I thought Republicans were against govt. intrusion into our lives...[views:4583][posts:71]___________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 11:46am - brian_dc ""] I was watching C-SPAN today and the republican leaders were wasting their time on this issue. Two other members of the House interrupted and protested that the leaders had decided to end work today at 2PM as opposed to 5-6. They were basically begging for the minumum wage issue, a bi-partisan concern in many regards, to be discussed instead of this internet gaming nonsense. Of course it didn't work, a few of the next speakers even wasted some of their time saying, "huhuh...just wanna remind everybody that minumum wage don't got nuttin to do wit online video pokah!" derrrrrrr. |
| ___________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 11:47am - brian_dc ""] oh...the point about the getting out of work early part was because they were saying that they might not be able to get the minumum wage issue in before the end of this Congressional Session and they're cutting out early while minumum wage workers are working their asses off 40hrs+ a week. |
| _____________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 11:49am - PatMeebles ""] brian_dc said:oh...the point about the getting out of work early part was because they were saying that they might not be able to get the minumum wage issue in before the end of this Congressional Session and they're cutting out early while minumum wage workers are working their asses off 40hrs+ a week. One of the things I always hated about Congress was that they seem to work so little compared to everyone else. Even the President gets less vacation time than they do. |
| ___________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 11:52am - brian_dc ""] it's also pretty funny how only a small fraction shows up on a given day. |
| ___________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 12:22pm - ShadowSD ""] PatMeebles said:ShadowSD said:Of course I know there is centralized authority, however democracies have centralized authority but don't inevitably become oppressive dictatorships. But then isn't a centralized authority a step in the direction that you don't want to go in, even though it's really subtle (which is the point I've been trying to make all along)? No, because centralized authority applies to democracy as well; in fact, it applies to every form of goverment but anarchy, as you pointed out yourself. Since those forms of goverment already include centralized authority, they don't need to step in any direction to simply achieve that status. What makes us different is that we have laws and checks and balances built into our system that protect us. Without those laws, we could have any idealogy in the world and still have it seized by the power hungry, who might pay lip service to that ideaology but will never waste the bulk of their resources to make it a reality. Now, if someone is trying to change the laws to increase centralized authority, that's when people should start paying attention. |
| _______________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 12:23pm - hungtableed ""] Man_of_the_Century said:There's only one thing I really have to say on this topic. There is no need for a vote from congress. Gambling/casino operation was always up to the state to decide. If a state doesn't want gambling, it didn't have it. Leave the power where it should be. I pretty much said the same thing about how it's all about online gambling clashing with the state's soverignty and power to decide on laws/authorities that are not entrusted to the Federal government nor denied to the states. That's what the 10th Amendment and the Elastic clause is all about. Hungtableed said: I think that it has everything to do with the elastic clause and the 10th Amendment that grants and assures the sovereignty of each state's authority. Online gambling allows for one to act in a way that completely disregards the laws of their state just like how people buy cigarettes online to avoid their state's grotesquely unfair taxes on the addicted. |
| ___________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 12:34pm - ShadowSD ""] Right, although I think if a lawmaker takes that point of view then they shouldn't turn around and say that horse racing is an interstate issue; those laws should be repealed. The lack of consistency involving rights here is what concerns me (and was the catalyst for what mutated into that epic debate) |
| _____________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 12:35pm - anonymous ""] ShadowSD said:Right, although I think if a lawmaker takes that point of view then they shouldn't turn around and say that horse racing is an interstate issue; those laws should be repealed. The lack of consistency involving rights here is what concerns me (and was the catalyst for what mutated into that epic debate) you're very afraid? |
| ____________________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 1:09pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] hungtableed said:I pretty much said the same thing about how it's all about online gambling clashing with the state's soverignty and power to decide on laws/authorities that are not entrusted to the Federal government nor denied to the states. That's what the 10th Amendment and the Elastic clause is all about. I didn't read the whole thread, sorry for stealing your thunder. |
| ____________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 1:15pm - PatMeebles ""] ShadowSD said:PatMeebles said:ShadowSD said:Of course I know there is centralized authority, however democracies have centralized authority but don't inevitably become oppressive dictatorships. But then isn't a centralized authority a step in the direction that you don't want to go in, even though it's really subtle (which is the point I've been trying to make all along)? No, because centralized authority applies to democracy as well; in fact, it applies to every form of goverment but anarchy, as you pointed out yourself. Since those forms of goverment already include centralized authority, they don't need to step in any direction to simply achieve that status. What makes us different is that we have laws and checks and balances built into our system that protect us. Without those laws, we could have any idealogy in the world and still have it seized by the power hungry, who might pay lip service to that ideaology but will never waste the bulk of their resources to make it a reality. Now, if someone is trying to change the laws to increase centralized authority, that's when people should start paying attention. Then what's the line that you're going to draw? My whole point is that you can't get away with saying "don't take steps towards a fascist state," and then expect everyone to agree with you on what constitutes a step in that direction to begin with. And then when you make that argument, people like me are going to come along and say don't take any steps, no matter how subtle, in the opposite direction to totalitarianism, and then we're stuck in a perpetual state of trying to figure out what makes a step in either direction. |
| _____________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 1:28pm - HailTheLeaf ""] PatMeebles said:Josh Martin NLI said:To trade freedom for security is an insult to all those who gave their lives to protect our freedom. So what happens when a tradeoff becomes necessary for the survival of the very freedoms you cherish so much? What if the uncompromising desire for freedom is the cause of a longterm loss of freedom that will never be recovered? It hurts me to say this, but we cannot let the constitution become a deathpact. We've traded freedom for a false sense of security since we're actually less safe, but more in debt, and hated more than ever the world over than we were before 9/11. |
| ____________________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 1:33pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] HailTheLeaf said:We've traded freedom for a false sense of security since we're actually less safe, but more in debt, and hated more than ever the world over than we were before 9/11. Less safe and more hated huh... |
| _____________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 1:33pm - HailTheLeaf ""] PatMeebles said:Josh Martin NLI said:PatMeebles said:Josh Martin NLI said:To trade freedom for security is an insult to all those who gave their lives to protect our freedom. So what happens when a tradeoff becomes necessary for the survival of the very freedoms you cherish so much? What if the uncompromising desire for freedom is the cause of a longterm loss of freedom that will never be recovered? It hurts me to say this, but we cannot let the constitution become a deathpact. If the founding fathers thought that way we'd still be a british colony. Live free or die. You obviously have no idea what the Founding Fathers thought Ben Franklin favored keeping secrets from Congress because they'd never keep vital operations from the Public and, therefore, would compromise national security. John Adams vehemently opposed Shay's rebellion because, even though rebellion against a tyrannical monarchy was ok, rebellion against a free democratic republic had to be put down harshly. etc. John Adams opposed Shay's rebellion because John Adams was one of the rich white men who wanted a system of goverment where only wealthy men like himself could vote and own land, whereas the men in Shay's rebellion wanted equality and representation in their government. |
| __________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 1:37pm - ShadowSD ""] PatMeebles said:ShadowSD said:Now, if someone is trying to change the laws to increase centralized authority, that's when people should start paying attention. Then what's the line that you're going to draw? My whole point is that you can't get away with saying "don't take steps towards a fascist state," and then expect everyone to agree with you on what constitutes a step in that direction to begin with. And then when you make that argument, people like me are going to come along and say don't take any steps, no matter how subtle, in the opposite direction to totalitarianism, and then we're stuck in a perpetual state of trying to figure out what makes a step in either direction. Well, only if you ignore a couple pages of what I said; I said I don't believe in that dichotomy, because although history is full of examples of fascism, I have yet to a see practical application of totalitarian leftism. Keep in mind, I HAVE seen that ideaology twisted to create a fascist state, but those are two different things. The interesting thing, though, is that we actually agree that leftist ideaology can lead to dictatorships. I just don't think that translates to assuming that those dictators are applying those principles, that's a very nieve assumption. Dictators are all more or less the same, and they should be regarded as such, not put on opposite ends of the spectrum as if there's an actual diversity. So going to your original question, there is no line to draw, only a direction to avoid. Laws that inhibit the freedom of the individual, whether justified by left or right dogma, must be challenged. Therefore, worrying about left or right ideaology in the absence of any legislation is pointless in resisting fascism. There is a uniform quality to oppressive law that we can all stand against, regardless of the source or the idealogy they use to justify it. |
| ____________________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 1:50pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] HailTheLeaf said:John Adams opposed Shay's rebellion because John Adams was one of the rich white men who wanted a system of goverment where only wealthy men like himself could vote and own land, whereas the men in Shay's rebellion wanted equality and representation in their government. That had nothing to do with it. He opposed it because it was a rebellion. After it had ended, Washington and the other leaders at the time found out what it was all about. They then (mainly Washington and Sam Adams) went to great lengths to fix the tax situation. |
| _____________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 1:54pm - HailTheLeaf ""] It had everything to do with it, the farmers were having their land taken, they couldn't hold office in the government because they weren't rich and weren't being represented. John Adams and others like him did not want these people to be equal and took measures to ensure that a proper democracy was never formed. It was the rich vs. the poor, just as it continues to be to this day. |
| ____________________________________________ [Jul 11,2006 2:11pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] HailTheLeaf said:It had everything to do with it, the farmers were having their land taken, they couldn't hold office in the government because they weren't rich and weren't being represented. John Adams and others like him did not want these people to be equal and took measures to ensure that a proper democracy was never formed. It was the rich vs. the poor, just as it continues to be to this day. You really need to get yourself to a community college and take a history class. Shays' Rebellion was a bunch of farmers from western mass (mostly) that had to sell thier land to ivestors in eastern mass because they could not afford to pay off thier debts (which was thier fault) or taxes (which was the governments fault). Now, at the time, you had to own land to vote or to run for office, so none of these people could. You seemed to get that, but where does John Adams come in? Seeing how he was a foriegn minister in europe (I believe England) at the time? |
| ______________________________________ [Jul 12,2006 12:34pm - HailTheLeaf ""] You really need to pull your head out of your ass and read more than one accepted view of history. Shays left the army because they weren't paying him, went home and found himself in debt, then he saw what the government was doing to others and he a problem with things like taking the bed right out from under a sick woman who couldn't pay taxes. The Boston legislature was refusing to issue paper money which would've made it easier for the farmers to pay their debts, so the farmers petitioned to redress their grievances in the General Court. They court wanted to hold proceedings to take away the farmer's cattle and land before they could get a word into the court, so the farmers got pissed off and organized. Shays got several hundred farmers to go parade around Springfield and let the government know that they weren't running things right. So the government started arresting them and hanging people. The farmers were never represented in a government which was supposed to be theirs. Where does John Adams come in? You brought him up first in his opposition to Shay's rebellion, if he was in Europe at the time then why bring him up before Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Lincoln? Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time but he got a few words in about it. "I hold in it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" "It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government" Too bad he didn't feel that way about the natives and black people. |
| _____________________________________ [Jul 12,2006 12:56pm - PatMeebles ""] I know about Shay's rebellion, and I would've supported it. I'm just saying the founding father's weren't a bunch of social libertarians, and John Adams is a good example of that because of his opposition to Shay's Rebellion. |
| ____________________________________ [Jul 12,2006 1:03pm - PatMeebles ""] ShadowSD said:PatMeebles said:ShadowSD said:Now, if someone is trying to change the laws to increase centralized authority, that's when people should start paying attention. Then what's the line that you're going to draw? My whole point is that you can't get away with saying "don't take steps towards a fascist state," and then expect everyone to agree with you on what constitutes a step in that direction to begin with. And then when you make that argument, people like me are going to come along and say don't take any steps, no matter how subtle, in the opposite direction to totalitarianism, and then we're stuck in a perpetual state of trying to figure out what makes a step in either direction. Well, only if you ignore a couple pages of what I said; I said I don't believe in that dichotomy, because although history is full of examples of fascism, I have yet to a see practical application of totalitarian leftism. Keep in mind, I HAVE seen that ideaology twisted to create a fascist state, but those are two different things. The interesting thing, though, is that we actually agree that leftist ideaology can lead to dictatorships. I just don't think that translates to assuming that those dictators are applying those principles, that's a very nieve assumption. Dictators are all more or less the same, and they should be regarded as such, not put on opposite ends of the spectrum as if there's an actual diversity. So going to your original question, there is no line to draw, only a direction to avoid. Laws that inhibit the freedom of the individual, whether justified by left or right dogma, must be challenged. Therefore, worrying about left or right ideaology in the absence of any legislation is pointless in resisting fascism. There is a uniform quality to oppressive law that we can all stand against, regardless of the source or the idealogy they use to justify it. You're just trying to muddy up definitions. I know what you don't support. The fact is, by lumping totalitarianism and fascism together, you're avoiding which direction each style of government went in to achieve those results. The fact is, totalitarianism goes further and further to the left and brutally imposes these leftist ideals. Now, once again, what is the line you're going to draw? If any move, NO MATTER HOW SUBTLE, in any direction to totalitarianism or fascism has to be avoided, then are we really supposed to avoid all steps that create programs that happen to also exist in either system of government, fascist or totalitarianism? |
| ____________________________________________ [Jul 12,2006 1:36pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] HailTheLeaf said:You brought him up first in his opposition to Shay's rebellion No, PatMeebles brought him up first. Then you said, as usual, an ignorant statement about him opposing the rebellion because he was rich and white. If you're rich and white you are automatically evil. Once people like Washington (who was rich and white)found out what was going on (cause the people in charge misinformed them of the situation), they fixed it. All the people that helped to fix it, you guessed it, were rich and white. My whole arguement was that he did not oppose the rebellion because he was rich and white. He opposed it because he saw people revolting against a government body that he helped to set up. You suceeded in only dancing around the arguement and proving no proof to anything you've said. |
| ______________________________________ [Jul 12,2006 9:02pm - hungtableed ""] Man_of_the_Century said:hungtableed said:I pretty much said the same thing about how it's all about online gambling clashing with the state's soverignty and power to decide on laws/authorities that are not entrusted to the Federal government nor denied to the states. That's what the 10th Amendment and the Elastic clause is all about. I didn't read the whole thread, sorry for stealing your thunder. no hard feelings bro |