Good Special Comment Options

[Timbo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs

Nice.

[Trespass]

I always love the "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." quote people try to use to justify thier argument. When the argument can very well be what do you consider "liberty"? One might consider safety and well being as a liberty. One might view the pursuit of criminals before they hurt us as a liberty "we" enjoy.

Throwing a quote or hypothetical out there is one thing, proving that something is actually wrong in a sense of precedence or the constitution is a little harder to do. SAYING someone is facist is much easier than proving how a person is currently and continually acting against the rules and law of the republic he is leading.

Dont like policy, thats part of a democratic right to disagree. That democracy taking part in a policy that some of the citizens of the country simply don't like... hardly a violation of the democracy. The country is a democracy for a reason, checks and balances. If THE CONGRESS and THE EXECUTIVE branch enact something that is unconstitutional (happens many a time in our past over less than horrible things) then it is THE JUDICIAL branches job to overturn it.

To say that a BILL is facist when it has went through TWO branches of the government, and it was passed off of a previous ruling that the THIRD branch made, seems.... far fetched. Especially since it can still be reviewed... and then re-reviewed if need be... or reppealed by congress... or amended to the constitution. But by all means, hate the bill (assuming you take the time to read it), hell that is your right.

[pebkac]

I always love the "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." quote people try to use to justify thier argument. When the argument can very well be what do you consider "liberty"? One might consider safety and well being as a liberty. One might view the pursuit of criminals before they hurt us as a liberty "we" enjoy.

Throwing a quote or hypothetical out there is one thing, proving that something is actually wrong in a sense of precedence or the constitution is a little harder to do. SAYING someone is facist is much easier than proving how a person is currently and continually acting against the rules and law of the republic he is leading.

Dont like policy, thats part of a democratic right to disagree. That democracy taking part in a policy that some of the citizens of the country simply don't like... hardly a violation of the democracy. The country is a democracy for a reason, checks and balances. If THE CONGRESS and THE EXECUTIVE branch enact something that is unconstitutional (happens many a time in our past over less than horrible things) then it is THE JUDICIAL branches job to overturn it.

To say that a BILL is facist when it has went through TWO branches of the government, and it was passed off of a previous ruling that the THIRD branch made, seems.... far fetched. Especially since it can still be reviewed... and then re-reviewed if need be... or reppealed by congress... or amended to the constitution. But by all means, hate the bill (assuming you take the time to read it), hell that is your right.

I'm not sure if you're talking about a specific bill or just speaking in generalities here, but just because a bill was rubber stamped by multiple institutions doesn't make it not fascist. Germany was a democracy until Hitler took over. The Soviet Union until its death was a "democracy" where laws and acts were rubber stamped by a legislature. Yet would either of these things be called democratic?

[Trespass]

I'm not sure if you're talking about a specific bill or just speaking in generalities here, but just because a bill was rubber stamped by multiple institutions doesn't make it not fascist. Germany was a democracy until Hitler took over. The Soviet Union until its death was a "democracy" where laws and acts were rubber stamped by a legislature. Yet would either of these things be called democratic?

So you CAN show me how this was either passed fascistly (the system being currupted) or the actual bill is fascist right?!? I honestly would like to be shown how it is. There are supreme court rulings, the actual bills language, the constitution, etc. Surely if you are claiming such a high level of curruption (such as the perversion of our entire governmental system) you can show me where courts have been wrong, or SOMETHING of value other than analogies about russia somehow being democratic (no matter how illogical that statement is)

[pebkac]

So you CAN show me how this was either passed fascistly (the system being currupted) or the actual bill is fascist right?!? I honestly would like to be shown how it is. There are supreme court rulings, the actual bills language, the constitution, etc.

Just because something's Constitutional or within judicial precedent doesn't make it a good idea.

Surely if you are claiming such a high level of curruption (such as the perversion of our entire governmental system) you can show me where courts have been wrong, or SOMETHING of value other than analogies about russia somehow being democratic (no matter how illogical that statement is)

Your argument was that the bill wasn't fascist because it went through different institutions in our government. My point was that just because different houses of the government passed it doesn't mean that it was necessarily done democratically.

[Trespass]

Your argument was that the bill wasn't fascist because it went through different institutions in our government. My point was that just because different houses of the government passed it doesn't mean that it was necessarily done democratically.

So the fact that it went through OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM doesn't make it democratic.... so you dont think we have a democracy... i wont begin to get into that

[pebkac]

So the fact that it went through OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM doesn't make it democratic.... so you dont think we have a democracy... i wont begin to get into that

Nope, our system isn't democratic. Our founding fathers were totally against the idea of democracy. To quote James Madison (the father of the Constitution):

The landed interest, at present, is prevalent, but in process of time...when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small...will not the landed interests be overbalanced in future elections? and, unless wisely provided against, what will become of our government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

Say what you will about our founding fathers, they were nothing more than a bunch of rich, arrogant capitalists looking to protect their own interests. And they did so by developing a system that would limit the amount of influence people have on their government.