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 Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by frazzle
Maybe we should try a more esoteric approach. Maybe throw in a little poetry and mysticism for the communistically initiated since the basics are beneath them.
Proletariat art is a misnomer. They view art as "snotty highbrow" stuff. It is the deep flaw in Marxism that always leads to his followers stumbling. Of course, Marx did not much care for the followers, and wound up declaring "I am not a Marxist!", but he was being somewhat disingenuous pretending that it was the fault of his followers and not of his own philosophy.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
You know what? You can call it "ad hominmen attacks" all you want. You are purposely distorting other peoples arguments. I haven't made any argument of "separation". Quite the contrary what I have just argued is that a government of We the People, for the People and by the People must live with the same restrictions on rights that any of the governed must and that is far from separation.
Your distortion of other people's arguments continues when you claim these people you are arguing with "pretend they are incapable of comprehending basic stuff." Again, quite the contrary, I, and certainly frazzle are not pretending any such thing and the both of us clearly have a firm grasp on "basic stuff".
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
The Communist Manifesto is a slight book authored by two authors, Marx and Frederic Engels. Marx authored Das Kapital, which is hardly a slight book, and whether you know it or not you are echoing Marx's ideas.
This is the problem with not reading authors who've profoundly impacted the world. You wind up being the effect of that impact rather than cause.
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
In both instances I was pointing out the futility and harmful effects of revolution.
...transitionary stage where government nationalises industry to eventually turn it over to the workers...
Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth — the soil and the labourer
Democracy is the road to socialism.
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
Still cannot compute basic math? If you don't like talking about a bloody revolution then just ignore it, but please stop with the fraudulent accusations. I never accused you of anything...other than what I am accusing you of now!
Before you can reach a correct equation you have to have all the components of the formula. I just found another component.
earthcitizen:
I am talking electroshock therapy, punctured organs, extreme heat therapy, pulling nails, homosexual activity, etc.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That's not seeking justice, it's unmitigated revenge which is never a good way to start building a just society. Or have you thought that far into the future?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
It doesn't matter if you care about communism or not. You keep echoing Marxist's sentiments and you clearly do not know this.
...transitionary stage where government nationalises industry to eventually turn it over to the workers...
This is pure Marxist thought:
Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth — the soil and the labourer
~Das Kapital; Volume I, Chapter 13~
I've never been able to find a credible source to this attribution to Marx:
Democracy is the road to socialism.
Whether Marx ever actually said this or not, there sure plenty of socialists and communists alike who love to attribute it to him.
Deny Ignorance!
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
It doesn't matter if you care about communism or not. You keep echoing Marxist's sentiments and you clearly do not know this.
...transitionary stage where government nationalises industry to eventually turn it over to the workers...
This is pure Marxist thought:
It seems you like taking things OUT OF CONTEXT whenever it suits you, make allegations at will and then claim "I did not say this because I said this". Utter, utter nonsense.
Perhaps you should read the context of the post I replied to see if it makes sense. If you disagree then that becomes your problem, not mine. Maybe you should stick to the topic at hand rather than drift all over the place.
In 1982 the Senate Judiciary Committee Sub-committee on the Constitution stated in Senate Document 2807:
"That the National Guard is not the 'Militia' referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress had organized the National Guard under its power to 'raise and support armies' and not its power to 'Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.' The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311(a).
Title 32 U.S.C. in July 1918 completely altered the definition of the militia and its service, who controls it and what it is. The difference between the National Guard and Regular Army was swept away, and became a personnel pay folder classification only, thus nationalizing the entire National Guard into the Regular Standing Armies of the United States."
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . .Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
I rarely hear anyone talking about how capitalism and social democracy lend credence to one another.
There are too many people too willing to believe that regulatory schemes protect them from harm. It matters not that iatrogenocide (death by licensed doctor) is the third leading cause of death in America. It matters not, that in spite of a tyrannical FDA, people die of botulism from food supposedly approved by the FDA.
A doctrine derived from the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution that requires criminal laws to be drafted in language that is clear enough for the average person to comprehend.
If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutionally vague. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that no one may be required at peril of life, liberty, or property to speculate as to the meaning of a penal law. Everyone is entitled to know what the government commands or forbids.
I want to know why hasn't this doctrine been used in court by SOMEBODY to shut these out of control agencies down.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by frazzle
I want to know why hasn't this doctrine been used in court by SOMEBODY to shut these out of control agencies down.
We have foolishly relied far to heavily on attorneys...licensed attorneys...who are the ones relied upon to draft legislation and regulations, who purposely write them to be vague so as to give themselves that priest class status. It is going to take you and I and people who know the law and are not intimidated by the priest class lawyer sect to rely upon sound principles of law, such as the vagueness doctrine to, if not bring down the agencies, use the law to get them off our individual asses.
Much like water, lawyers are insidious. The seep into everything and bring their world of mold and mildew.
When we return to using unlicensed (there's that word again) advocates again, we might make some progress. Its the "proper filing procedures" that scares the $#@$ out of most people, including me.
n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
The practice of law is most public when a matter is tried before a court. In both civil and criminal hearings and trials, lawyers must understand rules of procedure and evidence. Lawyers select jurors, challenge the introduction of evidence, make arguments to the judge and jury, propose jury instructions and do whatever is necessary to represent their clients. Lawyers also may file appeals on behalf of their clients if they lose in the trial court. Appeals require the preparation of a brief and oral argument in front of appellate judges.
Originally posted by frazzle
Originally posted by eNaR
reply to post by jude11
Most everyone on the planet is angry.
...loss of freedoms
...loss of wealth
...loss of privacy
...loss of employment
...loss of loved ones due to war, famine, etc.
...loss of security
...loss of LIBERTY
The list actually would be much longer, but I'm sure everyone gets the drift..... And life goes on and the rich get richer while we think everything is peachy keen......
Are there really all that many people who still think its peachy keen?
Maybe you could help us figure out what to do about it?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by g2v12
I rarely hear anyone talking about how capitalism and social democracy lend credence to one another.
I'm done using the word "capitalism". It has been appropriated by too many factions, and far too many who rely upon Marx's definition of the word. I am, as I have always been, a free market advocate. In terms of "social democracy" this appears to be a redundant phrase. Democracy and free markets, however, do not mix. One could argue that the liberty that comes with a free market, the ability to "vote" with your money and purchase your goods and services of choice is a principle of democracy, but when we equate democracy with government that free market would never have a chance of survival.
Whoever actually said democracy is the road to socialism was correct. Democracy is certainly not the road to a free and unregulated market.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by frazzle
I want to know why hasn't this doctrine been used in court by SOMEBODY to shut these out of control agencies down.
We have foolishly relied far to heavily on attorneys...licensed attorneys...who are the ones relied upon to draft legislation and regulations, who purposely write them to be vague so as to give themselves that priest class status. It is going to take you and I and people who know the law and are not intimidated by the priest class lawyer sect to rely upon sound principles of law, such as the vagueness doctrine to, if not bring down the agencies, use the law to get them off our individual asses.
Much like water, lawyers are insidious. The seep into everything and bring their world of mold and mildew.
Originally posted by eNaR
reply to post by jude11
Key word was "think". We think everything is okay. It's not however....
...there's many who know everything IS okay..... the extremely rich (billionaires), who are at the top of the heap, come to mind. The Republican and Democrat elite, NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL players making 7 or 8 figure yearly salaries, Wall Street banksters and stock brokers, talentless rappers with gold teeth talking trash about cops and hoes, drug lords, those who deal in human trafficking, blah, blah, blah....
So that leaves us who believe that we're doing alright.
What can we do about it?
Not much but ..... maybe watch "Dancing with the Stars" or "the Biggest Loser" or "some major league sport" or "NASCAR" or watch "nightly news and see rampant crime, death and destruction" .......... and somehow believe we're doing okay because those in power are lulling us into submission with crazy ass reality shows and having us believe athletes are so important in our lives and that fat guy over there, glad you're not his size and on and on and on...... all to keep our minds off the important stuff.....
So are American and others all over the planet angry? Bloody right they are !!!!!! But there's not much we can do....