It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by stumason
No, they are supposed to (in the US case anyway) run the country. If he cannot make it, then they send representatives.
.............
Originally posted by stumason
EDIT: I have read that Healthcare is "unconstitutional".. How so? I mean, I've not read your constitution word for word, but I am pretty sure that there is nothing in there about Healthcare...
Originally posted by stumason
So GM should have just collapsed, leaving thousands out of work and the US without even more heavy industry? Fair enough...
Originally posted by stumason
Oh, Socialism doesn't equal Communism. Kind of the crux of the argument inifinite was making about your guys not knowing what you're talking about, really.
Originally posted by stumason
Also, what's so bad about providing healthcare to the people? I never understood this from Yanks, always a "me first" attitude and sod everyone else. I assume you're perfectly happy with the idea of millions of Americans being unable to afford even the most basic healthcare?
Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
No, they are supposed to (in the US case anyway) run the country. If he cannot make it, then they send representatives.
Was he even invited? After all, the Queen wasn't invited to the 65th D-day anniversary earlier this year as the French committed a faux pas and invited the PM instead, when protocol indicates it should be the Head of State, not some lumpy old scotsman who whined and slimed his way into the job.
[edit on 8/11/09 by stumason]
Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
You have to buy insurance for your car, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?
You have to pay taxes, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?
So whats the difference? Please, point me to the specific bit in the constitution where it says that the Government cannot impose fees, fines, taxes or other monetary matters onto it's people under threat of jail?
I am begining to think this is another one of those stretched arguments where if an American doesn't like something, their initial reaction is to scream "unconstitutional!!!"
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Tens of thousands lots jobs from GM...and it is CAPITALISM...another, stronger auto maker would have picked up the slack and given the jobs to many of those people who lost them, but instead tax dollars went to the millionares/billionares in charge of GM, and still tens of thousands of Americans lost their jobs....
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Socialism is the first stage towards Communism, after all even Karl Marx explained this, but i guess you weren't paying attention when that has been explained by those rooting for true Socialism/Communism. BTW, in case you didn't know Communists call themselves Socialists also. Like the Chinese government, Castro, Chavez, etc...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
That's without mentioning that the Obama administration has been taking the United States through the same steps that Chavez took Venezuela into, and after people like Infinite were claiming people like me were nuts and Chavez was not a "Socialist/Communist," Chavez announced in his inauguration speech that he was a "Socialist", and then explained "he is Communist, so what"?...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
That's because you bviously haven't spent time reading about the Obama healthcare reform....which includes the fact that Americans don't have a choice, and MUST have healthcare, or be fined...not to mention that the STATE/government makes the decisions and not the doctors, etc...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, i guess you are fined with the idea that President Obama clearly has told elder Americans that "they might be better continuing to take the pills, instead of having treatments, or an operation even if doctors think they can be saved with treatments, or operations, and this is just because it might not be economically viable...
Originally posted by stumason
You have to buy insurance for your car, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?
You have to pay taxes, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?
So whats the difference? Please, point me to the specific bit in the constitution where it says that the Government cannot impose fees, fines, taxes or other monetary matters onto it's people under threat of jail?
I am begining to think this is another one of those stretched arguments where if an American doesn't like something, their initial reaction is to scream "unconstitutional!!!"
Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
You have to buy insurance for your car, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?
You have to pay taxes, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?
So whats the difference? Please, point me to the specific bit in the constitution where it says that the Government cannot impose fees, fines, taxes or other monetary matters onto it's people under threat of jail?
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
See? this is the reason why foregneirs shouldn't be saying things they obviously haven't learned about when it comes to other countries.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
One of the reasons why the forefathers of this nation decided to break away from your nation, was because your King kept imposing TAXES on the colonies...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
The Constitution does allow for the collection of taxes, but it states they shall be uniform throughout the state, which is not happening.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Not to mention that it states if the government exceeds it's powers, and if there are just grievances, that the people can throw down such government demand redress and replace it, again, if necessary with one which will follow just laws. Not exactly like that, but you catch my drift.
Originally posted by stumason
Yes, yes... But how many of you actually try to do something about your obviously undemocratic, two party system? None. You all blissfully go along and vote left/right, blue/red and don't even care about policy, it's all about personallity and who can dish out the most dirt about the other.
Trotsky then analyzes the "The Soviet Thermidor," analyzing the triumph of Stalin, the separation of the party from Bolshevism, and the rising bureaucratic stratum. He now discusses everyday life in the Soviet Union, economic inequality and the oppression of the new proletariat.
From here he discusses foreign policy and the Soviet military: The failure to defeat fascism, the re-institution of ranks and the loss of a militia, and closes by examining the future of the Soviet Union.
The main characteristic of this work is that by using marxist methods, Trotsky predicted -in 1936- that the USSR would come before a disjuncture: either the toppling of the ruling bureaucracy by means of a political revolution, or capitalist restoration led by the bureaucracy. In fact, Trotsky predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union, in 1936, using the marxist method of analysis, decades before any western or capitalist sociologist, to show that the USSR was not anymore a Marxist state, but in fact a Degenerated workers' state.
Before the return of capitalism to Russia, there was an attempted 'communist' restoration by the bureaucracy which deposed Gorbachev; that coup by old communist party hardliners failed in the face of a popular political revolution, eventually led by Yeltsin, and in the wake of economic collapse the criminal élite metamorphosed into super-capitalists, as predicted by "The Revolution Betrayed".