Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-13-2008, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,105 posts, read 5,977,277 times
Reputation: 2479

Advertisements

The fascii from which fascism gets its name were a bundle of axes mounted on the wall of the Roman Senate and were the synbol of its power in that Republic. Laterday Fascists wanted to restore the power and glory that was classical Rome to post-WW 1 Italy and chose this as their symbol. Fascists often use a message of exceptionalism to gain and keep power. Mussolini used the values of ancient Rome, Hitler used German-Norse exceptionalism and the idea of a master race and Saddam used ancient Babylon.

What a lot of people think is communism is not communism as Karl Marx theorized. Marx's communism had no need for an economy because technology would be so efficient that there woulf be no need to set prices or wages. Everyones needs would be met and people would work and contribute to society because it would be against there very nature not to. In Marx's communism the state would whither away because it would serve no useful purpose. A lot of Marxists thought Marx was not very practical. What we now call communism is actually Leninism which was Lenin's answer to the question of how do you create a communist society.
Lenin believed a transitional state was needed to guide society to communism. He belived this transitional state was a dictatorship of the proletariate. To provide leadership to this state a small cadre was to be formed from true believers. They would be the vanguard to a workers state. Lenin wanted this transitional dictatorship to develop the economy to the point that the state could safely give up the reigns of power. Lenin once defined communism as Soviet power plus electrification of the entire country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2008, 04:54 PM
 
48,505 posts, read 96,675,147 times
Reputation: 18304
Communism does not have taxes as the sate controls all means of production and the fruits of production. In most cases you are assign work by the state and that could include include a teacher that finds disfavor to a collective farm in the country side;for example. They also pay you what they want.In resent times many have areas that they allow privte emterprise but it is tightly controlled still. A manager for examle that is found guilty of his product like the food problems can be sent to prison or even excecuted. A worker can be sent to prison for infractions also.They tightly control access tot eh internet for example and what sites you can go to as well as all communications.What we thnk of as governamnt interference is nothing comapred to say in China were you can be brought in on just a neighbor turning you in or a co-worker for talking against the state.No thank you to communism whcih is tighter contrrolled than even socialism. The Stae in both do what they want and many things we think nothing of is a crime with priosn sentences of heavy labor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2008, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Waco, TX
977 posts, read 1,950,619 times
Reputation: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
You mean the American RIGHT, right?
It is unfathomable to me that anyone can actually believe that given the actions of the left.
First, the 2000 election. Get over it. You lost. The electoral system has been in place for over 200 years. Just because Gore won the popular vote does not mean he won the election (not that I agree with the system, but it is what it is). That does not constitute fraud. What DOES constitute fraud was the Gore campaign's attempts to manufacture votes in Florida based on the voters' "likely intentions," specifically with ballots where the voter abstained from the presidential vote, but cast votes for other offices. Fortunately the courts stepped in to stop the fiasco before the election was actually stolen...by the Gore campaign. Here is a link with lots of good numbers:
Fraud Factor - Fraud Factor for Selected Florida Counties

I also cannot understand how the left can accuse the right of limiting free speech when any clear-minded individual can see exactly the opposite. My parents put a McCain sign in their front yard, and it was stolen 2 nights later (along with the rest of the McCain signs in the neighborhood). Got a second sign, than one lasted about 10 days before the "liberals" came back through again. Conservatives can hardly give formal public speeches without being shouted down and threatened (Minutemen @ Columbia, Ann Coulter @ New Mexico, etc), while Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is protected by the same left wing.

And to tie in with the original theme of the post, fascist governments typically have tight control over the media (think, Iran, Venezuela). The left in this country has nearly complete control over the national media, and it showed during this last election. NBC and all its affiliates (especially MSNBC) were little more than Obama campaign outlets. Any conservative voices, if they are heard at all, are generally outnumbered, shouted down, and/or ridiculed. And they defend their actions by saying that the protestors were exercising their own right to speak. That's the left's idea of free speech.
"You can do it your own way, if it's done just how we say" - Metallica

You cite the bailout, which was pushed by....that's right...the left. The left's income redistribution policies have much more in common with communism/fascism than with a capitalist democratic society. The bailout, welfare, tax-the-rich, and government-run health care...communism.

This country is moving farther and farther to the left, and it is very frightening indeed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Louisiana
1,768 posts, read 3,405,668 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb at sea View Post
Scary, isn't it? That's why folks need to be so concerned with, not the president, but the CONGRESS!! We need strong, non-career folks looking out for us. Folks who will put the brakes on anything not expressed in our Constitution. So far, that''s not happening.
Pithy and excellent! And this coming from one living in a blue state... will wonders never cease?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Louisiana
1,768 posts, read 3,405,668 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Actually, that's not Congress' job -- that's the courts' job, among other things.
Well, yes and no. In truth, it's the voters' job to keep congress fresh and clean by tossing out the Ted Kennedys and Maxine Waters every few years in order to do away with career politicians who have no interest in their constituents.

As for the courts, it should be clear that stuffing the courts with judges who want to create legislation themselves is what should arouse the most fear. If this happens you can kiss the bill of rights goodbye.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 12:16 PM
 
3,486 posts, read 5,675,718 times
Reputation: 3868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosinante View Post
As for the courts, it should be clear that stuffing the courts with judges who want to create legislation themselves is what should arouse the most fear. If this happens you can kiss the bill of rights goodbye.
That's just political spin. Any decision a court renders, someone is going to dislike -- and likely say that the court legislated from the bench. Courts are empowered under the Constitution to interpret the laws (including the Constitution itself), and to strike down laws that are unconstitutional, no matter how popular they are. Is that tantamount to legislating from the bench? Perhaps, but that's the role the US Constitution assigns the judicial branch. Within those limits, Antonin Scalia is fond of legislating from the bench as much as the next judge. Incidentally, it's when the power of the courts to enforce the Constitution is taken away -- that's when you kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 01:03 PM
 
48,505 posts, read 96,675,147 times
Reputation: 18304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
That's just political spin. Any decision a court renders, someone is going to dislike -- and likely say that the court legislated from the bench. Courts are empowered under the Constitution to interpret the laws (including the Constitution itself), and to strike down laws that are unconstitutional, no matter how popular they are. Is that tantamount to legislating from the bench? Perhaps, but that's the role the US Constitution assigns the judicial branch. Within those limits, Antonin Scalia is fond of legislating from the bench as much as the next judge. Incidentally, it's when the power of the courts to enforce the Constitution is taken away -- that's when you kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.
But the system also allows the people to overrule the courts by a constitutional amendment. The constitution was designed to keep all three branches for having too much power ;even the courts. I agree tho that the courts now do too much legislation from teh bench in over ruling the other two branches;thus constitutional amendmants are more popular. Its can be a very unstabiling factor. The courts in the last few decades ahve become less likel;y to overule as easily tho and not so much in to social legislation from the bench.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 01:06 PM
 
3,486 posts, read 5,675,718 times
Reputation: 3868
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
But the system also allows the people to overrule the courts by a constitutional amendment. The constitution was designed to keep all three branches for having too much power ;even the courts. I agree tho that the courts now do too much legislation from teh bench in over ruling the other two branches;thus constitutional amendmants are more popular. Its can be a very unstabiling factor. The courts in the last few decades ahve become less likel;y to overule as easily tho and not so much in to social legislation from the bench.
So far, however, people have not passed an amendment curtailing the power of the courts. If they ever did eliminate the judicial branch by depriving it of the opportunity to check the legislature and the executive, it would be the end of the American democracy as we know it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 02:53 PM
 
877 posts, read 2,073,979 times
Reputation: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
So far, however, people have not passed an amendment curtailing the power of the courts. If they ever did eliminate the judicial branch by depriving it of the opportunity to check the legislature and the executive, it would be the end of the American democracy as we know it.
I really, really hope this is sarcasm.

If not, how do you explain the 13th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 21st and 23rd amendments? These amendments were all passed in direct response to cases settled by the Supreme Court which ruled against the Legislative and Executive Branch.

The balance of power between the three branches of government is a very real thing.

By the way, only one modern President has attempted to check the courts other than by way of Constitutional amendment, in one of the most egregious abuses of political power in American history. See if you can guess who it was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 03:06 PM
 
3,486 posts, read 5,675,718 times
Reputation: 3868
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0 View Post
I really, really hope this is sarcasm.
It's not. There is no amendment that states that the judiciary can no longer interpret the Constitution. And, there is no amendment that states the judiciary cannot invalidate laws passed by the legislature. The Amendments that you've cited are easily explained: if you want to pass a law that's currently unconstitutional, the only way to do so is to amend the Constitution. That's the way it has always been since the beginning of the Constitution. The Supreme Court was within its rights to rule against the Legislative and the Executive Branches, just like the Legislature and the people were within their rights to enact what they wanted to enact by amending the Constitution. There is no way those amendments can be interpreted as a prohibition on the courts from overruling the other two branches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0 View Post
By the way, only one modern President has attempted to check the courts other than by way of Constitutional amendment, in one of the most egregious abuses of political power in American history. See if you can guess who it was.
Zman, I would ask you to please refrain from this kind of condescension. I am an educated person with a law degree, publications, and experience in the field. Even if your credentials are greater than mine -- you still don't get to quiz me on this, and I suggest that in the future, you refrain from making assumptions about people you don't know. I agree that this was one of the most egregious abuses of political power -- and that's exactly what I was arguing against, which you would have seen had you not had your knee-jerk reaction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:42 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top