with you.

Welcome to the Darkside!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

This is pretty scary stuff--and it's been happening for a while. Those of us with a long view of history might point to the Lincoln administration's power grab as the beginnings of a serious change in how the White House operates and what its role in governance is. In fact, what's happened now is exactly the sort of thing that the constitution was designed by the framers to prevent--autocratic rule by one branch of government without oversight from any other.

And that's what makes this scary. Transplant can say that Lanny's being paranoid if he wants--it's also true that things needed to be changed after 9.11 and Katrina, to the extent that government responses to emergencies need to be streamlined. No-one denies this. But it's important to actually read the text that Lanny posted.

What's scary about it is that these emergencies now involve, by definition, broad and indiscriminate suspension (albeit theoretically temporary) of the civil rights of human beings (the citizen/non-citizen thing is a canard--it's quite well established that non-citizens legally residing in the U.S. are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens). Personally, I don't think that was a necessary response to Katrina. What's worse, this is all left to the discretion of the White House, meaning that they could, for instance, declare martial law on the first Monday of November and stop people from going to the polls to elect a new administration hostile to their goals. I'm not saying they WILL do this--but it's unwise to draft laws that ALLOW those sorts of shenanigans. Who knows what will happen 20-30 years down the line?

Benjamin Franklin famously quipped that the legacy the framers left to their children was "a good Republic--if you can keep it." Right now, the U.S. is doing a rather ****-poor job of "keeping" that republic, which whatever its original flaws, may well have been better than what we have now.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Again Agamemnon....did you read what I POSTED?

Looks to me that you said:

Thats how these folk work. They can never provide hard evidence and when called to task they say things like this:

It looked like you were talking about Lanny as far as I can tell when describing 'these folk'... no? If not, then you've got it worded very poorly.

I agreed with him. Good lord man...do you hate me that much that you will take any chance to give me a shot even though it totaly wrong?

Hate you? You don't even register on my radar. Bit of a drama queen...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

This is pretty scary stuff--and it's been happening for a while. Those of us with a long view of history might point to the Lincoln administration's power grab as the beginnings of a serious change in how the White House operates and what its role in governance is. In fact, what's happened now is exactly the sort of thing that the constitution was designed by the framers to prevent--autocratic rule by one branch of government without oversight from any other.

And that's what makes this scary. Transplant can say that Lanny's being paranoid if he wants--it's also true that things needed to be changed after 9.11 and Katrina, to the extent that government responses to emergencies need to be streamlined. No-one denies this. But it's important to actually read the text that Lanny posted.

What's scary about it is that these emergencies now involve, by definition, broad and indiscriminate suspension (albeit theoretically temporary) of the civil rights of human beings (the citizen/non-citizen thing is a canard--it's quite well established that non-citizens legally residing in the U.S. are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens). Personally, I don't think that was a necessary response to Katrina. What's worse, this is all left to the discretion of the White House, meaning that they could, for instance, declare martial law on the first Monday of November and stop people from going to the polls to elect a new administration hostile to their goals. I'm not saying they WILL do this--but it's unwise to draft laws that ALLOW those sorts of shenanigans. Who knows what will happen 20-30 years down the line?

Benjamin Franklin famously quipped that the legacy the framers left to their children was "a good Republic--if you can keep it." Right now, the U.S. is doing a rather ****-poor job of "keeping" that republic, which whatever its original flaws, may well have been better than what we have now.

Hey, someone gets it! Iowa, you "conspiracy theorist" you!!!

[evman150]

Just a question, I remember reading about this sometime in the past few years somewhere. What stops the US government from passing a law that removes the maximum two term stipulation?

If they can pass all these other things underhandedly, why not this?

Seems like a slippery slope to me.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by evman150

Just a question, I remember reading about this sometime in the past few years somewhere. What stops the US government from passing a law that removes the maximum two term stipulation?

If they can pass all these other things underhandedly, why not this?

Seems like a slippery slope to me.

It takes 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States to ammend the constitution.

Slippery slope argument doesn't apply to that particular 'law'.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Sneaking in unrelated attachments to bills is a really strange practise in the US, its one of the best ways to pork barrel.

I don't think really strange is the best way to describe it.

I'd say really unethical.

And it happens with virtually every piece of legislation and justified in the name of 'compromise'.

The practice is one of the ugliest parts of present day American government and I'd love to see it stopped.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I don't think really strange is the best way to describe it.

I'd say really unethical.

And it happens with virtually every piece of legislation and justified in the name of 'compromise'.

The practice is one of the ugliest parts of present day American government and I'd love to see it stopped.

This has been the hardest thing to get used to with the system down here Dis. In Canada you have a pretty good idea what is in legislation because it is so tightly focused and the government has to answer to the bills in the house of commons. In the US you have all sorts of stuff hidden in bills and you have be a hawk to pick up some of this stuff. The language can be very cleverly written to give extraordinary benefits to some while screwing others. It really is immoral IMO.

[Looger]

the united states is quickly losing its republic, and becomiong a democracy in the truest sense.

ancient greece, an educated elite and a third-world dumbed-down citizenry.

'democracy' is two lions and a deer deciding what's for dinner, it is mob rule by oligarchy.

a gang rape is democracy in action.

a republic is aboot the rights of the citizen, the rights of the individual.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Looger

the united states is quickly losing its republic, and becomiong a democracy in the truest sense...
a republic is aboot the rights of the citizen, the rights of the individual.

I am a little confused about how your idiosyncratic distinction between a republic and a democracy.

As I have come to understand it a republic is distinct from a monarchy, and is founded upon democratic rule (as is a constitutional monarchy). Canada is not a republic, but seemingly under your definition it would be?

With your talk about ancient Greece, you seem to be referring to the notion of direct democracy but I don't understand how you reconcile that with the separate notion of representative democracy that modern republics such as the US employ. Are you suggesting that the US is shifting from representative democracy to direct democracy?

[Looger]

i'm suggesting that the united states is shifting away from its stance on rights of the individual, and is getting closer to some form of fascist collectivism where rights of the few are taken away for the good of the many.

lost to many is that when you take away the rights of the individual without their consent you also take away the rights of the many.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I don't think really strange is the best way to describe it.

I'd say really unethical.

And it happens with virtually every piece of legislation and justified in the name of 'compromise'.

The practice is one of the ugliest parts of present day American government and I'd love to see it stopped.

I'm no expert, but my guess is it's far from unique to the American system. I'm not sure what the answer is, but the system as it is right now is clearly broken. Legislation is not written by legislators but frequently by lobby groups--and passed late at night without lawmakers being given a chance to review bills that are sometimes hundreds of pages long. Often, as I understand it, members vote for pork-barrel projects that they don't even know are in the bills that they're voting for.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Looks to me that you said:


It looked like you were talking about Lanny as far as I can tell when describing 'these folk'... no? If not, then you've got it worded very poorly.


Hate you? You don't even register on my radar. Bit of a drama queen...

Yes I was talking about Lanny. Where did I say i wasn't? I wasn't talking about the article...as I said....I agreed with him. What i was talking about was that he claimed not to be calling trans stupid when in fact he was.

Is that clear enough now?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Yes I was talking about Lanny. Where did I say i wasn't? I wasn't talking about the article...as I said....I agreed with him. What i was talking about was that he claimed not to be calling trans stupid when in fact he was.

Is that clear enough now?

Actually I wasn't. I'm more than forward enought to call someone stupid directly. If I were trying to say what you are suggesting I would have said, "what are you, stupid?", not "people are stupid". Is that clear enough now, or are you stupid?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Actually I wasn't. I'm more than forward enought to call someone stupid directly. If I were trying to say what you are suggesting I would have said, "what are you, stupid?", not "people are stupid". Is that clear enough now, or are you stupid?

Sorry buddy but I don't believe you.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Yes I was talking about Lanny. Where did I say i wasn't? I wasn't talking about the article...as I said....I agreed with him. What i was talking about was that he claimed not to be calling trans stupid when in fact he was.

Is that clear enough now?

No, it isn't, you're re-framing the debate. You said "Thats how these folk work. They can never provide hard evidence and when called to task they say things like this:".

He provided more hard evidence in this thread than you have... like I said, I guess thats how 'you folk work'. Your spinning is almost equal to HOZ. I don't really care if you agreed with what he was saying or not, you disparaged him for not providing any external info when he clearly did, its in the first post of the thread.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

No, it isn't, you're re-framing the debate. You said "Thats how these folk work. They can never provide hard evidence and when called to task they say things like this:".

He provided more hard evidence in this thread than you have... like I said, I guess thats how 'you folk work'. Your spinning is almost equal to HOZ. I don't really care if you agreed with what he was saying or not, you disparaged him for not providing any external info when he clearly did, its in the first post of the thread.

How do you provide PROOF or EVIDENCE when the topic that I am talking about is in his own head. Was he really calling Tran stupid or not? He says no, his words leave it open for debate, thats my point. Leave it open so that no one really knows what they are saying is truth or fiction.

Did he provide evidence for the actual topic....yes...that is not in question.