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.
I have a personal vendetta against communists, since they killed millions of my people. So yeah, I support anything anti-communist. Drop the tough guy veneer because your act is nothing compared to the contempt I feel for anyone who would harm my people.
"Communists" didn't harm your people. Stalinists did. Or Lenninists. Or Maoist. I don't know who your people are, but I assure you, whatever happened to your people, Marx would have opposed it.
And if thoughts were crimes in America - this statement would be evidence that you are a criminal.
It's not semantics to distinguish between something that is a crime and something that is not.
You are arguing thought crimes, I argue actionable offenses.
Your assessment is completely wrong even so.
Our entire design in government is to question our government, to hold them accountable. To think that my statement could even remotely be construed as such is to have absolutely no understanding of our form of government in the first place.
"Communists" didn't harm your people. Stalinists did. Or Lenninists. Or Maoist. I don't know who your people are, but I assure you, whatever happened to your people, Marx would have opposed it.
What Marx would have thought about anything that occurred after this lifetime is hypothetical & irrelevant. I didn't say anything about Marx himself (but for what it's worth, I think he was a piece of ****); I was talking about communists. To deflect this back to Marx and the ideas he supposedly would have had is an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy: i.e., you put the blame on Stalinists and Leninists: both of which fall under the communist umbrella. Using this rationale, you fallaciously attempt to assert that no true communist could possibly commit or condone atrocities. That little thing called the real world clearly contradicts this notion.
Communism has many forms. Communism is not against the laws of the United States. Further, only those who commit crimes are criminals. Communism is not a crime.
Lies have many forms, but all obscure the truth. It is incompatible with individual liberty. There is no argument to the contrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
What is with the fascism? All political movements organize. There are communists in the US, and they are not inciting violence or manipulating elections. In America, the government must respect the rights to speech, assembly, petition the government, and others. Communists have those rights, too.
Our government is a Republican form, for those established by the theme to which the declaration states and the structure of our government was designed. The petitions of such is as it concerns that form of government, not that of those who would subvert it. Communists have no rights to throw off our government and institute state sponsored slavery disregarding the basic format to which this country was formed. You are in error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
More generally, any official that implements a law that violates our constitution is nota criminal. The courts have the power to strike down laws inconsistent with the constitution.
Your conspiracy theories about President Obama are unfounded.
The courts have failed their duty, Congress has failed their duty, the president has failed his duty. All swore and oath to serve the constitution, if they implement anything counter to it, they are in violation. The systems of the court and the Legislative branch exist to help protect from subversion, but as I said... they are also corrupt and failing their duty, such as the founders said would happen if the people failed in their diligence to keep the government honest.
So telling me that one criminal found another criminal innocent of their criminal actions is completely worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Again, there are many different types of communist. Marx thought the State would eventually disappear in a socialist utopia. Stalin and Mao were never interested in eliminating the State, but in using it to secure their desired ends (which were primarily about power and influence). In the United States, the government has no right to determine that certain positions are something other than benign. You are arguing for fascism.
All of them subvert liberty as ALL require subservience to the collective. This IS icompatible with the basis of this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
The right to assembly is part of our Constitution, as is the right to vote & petition our government. Communists, like all political ideologies, are welcome to engage in political activity to change the government. Our 1st Amendment creates a marketplace of ideas, where each rises and falls on its own merits.
For a republican form of government, for a liberty based government. You going on like you are is akin to a Muslim claiming Sharia law is to be protected under the constitution. It is not compatible, they are at odds, they can not exist in our form of government. To serve a communists interest is to violate our own people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
As to a standing army: it is contemplated by the Constitution. Article I, section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence . . .; [The Congress shall have the power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." Article II, section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army."
"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;" Even the federalists who were supportive of having a standing army from time to time knew the dangers of such as they experienced with the British.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
A well-regulated militia is contemplated and encouraged by the Constitution. But it is unlawful for a militia to attempt to overthrow the government by force of arms (or to oppose lawful government action by threat of arms). Those actions consist of, at least: 1) assault, 2) battery, 3) [attempted] murder, 4) conspiracy to commit 1) - 3), 5) contempt of court, 6) obstruction of justice.
1) they made no attempt to overthrow and were not aggressive in their actions.
2) The government was not lawful and therefore was not a violation. It is our duty to ignore unconstitutional laws and orders by the government.
Your "facts" are opinion--they would be unconstitutional if instituted.
Your knowledge is based on half truths distorted by years of progressive/communist influence on our education and system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
The Bundys violated the law. They were in contempt of court, obstructing justice, and trespassing. The federal government has been able to own land from the Founding.
They violated nothing, they were bullied by government and killed and jailed by a corrupt system.
You should read up about the entire dispute between this family and not puppet off mainstream media as we both know they are propaganda.
You are arguing thought crimes, I argue actionable offenses.
Your assessment is completely wrong even so.
Our entire design in government is to question our government, to hold them accountable. To think that my statement could even remotely be construed as such is to have absolutely no understanding of our form of government in the first place.
You have not pointed to one actionable offense.
Being a communist is not an actionable offense.
Criticizing the government is not an actionable offense.
Fantasizing about an armed uprising is not an actionable offense.
Buying guns is not an actionable offense.
A group of communists meeting together and joining in group criticism of the government is not an actionable offense.
A group of communists meeting together and joining in group criticism of the government and fantasizing about an armed uprising is not an actionable offense.
A group of communist gunowners meeting together and joining in group criticism of the government and fantasizing about an armed uprising is not an actionable offense.
I understand American principles very well. So I don't contend in any public forum or in private that the FBI should prosecute people just because they belong to the Communist Party USA or to the American Nazi Party. You, on the other hand...
Was I not clear between the difference between the "individual" and the "group". I stated that Communists who "organize" to promote is evidence of an actionable offense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
Criticizing the government is not an actionable offense.
Nope, in fact it is encouraged, as all people should be weary of government and question it at every step.
The problem with your position in support of Communism is that you are not encouraging questioning of government holding to the founding and purpose to our government , but rather questioning the government in the position and wishing to implement a foreign government concept.
A communist can not institute its government in the US without committing Sedition/Treason as it WILL require the forceful submission of individuals to achieve its goals. Again... Communism can not be achieved in the US without KILLING those who object. This is a FACT that Communist have even discussed, that those who oppose communist rule will have to be eliminated (ie KILLED) in order to complete the transition.
Communism IS NOT compatible with our form of government. Its very promotion is no different than a fanatic promoting KILLING or SUBJUGATING people to a rule.
Questioning government is for the sake of US free sovereign citizens to check the government to insure it stays within its bounds. It is not for foreigners or ignorant children to demand change to serve their demands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
Fantasizing about an armed uprising is not an actionable offense. \
Did I say otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
Buying guns is not an actionable offense.
There are many who disagree and even Hillary Clinton (as well as many in government) thinks there is no reason for us to have them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
A group of communists meeting together and joining in group criticism of the government is not an actionable offense.
A group of communists meeting together and joining in group criticism of the government and fantasizing about an armed uprising is not an actionable offense.
A group of communist gunowners meeting together and joining in group criticism of the government and fantasizing about an armed uprising is not an actionable offense.
Yet all of those are used to classify many militia groups throughout the nation as terrorist threats.
How many of those are communist organizations? What is that?
Thought so.
I rest my case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
I understand American principles very well. So I don't contend in any public forum or in private that the FBI should prosecute people just because they belong to the Communist Party USA or to the American Nazi Party. You, on the other hand...
You understand nothing as is evident by your failed arguments above.
Look at what you are doing though.
I discuss topics, concepts, etc.. and you are turnign it personally, pointing a finger at me, suggesting I am a traitor.
Not once did I accuse you, not once did I suggest you.. but then.. look at your comments. It is typical of Alinksy tactics.
Shame on you. This is also why I refused to argue with the others. A communist is not ethical, the "End Justifies the Means" and they are not reasonable, rational, or objective in their discussion.
There is no resolution with you. There can only be war with people who believe like you.
There are those who believe in freedom and those who believe it should be taken away to attend to their ideal. You reside in the latter unfortunately.
...
Criticizing the government is not an actionable offense.
Fantasizing about an armed uprising is not an actionable offense.
... .
They are not just criticizing, but rather promising to overthrow the system. Anyone promising to commit a crime against the country should not be allowed to run in elections. Anyone who can be proven to have advocated for this in the past, should disqualify from holding any public office. Anyone who is guilty by association, the same. For example Obama and "The new black panther party" were associated before 2008.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
The courts have the power to strike down laws inconsistent with the constitution. Your conspiracy theories about President Obama are unfounded.
That is how communist takeover works in America, by taking control over the safeguard institutions (DOJ, supreme court, FBI, presidency...) of the government, and refuse to operate them according to the Constitution (or their intended use). They even openly publicize it before getting into office on demonstrations, but that does not make it into the mainstream media, as they are helping them (complicit).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
The courts have failed their duty, Congress has failed their duty, the president has failed his duty. All swore and oath to serve the constitution, if they implement anything counter to it, they are in violation. The systems of the court and the Legislative branch exist to help protect from subversion, but as I said... they are also corrupt and failing their duty, such as the founders said would happen if the people failed in their diligence to keep the government honest.
.
There's also that large divide between Democrats who believe in the Constitution and not persecuting people for legal behavior and Republicans who don't.
Perhaps one of you followers of the drunk Senator from Wisconsin can point out where communism was ever made a criminal offense?
It wasn't the drunk Senator from Wisconsin who wrote a bill making membership in the Communist Party illegal. It was the Senator from the state next door, known as a champion of civil rights and the working man, with an exuberant personality, who did.
Regardless, it was unconstitutional then and it is unconstitutional now.
"Communists" didn't harm your people. Stalinists did. Or Lenninists. Or Maoist. I don't know who your people are, but I assure you, whatever happened to your people, Marx would have opposed it.
Please, communists always end up being tolitarians because people will not voluntarily give up private enterprise.
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.
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.
