Ever heard of the Constitution...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Zelgadis I still don't see how, by any stretch of the imagination, that Bob Barr is a Libertarian. quote>

This was quite a controversial issue at the Libertarian National Convention this past summer, actually. He won by a narrow margin, and a lot of people really believed that Mary Ruwart, who came in close second, really should have won. It also didn't help that the third placer, Wayne Allyn Root, got the VP nomination.

Before the final ballot, the crowd noticeably divided in two, half loudly chanting "Barr Root!", the other loudly chanting "Ma-ry!" Took a while to calm things down and actually do the voting.

And yes, I have no doubt that it was his recognition that won Barr the nomination. Ruwart would have been a better candidate, but what can you do?

[ironicepitome 0]

well, im an independent (w00t, i get 2% of the vote!), so i think govt SUX!

[Patricius Maximus 236]

well, im an independent (w00t, i get 2% of the vote!)quote>

Actually, the combined total for Nader and Barr was a little over 1 percent. However, according to the latest surveys, independents are the largest voting group in the US, with 36 percent of voters being independent.

I still don't see how, by any stretch of the imagination, that Bob Barr is a Libertarian.quote>

Ah, brings back some campaign memories for me. I'm not an expert on the libertarian party, but as far as I know Bob Barr is a libertarian except on his agenda on social issues, a.k.a. non-economic freedoms.

I remember the videos on his web site, they were quite interesting. I believe that had Bob Barr been elected, it would have created a beneficial tension in the government, which is now lacking.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Duke: First off, your cartoon is in no way representative of my views, you are misstating my beliefs intentionally. I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, nor do I disbelieve the moon landing.

The existence of shadow quasi-governmental organizations is well documented, next time you're on Manhattan's Upper East Side you can visit the CFR HQ at 58 East 68th St and ask for their literature, or even a job.

The Bilderberg group, headed by Viscount Etienne Davignon, has been exposed lately by the BBC. Davignon is the 'face of the EU currency unification'. He was interviewed by the BBC's Bill Hayton, and admitted to 'steering' certain individuals such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair into positions of power.

The 'black helicopters' that had become kind of a running joke, even to Rush Limbaugh, have been documented in Chicago by the Sun-Times, and in Portland, OR by the Oregonian newspaper. In both cases, they were conducting live-fire exercises while on urban assault training. In the Portland case, I even saw them and pointed them out to others.

Before you mock things you know nothing about, please do your homework.

---

Zelgadis: If you consider the Democratic Party and people like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank to be centrists, I must say (with all due respect, not dissing you) that you are so far to the left of the American mainstream... Leon Trotsky is asking that you not stand on his grave, you're trampling the grass.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I must say (with all due respect, not dissing you) that you are so far to the left of the American mainstream... Leon Trotsky is asking that you not stand on his grave, you're trampling the grass.quote>

Really? If the opinion Barney Frank is a centrist is Trotskyism then I must be an anarcco-communist as I believe that Barney Frank is a fascist. No, not fascism like Hitler and Mussolini, but economic fascism. If you do not believe me, look at these excerpts from the National Socialist (Nazi) Program:

The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land. quote>

Now, I recognize that many of these points Barney Frank does not advocate, but the parts about profit eerily reminds me of him wanting many restrictions on the companies that take TARP money, maximum wages for executives, restrictions on their activities, taking equity stakes in companies, et cetera.

So, I believe that Barney Frank's economic leanings are fascist, not socialist, not centrist, not conservative.

[Zelgadis 638]

Compared to most liberal parties around the world, yes, Nancy Pelosi and Barny Frank are centrists. I didn't used to think this, but after having lived in two other countries with liberal parties (like Canada's New Democrat Party), it's the only conclusion I can come to.

America has more lefties than you think. It's just that there's no party to go with them.

ISF

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus text quote>

You have found the point where the political spectrum turns into a circle. Most people consider fascism to be right-wing, when the truth is it's near where socialism from the left and right converge. Yes, he has espoused views very similar to/in agreement with those presented. But in his case, he's considered to be quite the liberal.

 Barney Frank, a Nazi? LOL! Good job! You should email him and point it out, though I doubt he'd be amused.

[hym 358]

Courtesy of my camera and the National Archives.

[sneakeypete 16]

Considering i live in a commonwealth country, and we have nothing of this sort here, i have a question to all you Americans: do you think the constitution is still relevant?

Heck, it was made by a bunch of guys, what, 300 years ago. As well as that, from the little i've seen from the outside of your country, it seems like there's a lot of pointless bickering that goes on about "rights" granted under it. (eg "oh, you can't take my gun, its my right!", when, for example, tougher laws really should be imposed).

So, is it?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Well, sneakypete, yes it is. Nothing in American gov't is more relevant than the Constitution. It is the backbone of our entire system. And that 'bunch of guys' were very wise, they wrote it to last. It has survived every attempt to destroy it by various people  within the gov't over the years. It is the guarantee of of our freedoms (such as they are) and cannot be ignored lightly. The bickering isn't pointless, it's how politics is done. As the old saying goes, democracy is like sausage... everyone likes it, but no one wants to see it being made.

[Meg 368]

The Constitution is the highest law of the land, as well it should be. Over the years, people have attacked it in various ways. The solution to that is examine the attacks and determine if there is a valid reasons for amending the Constitution. By design, it is difficult to amend but that has happened on several occasions in my lifetime.

It is important to note that the oath that the President (and all other government employees) take is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America".

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Considering i live in a commonwealth country, and we have nothing of this sort here, i have a question to all you Americans: do you think the constitution is still relevant?quote>

I am not an American citizen, but I have often been in the US, so I do know about the laws there.

My answer to your question is YES.

Heck, it was made by a bunch of guys, what, 300 years ago. quote>

Actually it was 222 years ago. It will be 300 years old in 2087.

As well as that, from the little i've seen from the outside of your country, it seems like there's a lot of pointless bickering that goes on about "rights" granted under it. (eg "oh, you can't take my gun, its my right!", when, for example, tougher laws really should be imposed).quote>

It is not pointless bickering for Americans defending their human rights, and it is not pointless for Americans to refuse to surrender their only defense left against their government: their weapons. 

An armed population makes the government fear the people. That is a good thing.

An unarmed population makes the people fear the government. That is a bad thing, and is one of the prerequisites for government oppression.

Also, the government stealing every weapon from the population violates property rights as well. That is two rights which are violated by your example. It is not something to whine about. This could be a matter of whether they live or die in the future for many Americans.

The Constitution needs to be amended, yes. But the amendments that are needed merely complete and complement the principles contained within it and the Declaration of Independence, namely "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."

That ends my rant for the evening.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa