Forced vaccines...

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3167533
Pot should be legal. Quite Frankly I don't think the federal government even has the right to regulate half the things they do.
I'm on the same page with you there.
Really though. Why does the gov't wanna regulate pot? Could it be that its consumption might interfere with production rates?
If you want the government to control everything in your life I suggest you move to a different country. Ain't happening here.
Sorry to inform you, but the gov't already has and has been, controlling whatever they can, for 150 years or so. That's the very definition of "Government." (If you don't like it, Anarchy is always an option.)
We may have a quasi Marxist in the White House but the Supreme court will still enforce the constitution. Anything the Ossiah does can be reversed in 2013.
Mmmm - the Supreme Court. They about have "We the People's" best interests at heart as does the Federal Reserve...
As for them reversing Obama's quasi-Socialist acts or Bush's quasi-Nazi acts? Good luck with that.
Neither process is overall beneficial to society in the long run. Both, however, benefit Gov't (and by extension, the Elite who can afford to buy the Gov't) control of the populace, which is why I've always argued that there is no practical difference between Fascism and Communism. The end result on the average population is the same: Enrich those in control at the expense of those who are not in control.
Call it Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, or Fascism. The economics follow roughly the same process under all those systems: Somebody builds wealth by exploiting someone else...
I find it hilarious the the argument is always one of terminology, and never one of application.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3168021
I'm on the same page with you there.
Really though. Why does the gov't wanna regulate pot? Could it be that its consumption might interfere with production rates?
Sorry to inform you, but the gov't already has and has been, controlling whatever they can, for 150 years or so. That's the very definition of "Government." (If you don't like it, Anarchy is always an option.)
Mmmm - the Supreme Court. They about have "We the People's" best interests at heart as does the Federal Reserve...
As for them reversing Obama's quasi-Socialist acts or Bush's quasi-Nazi acts? Good luck with that.
Neither process is overall beneficial to society in the long run. Both, however, benefit Gov't (and by extension, the Elite who can afford to buy the Gov't) control of the populace, which is why I've always argued that there is no practical difference between Fascism and Communism. The end result on the average population is the same: Enrich those in control at the expense of those who are not in control.
Call it Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, or Fascism. The economics follow roughly the same process under all those systems: Somebody builds wealth by exploiting someone else...
I find it hilarious the the argument is always one of terminology, and never one of application.
What did Bush do that is fascist or Nazi? I don't recall him dictating how any private businesses were ran.
And the government doesn't control every aspect of our lives or they would already be telling us no cheetos or twinkies.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3168065
What did Bush do that is fascist or Nazi? I don't recall him dictating how any private businesses were ran.
Invade two sovereign nations for no good reason, the Patriot Acts (I and II), the elimination of Habeus Corpus, imprisoning people w/o due cause or even a trial?
And the government doesn't control every aspect of our lives or they would already be telling us no cheetos or twinkies.
Not so sure that isn't coming - provided it's more profitable to keep those who become ill from crap food alive than it is to deny them health care.
In any case, both situations are sides of the same coin.
It's not so much a matter of Gov't dictating to business as it is the the two working in concert for their own mutual benefit at the expense of We the People.
To wit:
If fascism were to choose a logical form of government it would choose the American system.
Noam Chomsky
You can substitute the word "fascism" in Chomsky's quote for any other form of authoritarianism. The bottom line is this: Gov't "by, of and for" the People is supposed to be subservient to said People. By Constitutional definition, "We the People" are the authority. If you can tell me how our Gov't is any of those things anymore, I'm listening.
Like I said, it's a matter of confusing terminology and application, and in an almost Orwellian sense at that.
Tyranny, by any other name, is still tyranny.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3168109
Invade two sovereign nations for no good reason, the Patriot Acts (I and II), the elimination of Habeus Corpus, imprisoning people w/o due cause or even a trial?
Not so sure that isn't coming - provided it's more profitable to keep those who become ill from crap food alive than it is to deny them health care.
In any case, both situations are sides of the same coin.
It's not so much a matter of Gov't dictating to business as it is the the two working in concert for their own mutual benefit at the expense of We the People.
To wit:
Noam Chomsky
You can substitute the word "fascism" in Chomsky's quote for any other form of authoritarianism. The bottom line is this: Gov't "by, of and for" the People is supposed to be subservient to said People. By Constitutional definition, "We the People" are the authority. If you can tell me how our Gov't is any of those things anymore, I'm listening.
Like I said, it's a matter of confusing terminology and application, and in an almost Orwellian sense at that.
Tyranny, by any other name, is still tyranny.
So we didn't have the right to even invade Afghanistan? OK, who are you really, Fidal or Hugo?

Noam Chumpsky

Yeah, OK.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3168245
So we didn't have the right to even invade Afghanistan?
Right?
Seriously?
You miss the point. I don't consider the gov't part of we. We no more had the right than Hitler had to invade Bohemia because of the "anti-German" elements that he claimed existed there. We have the "right" to commit, as a nation, what in an individual situation is a crime? Really? If it were two people at a bar, it'd be called assault, but because it's two national leaders that's somehow ok? How so?
Rights belong to We the People, not They the Government. Government has no rights, save the ones We the People confer upon them. No declaration of war was issued. Therefore, my right, as a citizen of this once great nation, has been violated.
Perhaps if Chomsky, the foremost American linguist in our history, is too left for your liking, you'll have some appreciation for Hermann:
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Sound familiar at all? Please note as well that Herr Göring does not draw a distinction between the actions of government and what that government is called - regardless of the style of government, "the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders."
That's my point: Dictatorship, by any other name, is still dictatorship. The idea behind our Constitution was that We the People have the RIGHT to dictate to government, no? Please explain to me how our Government is in any way, shape or form "by, of or for the people" anymore. I'll settle for any one of the three.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3168278
Right?
Seriously?
You miss the point. I don't consider the gov't part of we. We no more had the right than Hitler had to invade Bohemia because of the "anti-German" elements that he claimed existed there. We have the "right" to commit, as a nation, what in an individual situation is a crime? Really? If it were two people at a bar, it'd be called assault, but because it's two national leaders that's somehow ok? How so?
Rights belong to We the People, not They the Government. Government has no rights, save the ones We the People confer upon them. No declaration of war was issued. Therefore, my right, as a citizen of this once great nation, has been violated.
Perhaps if Chomsky, the foremost American linguist in our history, is too left for your liking, you'll have some appreciation for Hermann:
Sound familiar at all? Please note as well that Herr Göring does not draw a distinction between the actions of government and what that government is called - regardless of the style of government, "the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders."
That's my point: Dictatorship, by any other name, is still dictatorship. The idea behind our Constitution was that We the People have the RIGHT to dictate to government, no? Please explain to me how our Government is in any way, shape or form "by, of or for the people" anymore. I'll settle for any one of the three.
So let me get this straight. The taliban, who controlled Afghanistan knowingly allowed Al Qeada to base their terror network in their country. You don't think we had the right to retaliate and eliminate the Taliban and AL Qeada? You can't be serious.
How about 2 out of 3
The People is from which a candidate for office is chosen, by a vote of the people. The for part doesn't always work out so well but what other system on the planet today can match it?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3168307
So let me get this straight. The taliban, who controlled Afghanistan knowingly allowed Al Qeada to base their terror network in their country. You don't think we had the right to retaliate and eliminate the Taliban and AL Qeada? You can't be serious.
Based on that logic, let's attack China now, because you and I both know it's coming.
Al Qaeda is a scarecrow. A name used to get us to give up our civil rights. Are you seriously scared of them? What about DB Cooper? - he's still out there you know. How 'bout them Palestinians?
It's all oogabooga, something under the bed is drooling - sign over your freedoms and we'll give you security...
How about 2 out of 3
The People is from which a candidate for office is chosen, by a vote of the people.
BS. The people don't choose the candidate, the party does. The people are gratuitously (in mock deference to the Constitution) allowed to vote for whomever the party puts up. Where in the Constitution does it say you have to follow party rules to be a candidate?
The for part doesn't always work out so well but what other system on the planet today can match it?
By what metrics?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3168392
Based on that logic, let's attack China now, because you and I both know it's coming.
Al Qaeda is a scarecrow. A name used to get us to give up our civil rights. Are you seriously scared of them? What about DB Cooper? - he's still out there you know. How 'bout them Palestinians?
It's all oogabooga, something under the bed is drooling - sign over your freedoms and we'll give you security...
BS. The people don't choose the candidate, the party does. The people are gratuitously (in mock deference to the Constitution) allowed to vote for whomever the party puts up.
By what metrics?
Put down the pipe and open a window. What, now Al Qeada doesn't exist? I guess 9-11 was a Hollywood production that never happened.

 

[nina&noah]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3168396
Put down the pipe and open a window. What, now Al Qeada doesn't exist? I guess 9-11 was a Hollywood production that never happened.
+1....I shouldn't get in the middle of this, but saying Al Queda doesn't exist is an insult to all of the people who lost their loved ones on 9-11.