Originally posted by jaden101
the death of another serious discussion...sadly predictable
Look it can only be a discussion if there are two sides....but there are not...no one brought anything up that the "liberals" of the US have taken away from them ( even Kid Rock and JM don't post a second tim e in this thread cause they know there is nothing)
Originally posted by botankus
2) It is a very sensitive "ritual" (if you will) that has the potential to cause high tensions if revoked, much like the problem people have with The Pledge of Allegiance and all that.
the words "under god" were added to the pledge of allegence in the 1950's.
that is what people have a problem with. this country was founded partly on the principle of religious freedom. to include a particular religious figure in the pledge means that this country is based in certain religions religion. how comfortable would you feel if it was "one nation under alah"?
Originally posted by botankus
So what does the swearing in of witnesses in court mean for people who refuse to acknowledge "God" as anything of significance in their lives except for offense?That the right to perjure is acceptable?
swearing in is different for different religions and even for aethiests.
if you are a hindu and on the witness stand, you dont say "under god"
because its irrelevant. the whole point of it is to make you swear on what
YOU hold sacred, not what the state holds sacred.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Look it can only be a discussion if there are two sides....but there are not...no one brought anything up that the "liberals" of the US have taken away from them ( even Kid Rock and JM don't post a second tim e in this thread cause they know there is nothing)
how can the liberals take anything away when they aren't in power
however...take Britain where the labour party was founded on socialist ideals and IS a liberal party
national biometric identify cards being introduced
new powers to allow police to stop demonstrations and protests
anti terror laws that allow for anyone to be held indefinitely without charge
even last night in tv a liberal blatently told that the British people wouldn't be getting their democratic right to vote in the refurendum on the EU constitution for no other reason than they would not get the result they wanted
now they are introducing the freedom from religious hatred bill on top of the already suitable freedom from racial hatred bill which can and most probably will be used to stop comedians from making jokes about any kind of religion no matter how mild...even billy connelly's "how do you play safe chess...put a condom on the bishop" joke could mean he ends up in court
I have to admit I am not that familiar with the British Political System...nor do I know if you can just say Labour = Democrats (as Ush pointed out the continents liberals are more like capitalists)
I agree that, the labour party seems to take away some freedoms (if what you say is true) but for the purpose of this thread was to ask people like KD, JM, BE who claim the liberals (democrats) would take their freedom how they can support that view.
whats odd in america and what makes it difficult to understand is that
not only have the lines between conservative and liberal blurred, but they
pretty much switched sides. the 'liberals' today are what i believe to be genuine conservative republicans, and the republicans we see today are actually neo-republicans who pretty much stand against traditional republican ideals. for instance, notice how the powers of the executive branch have expanded drastically since bush took office? no way is that republican. the patriot act? anti-republican. the core of the republican ideal is a complete lack of trust for centralised power, and yet we see the complete opposite today, dont we? 'liberal' and 'conservative' are meaningless terms today, and only serve to aid the ignorant in name calling
Originally posted by Fire
PVS if the conservative republicans are liberals than what are the democrats (just wondering) your idea's do make tons of sense tho
the democrat party as a whole are a bunch of spineless self-defeating wishy washy idiots who really dont strike me as much different than the conservatives, only that their views vary, whereas conservatives have managed to alienate any in their party who do not subscribe to their exact ideals. thats how i see it.
A Composition I stumbled upon entitled :
Declaration of Expulsion: A Modest Proposal
It's Time to Reconfigure the United States
by Mike Thompson
Posted Nov 3, 2004
From the author: This is an essay I've been working on for the past several weeks, updated moments ago with what appears to be Bush's final number of victory states (31) once the nonsense of provisional votes in Ohio is overcome.
Branded unconstitutional by President Abraham Lincoln, the South's secession from the American Union ultimately sparked "The Civil War" (a name that was rejected by Southerners, who correctly called it "The War Between the States," for the South never sought to 1] seize the central government or 2] rule the other side, two requisites for a civil war).
No state may leave the Union without the other states' approval, according to Lincoln's doctrine--an assertion that ignores the Declaration of Independence, which was the vital basis for all 13 American colonies' unilateral secession from the British Union eight decades earlier. Lincoln's grotesque legal argument also disregards a state's inherent right of secession which many scholars believe is found in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Meantime, America has become just as divided as it was a century and a half ago, when it writhed in Brother-vs.-Brother War. Instead of wedge issues like slavery, federal subsidies for regional business, and high tariffs, society today is sundered by profound, insoluble Culture War conflicts (such as abortion and gay marriage), and debate about our role abroad (shall we remain the world's leader, or become an unprincipled chump for the cabal of globalist sybarites who play endless word-games inside the United Nations and European Union sanctuaries?).
For many decades, conservative citizens and like-minded political leaders (starting with President Calvin Coolidge) have been denigrated by the vilest of lies and characterizations from hordes of liberals who now won't even admit that they are liberals--because the word connotes such moral stink and political silliness. As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization's core decency and traditions.
Defamation, never envisioned by our Founding Fathers as being protected by the First Amendment, flourishes and passes today for acceptable political discourse. Movies, magazines, newspapers, radio/TV programs, plays, concerts, public schools, colleges, and most other public vehicles openly traffic in slander and libel. Hollywood salivated over the idea of placing another golden Oscar into Michael Moore'sfat hands, for his Fahrenheit 9/11 jeremiad, the most bogus, deceitful film documentary since Herr Hitler and Herr Goebbels gave propaganda a bad name.
When they tire of showering conservative victims with ideological mud, liberals promote the only other subjects with which they feel conversationally comfortable: Obscenity and sexual perversion. It's as if the genes of liberals have rendered them immune to all forms of filth.
As a final insult, liberal lawyers and judges have become locusts of the Left, conspiring to destroy democracy itself by excreting statutes and courtroom tactics that fertilize electoral fraud and sprout fields of vandals who will cast undeserved and copious ballots on Election Day.
The truth is, America is not just broken--it is becoming irreparable. If you believe that recent years of uncivil behavior are burdensome, imagine the likelihood of a future in which all bizarre acts are the norm, and a government-booted foot stands permanently on your face.
That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart--not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter. Here is how to do it.
Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added at the republic's inception, the U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree. Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell.
A difficult-to-pass constitutional amendment, however, is not necessary. There is an equally lawful route that mercifully would be both easier and faster. Inasmuch as Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union," it is reasonable that the same congressional majority may expel a state from the Union. Is there, after all, any human organization in existence (including a family or law firm) that may not disown, disinherit, ostracize, alienate or expel diabolical members? Whether the nation is purged of these 12 states via the Constitution or statute, the process of elimination must begin now, for the need of societal detoxification has waxed so overwhelmingly clear.
Examine the "Mostly Mainstream 38" and "Fringe 12." Of the 50 states, Bush won 30 in the 2000 presidential election against Gore, and 31 in 2004 against Kerry. More dramatic is the huge disparity among counties. Of 3,112 counties nationwide, Bush in 2000, for example, won 2,434, a crushing 78% majority. (In the counties composing "Bush USA" live approximately 150 million persons; in the 678 of "Gore/Kerry USA," 140 million.) Gore/Kerry denizens are concentrated in the metropolises of the East and West Coasts and those big cities on the Great Lakes or Mississippi River. Other significant pockets of ultraliberal extremists may be found in intellectually incestuous college towns and pro-big-government state capitals, along the estranged and overwhelmed Mexican border, and in Dixie's welfare-addicted Cotton Belt.
The demographics revealed by the two most recent presidential elections are radically different and have resulted in "Two Americas" (but not the simplistic "Two Americas" [one rich, one poor] envisioned by Kerry'sMarxist-tongued running mate, John Edwards):
BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir."
GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers.
Bush USA also is far safer, its murder rate being about 16% of the homicidal binge that plagues Gore/Kerry USA--2.1 per 100,000 residents, compared with 13.2 per 100,000 (from a study by Professor Joseph Olson, Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota).
A downsized, post-expulsion United States still would be geographically big enough (and personally generous enough) to welcome millions of authentic refugees from the ousted former states, real Americans who crave lower taxes, smaller government, safer neighborhoods, more secure borders, greater moral leadership, and all the other aspects of a markedly better society-- one that spawns harmony, not cacophony; excellence, not dependence; justice, not histrionics; education, not brainwashing; enterprise, not welfare, and Godliness, not devilishness. As for the dozen ex-American states, they could always petition the UN and EU for foreign aid. Moreover, with any good luck (or bon chance), socialist Canada would annex our jettisoned territory, eh?
Still Relevant After All These Years:
Language of the 1776 Declaration of Independence that rings true today for expulsion:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . .
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness . . .
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes . . . but when a long train of abuses . . . evinces a design to reduce them [the people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Language of Barry Goldwater, 1964 Republican presidential nominee that also rings true:
Sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the eastern seaboard and let it float out to sea.
comment ? anyone ?
You wanted my reply fine, hopefuly it won't earn me another 3-day ban. (Which I know full well you and your little liberal friends sent in the six required PMs do it..)
THAT is why you liberals infringe on rights and are horrible fascists. It is beyond your comprehension to accept something you don't like. Don't like violance? BAN GUNS! Violance starts with the person, not the tool.
Don't like violant thoughts? ENFORCE MEDICATION! Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. You'd sell your soul inorder to deny the fact that is exsists..
That's why liberals are a fascist party and are weak and pitiful. Which is why I have no respect for you. The fact that you're so pathetic as to have me banned for "being mean to you" only further proves my advocation..
Ofcourse when I say liberal I mean the global right-wing. As we all know, America is ass-backward. Our roads are on the otherside, our toilets go counter-clock wise, and our liberals think along the lines of Hitler.. If you don't believe me just take a look at Bush'es best friend.. TONY BLAIR! THE SOCIALIST! (Which by the way I'm a hardcore advocate of..)
And that's how I KNOW you're American Liberal and dislike you for it. Because everything I believe you wish didn't exsist and will do everything in your power to hide that it does. A rock nosed, hard-working, moraly upright socialist. Oh how you must wakeup in cold sweat at night thinking about how more of me exsist.
However there's also a science to this, this gos far deeper then political agendas. 6/10 people are "American Liberal". So how come you don't control EVERYTHING?
Cause you're weak..
And that's how it's suppose to be. Unfourataely you think this justifies your opression over the strong and we are diswilling to subject ourselves to your wishes as you are lower on the power scale. This is how the blood wars were, are, and shall forever be.
GCG, I wouldn't even know where to start in picking that apart...I could spend all night.
Big Evil, you were banned because WD warned that any further flaming in that other thread would result in a banning, and you didn't quit. No PM sending was required, you directly ignored an order from a global mod. No one should have to accept being called names because they disagree with YOU.
Originally posted by Big Evil
You wanted my reply fine, hopefuly it won't earn me another 3-day ban. (Which I know full well you and your little liberal friends sent in the six required PMs do it..)THAT is why you liberals infringe on rights and are horrible fascists. It is beyond your comprehension to accept something you don't like. Don't like violance? BAN GUNS! Violance starts with the person, not the tool.
Don't like violant thoughts? ENFORCE MEDICATION! Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. You'd sell your soul inorder to deny the fact that is exsists..
That's why liberals are a fascist party and are weak and pitiful. Which is why I have no respect for you. The fact that you're so pathetic as to have me banned for "being mean to you" only further proves my advocation..
Ofcourse when I say liberal I mean the global right-wing. As we all know, America is ass-backward. Our roads are on the otherside, our toilets go counter-clock wise, and our liberals think along the lines of Hitler.. If you don't believe me just take a look at Bush'es best friend.. TONY BLAIR! THE SOCIALIST! (Which by the way I'm a hardcore advocate of..)
And that's how I KNOW you're American Liberal and dislike you for it. Because everything I believe you wish didn't exsist and will do everything in your power to hide that it does. A rock nosed, hard-working, moraly upright socialist. Oh how you must wakeup in cold sweat at night thinking about how more of me exsist.
However there's also a science to this, this gos far deeper then political agendas. 6/10 people are "American Liberal". So how come you don't control EVERYTHING?
Cause you're weak..
And that's how it's suppose to be. Unfourataely you think this justifies your opression over the strong and we are diswilling to subject ourselves to your wishes as you are lower on the power scale. This is how the blood wars were, are, and shall forever be.
and might i add: shit