Something I don't understand...

[Ravi]

Why is it that someone that thinks Communism is okay, or that was a Communist in their youth, is unAmerican? I always thought that Americans enjoyed freedom of expression.

Was I wrong? Should we forbid people that don't toe the party line, Democrat or Republican, from being in government?

That sounds fascist, IMO.

Thoughts?

To me Personally, Communism represents a one way ticket to Totalitarianism. You have a choice in destroying Your Own Life, but no Others, against Their Will.

That's fine. I feel the same way about theocracy, yet I do not see how excluding theocrats from government is constitutional.

 

[Immanuel]

Being anti-abortion is not 'constitutional', given that at least the first trimester right to an abortion is protected by constitutional law.

Can a pro-lifer make such an oath?

The only reason that first trimester abortions are protected is because of a bullshit ruling by the USSC 37 years ago. The Constitution does not protect first trimester abortions, but, rather at the moment our government does. That can change (and I am not 100% certain it should) at any moment.

So, yes, as a pro-lifer, I can take such an oath.

Immie

 

[Intense]

Being anti-abortion is not 'constitutional', given that at least the first trimester right to an abortion is protected by constitutional law.

Can a pro-lifer make such an oath?

The only reason that first trimester abortions are protected is because of a bullshit ruling by the USSC 37 years ago. The Constitution does not protect first trimester abortions, but, rather at the moment our government does. That can change (and I am not 100% certain it should) at any moment.

So, yes, as a pro-lifer, I can take such an oath.

Immie

Though I may be against something, that in itself prohibit You from acting. Though You condone something, You should not be able to force My to participate in something against My Will, either directly or indirectly.

 

[Immanuel]

Many would say that the people elected a socialist the the Presidency last year.

I feel the jury is still out on that, but it does seem that the Democratic Party is promoting a socialistic agenda these days.

Immie

Really now? Socialistic Agenda?

To be promoting something, first off don't you have to be actually getting anything done?

I'll get back to you once the Dems actually start doing some things.

What?

You need not accomplish a damned thing to promote it. Do you need a dictionary?

Let me put it this way, I am promoting the idea that each of you send me one dollar for every post you make next year. I think that is a grand idea!

Now, just because I am promoting that idea doesn't mean I will accomplish my endeavour... but, if you care to take me up on that let me know and I will send you my PO Box number for your monthly checks.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Being anti-abortion is not 'constitutional', given that at least the first trimester right to an abortion is protected by constitutional law.

Can a pro-lifer make such an oath?

The only reason that first trimester abortions are protected is because of a bullshit ruling by the USSC 37 years ago. The Constitution does not protect first trimester abortions, but, rather at the moment our government does. That can change (and I am not 100% certain it should) at any moment.

So, yes, as a pro-lifer, I can take such an oath.

Immie

Though I may be against something, that in itself prohibit You from acting. Though You condone something, You should not be able to force My to participate in something against My Will, either directly or indirectly.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Can you restate that please?

Immie

 

[Modbert]

What?

You need not accomplish a damned thing to promote it. Do you need a dictionary?

Let me put it this way, I am promoting the idea that each of you send me one dollar for every post you make next year. I think that is a grand idea!

Now, just because I am promoting that idea doesn't mean I will accomplish my endeavour... but, if you care to take me up on that let me know and I will send you my PO Box number for your monthly checks.

Immie

I'm one of those guys who wants to see rubber meets road for something to be sure. To be saying that the Democrats are promoting a Socialist Agenda is ridiculous considering their lack of getting anything done that is "Socialist." Sure you can say they are "promoting" something but I could say you're promoting Cannibalism. Does that make it true automatically? No.

My point is I would like some concrete evidence to the whole "promoting a Socialist Agenda". They can't even decide on Health Care together, you really think they're going to bring this country under the hammer and sickle?

Besides, majority of Democrats are not even Liberal, never mind Leftist. So they'll have a difficult time on that one.

By the way, you're going about things the wrong way. You need to go to the Government and ask for a bailout.

 

[Intense]

What?

You need not accomplish a damned thing to promote it. Do you need a dictionary?

Let me put it this way, I am promoting the idea that each of you send me one dollar for every post you make next year. I think that is a grand idea!

Now, just because I am promoting that idea doesn't mean I will accomplish my endeavour... but, if you care to take me up on that let me know and I will send you my PO Box number for your monthly checks.

Immie

I'm one of those guys who wants to see rubber meets road for something to be sure. To be saying that the Democrats are promoting a Socialist Agenda is ridiculous considering their lack of getting anything done that is "Socialist." Sure you can say they are "promoting" something but I could say you're promoting Cannibalism. Does that make it true automatically? No.

My point is I would like some concrete evidence to the whole "promoting a Socialist Agenda". They can't even decide on Health Care together, you really think they're going to bring this country under the hammer and sickle?

Besides, majority of Democrats are not even Liberal, never mind Leftist. So they'll have a difficult time on that one.

Watch out for Anyone, on either side of the Aisle proposing One World Government. Dem's are afraid of holding on to their seats right now, so It in Itself splits the vote. Nationalizing Industry is a tip off to intent, though, and extremely dangerous.

 

[logical4u]

You sound like Pubic, Xeno.

Communism is an economic system. As such, there is nothing about it that is diametrically opposed to the USA.

Even if it were, so what? Why would you disallow some philosophical viewpoints and not others?

Communism is in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights. Communism is about the "collective". This country was founded on the idea of the "individual". Communism removes individual "rights" to be replaced with "its good for the collective".
That also applies to economics. In this country there is the great ideal of "personal property" (that includes money). In communism there is NO "personal property", all resources are the "property" of the collective. The idea of communism is wonderful; in reality, it squanders the collective "wealth" and leaves the participants in poverty. It can only work where the participants are voluntary and moral (hard to find).
I think it is great when communists admit who they are and where they want to take this country. If the politicians would do that "honestly", we would have a better gov. Voters would not have the deceivers that are in the gov now (and in the past).

 

[Modbert]

Watch out for Anyone, on either side of the Aisle proposing One World Government. Dem's are afraid of holding on to their seats right now, so It in Itself splits the vote. Nationalizing Industry is a tip off to intent, though, and extremely dangerous.

Well going on that track, 2012 is suppose to be the end of the world isn't it?

 

[Si modo]

Why is it that someone that thinks Communism is okay, or that was a Communist in their youth, is unAmerican? I always thought that Americans enjoyed freedom of expression.

Was I wrong? Should we forbid people that don't toe the party line, Democrat or Republican, from being in government?

That sounds fascist, IMO.

Thoughts?

To me Personally, Communism represents a one way ticket to Totalitarianism. You have a choice in destroying Your Own Life, but no Others, against Their Will.

That's fine. I feel the same way about theocracy, yet I do not see how excluding theocrats from government is constitutional.

You keep asking a question that has been answered so many times. Theocractic ideals, just as those of communism, are completely inconsistent with the Constitution. One must take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

It's not difficult.

Now I know how parents can get fed up with toddlers who keep asking 'why'.

 

[logical4u]

You sound like Pubic, Xeno.

Communism is an economic system. As such, there is nothing about it that is diametrically opposed to the USA.

Even if it were, so what? Why would you disallow some philosophical viewpoints and not others?

Theoretically communism and democracy could be compatible but in reality not so much.

Communism is too much of a commitment towards mediocracy. It is giving up on the human invention. It is a complete admission of and surrender to our weaknesses. For that it is morally wrong.

Name anything of significance invented in the USSR or Red CHINA.

They are poor examples of communism and not something I believe any American communists model themselves on.

As for the rest of your statement, here's an example.

Suppose we have a socialized health care system that means everyone is insured no matter what their job. This would actually give everyone the freedom to take any job they please. As it stands now, many people feel compelled to take jobs that give them health care bennies...thereby stifling their creative impulses.

Why not open the health insurance market to more competition? Let the people decide what coverage they want to buy: just catostraphic or major illnesses or for any plastic surgery they want done.
Why not give citizens the same tax breaks for buying insurance as the employers?
Why force people that do not want to purchase a "full coverage" policy to pay for others health care "whims" (plastic surgery , assisted pregnancies, sex changes, repeated rehabs, frequent and unnecessary office visits)?
Define what is covered under "your" insured plan.
The gov won't.
It will not write in protections for patients/citizens.
It is a bad idea.

 

[logical4u]

Yes, I suppose I've gone off topic.

What I really want to know is why people that support relatively unpopular philosophies are witch hunted out of politics?

It is probably because so many people can see how destructive these philosophies would be if applied in this country.
If someone tells you drinking tar would be a great thing and you have seen, smelled, tasted tar, there would be no way you would drink it. And yet that person keeps telling you that it will be great. They won't drink it, but they keep telling you, hey, this is a great plan. People will tune them out.
People will call them out...the same with politicians that want to promote a bad idea (philosophy). If the politician can not show proof that their idea works and people have seen the results of that idea in another area, it is just rejected (like communism).

 

[logical4u]

They won't have a chance of getting most government jobs (competitive pool) with that record as most require a security clearance.

Elected, and unfortunately, appointed positions do not require any clearance.

And, as there is this oath associatated with ALL appointments (elected and competitive), no they should not and will not have a job.

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." (last line optional)

Communists cannot make such an oath; communism is not quite constitutional.

Being anti-abortion is not 'constitutional', given that at least the first trimester right to an abortion is protected by constitutional law.

Can a pro-lifer make such an oath?

Read the fourteenth ammendment. Pro - lifers are constitutional. It is the anti-lifers that are unconstitutional.

 

[Si modo]

They won't have a chance of getting most government jobs (competitive pool) with that record as most require a security clearance.

Elected, and unfortunately, appointed positions do not require any clearance.

And, as there is this oath associatated with ALL appointments (elected and competitive), no they should not and will not have a job.

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." (last line optional)

Communists cannot make such an oath; communism is not quite constitutional.

Being anti-abortion is not 'constitutional', given that at least the first trimester right to an abortion is protected by constitutional law.

Can a pro-lifer make such an oath?

WTF does an opinion on abortion have to do with a governmental system?

We are a constitutional republic, set forth in the Constitution. Theocracies, communism, monarchies, etc. are inconsistent with a constitutional republic as set forth in our Constitution. One must take an oath to protect and defind the Constitution. Either way, they cannot take the oath or they are not really believers in those ideologies, or maybe they can separate their professional life from their ideologies (but not representing themsleves as goverment employees when practicing their personal ideologies - immediate separation from service).

 

[Intense]

To me Personally, Communism represents a one way ticket to Totalitarianism. You have a choice in destroying Your Own Life, but no Others, against Their Will.

That's fine. I feel the same way about theocracy, yet I do not see how excluding theocrats from government is constitutional.

You keep asking a question that has been answered so many times. Theocractic ideals, just as those of communism, are completely inconsistent with the Constitution. One must take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

It's not difficult.

Now I know how parents can get fed up with toddlers who keep asking 'why'.

Theocratic Ideals may or may not be in Conflict with the Constitution, that is Specific and Debatable, agreed that the Bottom Line in Rule of Law is Living Within It.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God, that which is God's. Though Conscience may help in Civil Law, it is not limited by it, though actions may be.

 

[Si modo]

That's fine. I feel the same way about theocracy, yet I do not see how excluding theocrats from government is constitutional.

You keep asking a question that has been answered so many times. Theocractic ideals, just as those of communism, are completely inconsistent with the Constitution. One must take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

It's not difficult.

Now I know how parents can get fed up with toddlers who keep asking 'why'.

Theocratic Ideals may or may not be in Conflict with the Constitution, that is Specific and Debatable, agreed that the Bottom Line in Rule of Law is Living Within It.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God, that which is God's. Though Conscience may help in Civil Law, it is not limited by it, though actions may be.

We are a constitutional republic, not a theocracy, according to the Constitution.

 

[Immanuel]

What?

You need not accomplish a damned thing to promote it. Do you need a dictionary?

Let me put it this way, I am promoting the idea that each of you send me one dollar for every post you make next year. I think that is a grand idea!

Now, just because I am promoting that idea doesn't mean I will accomplish my endeavour... but, if you care to take me up on that let me know and I will send you my PO Box number for your monthly checks.

Immie

I'm one of those guys who wants to see rubber meets road for something to be sure. To be saying that the Democrats are promoting a Socialist Agenda is ridiculous considering their lack of getting anything done that is "Socialist." Sure you can say they are "promoting" something but I could say you're promoting Cannibalism. Does that make it true automatically? No.

My point is I would like some concrete evidence to the whole "promoting a Socialist Agenda". They can't even decide on Health Care together, you really think they're going to bring this country under the hammer and sickle?

However, they can still promote something even though they and our entire political system is currently ineffective. The Healthcare "Plan" and bailouts are two examples of what I am talking about. Not to mention the fact, that the Democratic Party is every bit for(well they pay lip service too) the idea of wealth redistribution which is socialistic.

Besides, majority of Democrats are not even Liberal, never mind Leftist. So they'll have a difficult time on that one.

The Democratic Party platform is one of socialistic values. Thus, the question asked earlier about a pro-lifer taking an oath of protecting and defending the Constitution would apply to the Democrats remaining members of their party if they don't see eye to eye with the parties platform.

I don't believe I have to agree with everything my government does in order to support both my government and the Constitution. I can support both and work to improve both without agreeing with all aspects of both.

By the way, you're going about things the wrong way. You need to go to the Government and ask for a bailout.

Well, since the idea just popped in my head when I made that post, I might have to refine it a little bit! Give me some time to work on that plan!

Immie

 

[Paulie]

Rav there's a big difference between the party affiliation you officially run on, and the actual ideology you REALLY adhere to.

Politicians lie, right? So why should we believe any specific one is not a communist, simply because they don't run with that party?

Same thing with any other govt. job, really. How do we really know that a particular bureaucrat is not actually a communist at heart?

I think you have too much trust not only in government officials, but the system itself.

 

[Intense]

You keep asking a question that has been answered so many times. Theocractic ideals, just as those of communism, are completely inconsistent with the Constitution. One must take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

It's not difficult.

Now I know how parents can get fed up with toddlers who keep asking 'why'.

Theocratic Ideals may or may not be in Conflict with the Constitution, that is Specific and Debatable, agreed that the Bottom Line in Rule of Law is Living Within It.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God, that which is God's. Though Conscience may help in Civil Law, it is not limited by it, though actions may be.

We are a constitutional republic, not a theocracy, according to the Constitution.

Agreed. We are Free to live by Conscience Too. Nice of the Constitution to Recognize that Huh.

 

[Ravi]

Rav there's a big difference between the party affiliation you officially run on, and the actual ideology you REALLY adhere to.

Politicians lie, right? So why should we believe any specific one is not a communist, simply because they don't run with that party?

Same thing with any other govt. job, really. How do we really know that a particular bureaucrat is not actually a communist at heart?

I think you have too much trust not only in government officials, but the system itself.

This makes no sense in regard to my OP.