super soapbox rant
-
Christian Graus wrote: In theory, I guess. I believe in practice that legalisation creates more demand, and also more supply, which leads to crime in other areas also growing, such as drug use ( and in the context of this thread, while drugs are illegal, they will continue to cause health problems, and also cause people to steal to pay for them ) I can afford my lifestyle. No problems. I dont like to let fear control my freedom. Because you are scared someone may steal for weed you feel it is ok to prohibit all use of marijuana. What if I'm scared you may steal for booze? Like we do with other things, I think we should preserve freedom first, and than enforce the law when people actually commit a crime against humanity such as theft or violence. I speak in a little known dialect of English called Josh. It is the spoken language of all people governed by the sovereign entity known as Josh. Please do not try to correct it, as I speak perfect Josh. Legalize Marijuana
joshfl wrote: Like we do with other things, I think we should preserve freedom first, and than enforce the law when people actually commit a crime against humanity such as theft or violence. Legalising would get rid of a lot of these problems, but we need to differentiate between freedom, and anarchy. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
joshfl wrote: I am very much on my own path. It's more like a highway where a handbasket is the primary mode of transportation. It does look like you are having fun...probably more fun than the women who are sold into prostitution everyday in this world. But, I guess that you haven't reached the point that you realize that everything is not about you. You claim that you have never assaulted anyone. How can you paying to have sex with someone, who most likely doesn't want to be in that position, be labeled anything other than assault? Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read -- modified at 10:54 Tuesday 27th September, 2005
Gary Kirkham wrote: It's more like a highway where a handbasket is the primary mode of transportation. High Way to hell! dah dah dah ! Im not too young to appreciate some good tunes :) Gary Kirkham wrote: It does look like you are having fun...probably more fun than the women who are sold into prostitution everyday in this world. Probably. I imagine those women are not having near as much fun as I am. Gary Kirkham wrote: But, I guess that you haven't reached the point that you realize that everything is not about you. You claim that you have never assaulted anyone. How can you paying to have sex with someone, who most likely doesn't want to be in that position, be labeled anything other than assault? Refer to my recent posts above if you care to know what I have to say in response to your concerns. I have covered this issue multiple times now. That scenario is not the only case that exists in the sex trade and I am appalled by women being forced into the sex trade as well. Since we can all agree nobody wants a sex worker to be forced into the trade, why cant we collectivily focus our law enforcement and investigative resources on the real problems such as human trafficking / forced participation and leave consenting adults acting as willing participants alone? I speak in a little known dialect of English called Josh. It is the spoken language of all people governed by the sovereign entity known as Josh. Please do not try to correct it, as I speak perfect Josh. Legalize Marijuana
-
Figured I ought to weigh in on this one, being the leftist wingnut that I am. :-) First to Josh: By all means, save a copy of your original post. Read it when you are somewhere between 40-45, depends on how long it takes you to realize that not only have you grown up, you are now also growing older. I can assure you, you'll laugh at how you once felt so passionate about things that you no longer really give a shit about, LOL. As far as legalization: I don't know if it is a good idea or a bad idea. What I do know is that all we are doing now is making some problems worse, and wasting a lot of taxpayers money. Since this is clearly not working, why not try something else. My thoughts on a more logical approach are: Prostitution - nobody has really defined that. It occurs at many levels, but it is easier to define than the drug problem. Something needs to be done to get the girls on the street off the street - they are invariably part of a vicious cycle of crime, drugs, disease, violence and abuse. To me the logical thing is not to gpo after the johns or the prostitutes like we do now. Instead make pimping a much more severe crime since they are usually a big part of the real problem. Long prison terms and maybe castration - let them be somebody's "bitch" for a change. :-) The girls from Russia - you don't see them in the US like you do in Europe. But it is really sad. They need to be helped. Give them a little money and help them get passports (the traffickers generally take them away) and get back home. At the escort level, the girls are rarely "victims". They are entrepenuers, and they have no interest in legalization because they make wads (bad pun) of money under the table. I say you might as well make "escorting" legal, and make them pay taxes like the rest of us. Drugs: A lot more complicated. As people have said "where do you draw the line?" I don't know but I agree that the alcohol/marijuana laws are hypocritical, and mostly I'm just tired of wasting taxpayer's money on a useless "war". It's mostly a war on the working people's wallets. I think probably the best approach is a "practical" one rather than a "moral" one. Make pot legal and controlled like alcohol, and tax the hell out of it. LSD and mushrooms are mind toys for middle class white college students - they'll never be used by the majority of the population, and never be used by much of anyone on any kind of regular basis. I say take them off the statutes completely - no legal status, except for
rwestgraham wrote: First to Josh: By all means, save a copy of your original post. Read it when you are somewhere between 40-45, depends on how long it takes you to realize that not only have you grown up, you are now also growing older. I can assure you, you'll laugh at how you once felt so passionate about things that you no longer really give a sh*t about, LOL. Seems like you , at your age still seem to care about and think these issues are important enough to write a lengthy response in regards to them. So it appears as though you dont entirely not give a shit about them. Maybe I will not care when I am older but somehow I dont think I will forget my experiences and perspectives gained on these issues unless drastic changes are made in our policies towards them. rwestgraham wrote: I dunno. We need to something, anything differently, that's obvious. Amen. I speak in a little known dialect of English called Josh. It is the spoken language of all people governed by the sovereign entity known as Josh. Please do not try to correct it, as I speak perfect Josh. Legalize Marijuana
-
joshfl wrote: Like we do with other things, I think we should preserve freedom first, and than enforce the law when people actually commit a crime against humanity such as theft or violence. Legalising would get rid of a lot of these problems, but we need to differentiate between freedom, and anarchy. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote: Legalising would get rid of a lot of these problems, but we need to differentiate between freedom, and anarchy. I agree 100% with you. I believe in law and order. I speak in a little known dialect of English called Josh. It is the spoken language of all people governed by the sovereign entity known as Josh. Please do not try to correct it, as I speak perfect Josh. Legalize Marijuana
-
joshfl wrote: I have been to all the tourist hotspots on my first visit How original of you. The point i was making is that there is more to see then the tourist hot spots. joshfl wrote: Good for you and them. I hope your hate serves you well Who said anything about hate. Its an internet forum mate, chill out joshfl wrote: I dont think the people I do business with over there would completely agree with you and your friends but your all entitled to feel this way Well your just another Septic Tank with money to burn. Why would they tell you if they felt that way? There job is taking your money. When you go into a coffee shop and pay 3 euro for a coke to sip while you smoke..... they are laughing at you. joshfl wrote: I havent really tried to absorb the Dutch culture. Exactly. If you think about coming to Australia. Please dont
Josh Gray wrote: How original of you. The point i was making is that there is more to see then the tourist hot spots. You must be a real pleasure to be around at a social gathering. The condescending smart ass remarks are a very attractive quality in an individual. Josh Gray wrote: Who said anything about hate. Its an internet forum mate, chill out Well, your remark about how all your friends think people like myself are loosers and how you agree with them wasnt exactly representing one love. Do you realize how many people you just branded negatively across the world? A large portion of rastafari smoke marijuana religiously. Are all rastafari losers as well? Your blanket statement branding all marijuana consumers (casual or frequent) losers borders on racism. Sorry if you feel I should have responded more positivly to you for this. Josh Gray wrote: Well your just another Septic Tank with money to burn. Why would they tell you if they felt that way? There job is taking your money. When you go into a coffee shop and pay 3 euro for a coke to sip while you smoke..... they are laughing at you. I dont worry about their profits , I keep my concern to my own profits. You think I care what the guy stuck behind the counter does to feel good about himself? So what if he makes himself feel good by thinking he got one over on me the dumb ol American tourist on the coke. If someone needs something like this to laugh about and feel good about, I imagine the rest of their life is pretty sorry. But that is only to those who may have this problem you describe. In the dam , I dont stress and I dont feel that everyone there has as bad of an attitude as you do, or would like them to have. I speak in a little known dialect of English called Josh. It is the spoken language of all people governed by the sovereign entity known as Josh. Please do not try to correct it, as I speak perfect Josh. Legalize Marijuana
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Regardless of how perfectly any society is structured, your freedom to do something that you would like to do is very likely to be restricted in someway. No social order can give unlimited, carte blache freedom to every one all the time. You simply cannot have civilization without tyranny. Democracy does not change that, it merely changes how the power of tyranny is distributed. Excuse me? We are NOT a democracy. And in fact we were designed to be a civilization without tyranny from the get go. We are just still working on the implementation. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. (source : http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm) My representatives have failed to preserve my individual freedom, which I am entitled to under my Republics constitution, from an overzealous majority. America was designed to be a place of individual freedom , where the whims and wishes of society were to be exactly that. Whims and wishes, not law. We have been provided a democratic process of representation. And of course philosophically we have an indirect democracy that always exists. The problem is that people are now forgetting that we were set up as a constitutional Republic specifically to prevent that indirect democracy from encroaching upon individual liberty. It is right there in all the rhetoric of the past. That is why our country is so great and so proud of our concept of freedom. Not because we were just another little bs democracy. Stan Shannon wrote: So, get used to it, you live in a tyranny, we all do. Those with the power have decided that smoking pot and prostitution should be illegal. If you believe otherwise, than you need to fight for the power to inflict your morality on the rest of us who disagree with you. (I happen to believe that pot is an extremly distructive social evil - I've seen it ruin many lives, just as with prostitution) That is simply how the game is played. I know how the game works. I think you know I do, too. You just hate to see me fighting the good fight for my cause, don't you? :) I speak in a little known dialect of English called Josh. It is the spoken languag
joshfl wrote: Excuse me? We are NOT a democracy. And in fact we were designed to be a civilization without tyranny from the get go. We are just still working on the implementation. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. (source : http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm) My representatives have failed to preserve my individual freedom, which I am entitled to under my Republics constitution, from an overzealous majority. America was designed to be a place of individual freedom , where the whims and wishes of society were to be exactly that. Whims and wishes, not law. We have been provided a democratic process of representation. And of course philosophically we have an indirect democracy that always exists. The problem is that people are now forgetting that we were set up as a constitutional Republic specifically to prevent that indirect democracy from encroaching upon individual liberty. It is right there in all the rhetoric of the past. That is why our country is so great and so proud of our concept of freedom. Not because we were just another little bs democracy. Yes, I am well aware of all that. A Constitutional Republic is merely a form of democracy where the law as defined by the constitution overrides the democratic will of the people. However, the consitution itself ultimately reflects that democratic will. Threfore, in a constitutional republic, the constitution serves as the ultimate source of tyranny. It is the document that defines how the rules and standards of conduct can be creatd and maintained. I can assure you that Ben Franklin would have been perfectly happy with allowing your hometown to deny you the right to smoke pot or frequent whores. There remains no way to avoid tyranny, as the founders well knew. Their only concern was that the power of tyranny would tend to migrate back to the federal government rather than remaining in the hands of the people at the state and local level. If you do not understand that than you undestand nothing about out system of federalism. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Ok, so I meant to stir things up a bit with my post below but I don't feel that I am doing myself or my cause(s) justice by not fully articulating my thoughts on the subject matter at least once here for everyone to consider. This is a long post, not for the attention deficit folks.. I understand both of my points of concern are non-issues to most US voters (probably where my angst rises from) but I feel if there is to be a more united domestic culture, eventually these issues will have to become more important. Even if it does not effect you, it effects a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens that should be able to come out of the shadows and live their lives without fear. I happened to have chosen a lifestyle that put me at odds from the mainstream and its been a long strange trip ever since. Being on the other side of the law on these issues have given me a very unique insight into just how subtle tyranny can be right in front of a societies own eyes as well as just how relative the concept of freedom is. I smoke marijuana recreationally. I happen to feel from personal experience and observation that marijuana is safer than alcohol so I choose to smoke pot. When others feel like boozing I feel like smoking. It drives me nuts that while we teach in our schools of the failures of our prohibitionist era policies, we preach at the same time that it is wrong to smoke pot due to 'secondary effects'. It is a direct contradiction of values. During prohibition we decided that freedom is paramount and we recognized as a nation this value to our society. We made the detrimental secondary effects everyone was so afraid regarding alcohol illegal for what they were and allowed responsible adults to engage the behavior without breaking the law. It has worked out very well. Sure there are still the associated costs of freedom that irresponsible citizens (ie, drunk drivers, knuckleheads, etc.) make us all pay, but by and large with the alcohol consumed in this nation it is still a small minority of consumers that abuse it to the point of infringing upon the freedom of others. Most importantly we preserved in our approach to alcohol what should be highly regarded in this nation, our value of individual freedom. I think the same approach should be taken with marijuana. There is much more talking points on the issue of legalization. I could fill a book (and hope to) with my analysis and opinions of things relating to marijuana policy and why we should change it but I guess I cant write that boo
-
joshfl wrote: Excuse me? We are NOT a democracy. And in fact we were designed to be a civilization without tyranny from the get go. We are just still working on the implementation. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. (source : http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm) My representatives have failed to preserve my individual freedom, which I am entitled to under my Republics constitution, from an overzealous majority. America was designed to be a place of individual freedom , where the whims and wishes of society were to be exactly that. Whims and wishes, not law. We have been provided a democratic process of representation. And of course philosophically we have an indirect democracy that always exists. The problem is that people are now forgetting that we were set up as a constitutional Republic specifically to prevent that indirect democracy from encroaching upon individual liberty. It is right there in all the rhetoric of the past. That is why our country is so great and so proud of our concept of freedom. Not because we were just another little bs democracy. Yes, I am well aware of all that. A Constitutional Republic is merely a form of democracy where the law as defined by the constitution overrides the democratic will of the people. However, the consitution itself ultimately reflects that democratic will. Threfore, in a constitutional republic, the constitution serves as the ultimate source of tyranny. It is the document that defines how the rules and standards of conduct can be creatd and maintained. I can assure you that Ben Franklin would have been perfectly happy with allowing your hometown to deny you the right to smoke pot or frequent whores. There remains no way to avoid tyranny, as the founders well knew. Their only concern was that the power of tyranny would tend to migrate back to the federal government rather than remaining in the hands of the people at the state and local level. If you do not understand that than you undestand nothing about out system of federalism. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, I am well aware of all that. It does not appear that way to me. Stan Shannon wrote: A Constitutional Republic is merely a form of democracy No, these are two distinct antithetical forms of government. For example, a constitutional republic can be established by a minority faction via successful military campaign and that government would not be in any way shape or form a democratic government. Most constitutional republics are influenced and directed by democratic processes however, in political terms, a constitutional republic is not a democracy , nor a subset of democracy. Ben Franklin, James Madison, George Washington , John Adams and others all have famous words on record regarding the importance of this distinction in concept, principle, implementation and social yield that you are so quick to gloss over. A quick google should point you to anything you care to read on the subject. Considering all these great minds explicity noted the distinction and took care to illustrate this why is it that you feel this distinction is so unimportant? Now I realize that you will not take my word or an independant webpage seriously so I would like to note that you could also refer to United States Military Manual 2000-25 published by the United States war department November 30th, 1928 for these explicit distinctions as well. This historical text may help you to understand the very important distinction between these two forms of government as was spelled out in our own militaries technical manuals which were issued to the soldiers who went to fight for these specific values. Stan Shannon wrote: However, the consitution itself ultimately reflects that democratic will. False. Democratic will may be sufficient to legally ammend the constitution but no amount of democratic will has the legal grounds to take away the inalienable individual rights endowed to us all from the get go in this country. Sure, In reality the majority may do whatever they want to any extreme. If 95% of the country wanted to dismantle our constitution and institute sharia law they could probably get away with it in the face of a 5% opposition force but that government would no longer be America, or hold traditional American values even if they called themselves by our name. Stan Shannon wrote: Threfore, in a constitutional republic, the constitution serves as the ultimate source of tyr
-
JWood wrote: you can't always get what you want. Jwood, this post was extraordinarily well thought out, comprehensive, and really addressed all of the talking points on this subject myself and others have brought to light. We could not have covered so much ground without you. Your contribution to this debate has been incalculable. Really , thank you. I speak in a little known dialect of English called Josh. It is the spoken language of all people governed by the sovereign entity known as Josh. Please do not try to correct it, as I speak perfect Josh. Legalize Marijuana
-
Well, of course a GIRL would give him a 5. It's almost as if you expect him to regard women as people, rather than providers of an anonymous business transaction... Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote: Well, of course a GIRL would give him a 5. It's almost as if you expect him to regard women as people, rather than providers of an anonymous business transaction... I regard them as people, and I would contend more so than you do. I regard them as adults who can make their own decisions. You seem to believe you have the right to be able to dictate to women how they must exchange their sex with another person. What needs to be understood is that love and sex can be mutually exclusive for others on this globe even if they are not that way for you. Let me guess , you feel Marriage+sex = ok. Free+sex=ok. paid+sex=wrong. Many women I have spoke to dont feel that it is your place to make these decisions about their lives. You know, I have gotten to know quite a few of my providers and some I even spend time with in nonsexual capacities just for fun on both of our 'offtime'. These girls are people too and a lot of them not surprisingly have their own brain and thoughts on the subject. Most of these girls appreciate guys like me a lot more than they do guys like you who support the laws that make them criminals. I speak in a little known dialect of English called Josh. It is the spoken language of all people governed by the sovereign entity known as Josh. Please do not try to correct it, as I speak perfect Josh. Legalize Marijuana
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, I am well aware of all that. It does not appear that way to me. Stan Shannon wrote: A Constitutional Republic is merely a form of democracy No, these are two distinct antithetical forms of government. For example, a constitutional republic can be established by a minority faction via successful military campaign and that government would not be in any way shape or form a democratic government. Most constitutional republics are influenced and directed by democratic processes however, in political terms, a constitutional republic is not a democracy , nor a subset of democracy. Ben Franklin, James Madison, George Washington , John Adams and others all have famous words on record regarding the importance of this distinction in concept, principle, implementation and social yield that you are so quick to gloss over. A quick google should point you to anything you care to read on the subject. Considering all these great minds explicity noted the distinction and took care to illustrate this why is it that you feel this distinction is so unimportant? Now I realize that you will not take my word or an independant webpage seriously so I would like to note that you could also refer to United States Military Manual 2000-25 published by the United States war department November 30th, 1928 for these explicit distinctions as well. This historical text may help you to understand the very important distinction between these two forms of government as was spelled out in our own militaries technical manuals which were issued to the soldiers who went to fight for these specific values. Stan Shannon wrote: However, the consitution itself ultimately reflects that democratic will. False. Democratic will may be sufficient to legally ammend the constitution but no amount of democratic will has the legal grounds to take away the inalienable individual rights endowed to us all from the get go in this country. Sure, In reality the majority may do whatever they want to any extreme. If 95% of the country wanted to dismantle our constitution and institute sharia law they could probably get away with it in the face of a 5% opposition force but that government would no longer be America, or hold traditional American values even if they called themselves by our name. Stan Shannon wrote: Threfore, in a constitutional republic, the constitution serves as the ultimate source of tyr
joshfl wrote: No, these are two distinct antithetical forms of government. Then one wonders why they bothered to incoporate branches of government obviously dependent upon the democratic will of the people - such as a legislative and an executive branch. The form of government you are describing would have had a consitution and a fderal judiciary and nothing else. I will admit that this appears to be the direction our federalims is evolving, but it certainly was not originally designed in that way. joshfl wrote: False. Democratic will may be sufficient to legally ammend the constitution but no amount of democratic will has the legal grounds to take away the inalienable individual rights endowed to us all from the get go in this country. Sure, In reality the majority may do whatever they want to any extreme. If 95% of the country wanted to dismantle our constitution and institute sharia law they could probably get away with it in the face of a 5% opposition force but that government would no longer be America, or hold traditional American values even if they called themselves by our name. You are very confused about the nature of US federalism. What ever our "inalienable" rights may or may not be, the founders saw fit to leave their definiitions to the people at the state and local level. They specifically wanted that power removed from the federal government. So again, to the founders, whether or not smoking pot was an "inalienable right" was not an issue for the federal government to concern itself with but to be worked out by people at the local level. That is precisely the form of government they were trying to achieve and the way this country worked up until about the end of WWII (when the judiciary usurped control of the legislative processes). Perhaps you should actually read some books rather than depending upon out of context quotes you find by googling. joshfl wrote: I dont view the constitution as the ultimate source of tyranny. People create and administrate constitutions. I view our constitutions core values as the blueprints to dispose of tyranny. I'm sorry to hear that you view our nations constitution as the ultimate source in tyranny, but I place myself on record as disagreeing with you. But is it not tyranny for me to prohibit you from smoking your pot? And would it not be tyranny for you to force me to live in a society in which smoking pot was legal? We must do one or the oth
-
joshfl wrote: No, these are two distinct antithetical forms of government. Then one wonders why they bothered to incoporate branches of government obviously dependent upon the democratic will of the people - such as a legislative and an executive branch. The form of government you are describing would have had a consitution and a fderal judiciary and nothing else. I will admit that this appears to be the direction our federalims is evolving, but it certainly was not originally designed in that way. joshfl wrote: False. Democratic will may be sufficient to legally ammend the constitution but no amount of democratic will has the legal grounds to take away the inalienable individual rights endowed to us all from the get go in this country. Sure, In reality the majority may do whatever they want to any extreme. If 95% of the country wanted to dismantle our constitution and institute sharia law they could probably get away with it in the face of a 5% opposition force but that government would no longer be America, or hold traditional American values even if they called themselves by our name. You are very confused about the nature of US federalism. What ever our "inalienable" rights may or may not be, the founders saw fit to leave their definiitions to the people at the state and local level. They specifically wanted that power removed from the federal government. So again, to the founders, whether or not smoking pot was an "inalienable right" was not an issue for the federal government to concern itself with but to be worked out by people at the local level. That is precisely the form of government they were trying to achieve and the way this country worked up until about the end of WWII (when the judiciary usurped control of the legislative processes). Perhaps you should actually read some books rather than depending upon out of context quotes you find by googling. joshfl wrote: I dont view the constitution as the ultimate source of tyranny. People create and administrate constitutions. I view our constitutions core values as the blueprints to dispose of tyranny. I'm sorry to hear that you view our nations constitution as the ultimate source in tyranny, but I place myself on record as disagreeing with you. But is it not tyranny for me to prohibit you from smoking your pot? And would it not be tyranny for you to force me to live in a society in which smoking pot was legal? We must do one or the oth
Stan Shannon wrote: Then one wonders why they bothered to incoporate branches of government obviously dependent upon the democratic will of the people - such as a legislative and an executive branch. The form of government you are describing would have had a consitution and a fderal judiciary and nothing else. I will admit that this appears to be the direction our federalims is evolving, but it certainly was not originally designed in that way. What you wonder is very simple to answer. The U.S. is a republic, but the U.S. has democracy. What you go on to say about the constraints in the form of government I described is wrong. It is not limited to absence of those properties. Our own USA is an example of this. Our main point of contention at this point seems to be whether America is now and was established as a democracy. It is not and was not. It is expressed in our constitutions bill of rights, Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." It is clearly spelled out in US military manual 2000-25 (Did you look it up to see for yourself exactly what kind of values our grandparents served for? I bet you did not ) You charged me with out of context googles. At least I provide you with real and authoritative sources to back up my talking points. You want me to take your talking points at face value, without any points of reference and you always conveniently skip over challenging my sources them self. Is the TM2000-25 US military manual correct, and you are wrong Stan? Or are you saying our own military manuals don't know the type of government we are as well as you do? And again, even our founders spoke at length regarding this distinction as well. Can you show me any historical texts from our founders that use these two terms interchangeably? I feel it is you who is lacking the necessary studies in this area if you cannot recognize this simple distinction in forms of government, as well as which one we have. You basically at this point are telling me that you can define our form of government better than the United States constitution, the US military, and our founders of this country. Or you just hate to say you are wrong. Either way, it is laughable. Stan Shannon wrote: You are very confused about the nature of US federalism. You are entitled to your own opinion. Stan Shannon wrote: What ever our "inalienabl
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Then one wonders why they bothered to incoporate branches of government obviously dependent upon the democratic will of the people - such as a legislative and an executive branch. The form of government you are describing would have had a consitution and a fderal judiciary and nothing else. I will admit that this appears to be the direction our federalims is evolving, but it certainly was not originally designed in that way. What you wonder is very simple to answer. The U.S. is a republic, but the U.S. has democracy. What you go on to say about the constraints in the form of government I described is wrong. It is not limited to absence of those properties. Our own USA is an example of this. Our main point of contention at this point seems to be whether America is now and was established as a democracy. It is not and was not. It is expressed in our constitutions bill of rights, Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." It is clearly spelled out in US military manual 2000-25 (Did you look it up to see for yourself exactly what kind of values our grandparents served for? I bet you did not ) You charged me with out of context googles. At least I provide you with real and authoritative sources to back up my talking points. You want me to take your talking points at face value, without any points of reference and you always conveniently skip over challenging my sources them self. Is the TM2000-25 US military manual correct, and you are wrong Stan? Or are you saying our own military manuals don't know the type of government we are as well as you do? And again, even our founders spoke at length regarding this distinction as well. Can you show me any historical texts from our founders that use these two terms interchangeably? I feel it is you who is lacking the necessary studies in this area if you cannot recognize this simple distinction in forms of government, as well as which one we have. You basically at this point are telling me that you can define our form of government better than the United States constitution, the US military, and our founders of this country. Or you just hate to say you are wrong. Either way, it is laughable. Stan Shannon wrote: You are very confused about the nature of US federalism. You are entitled to your own opinion. Stan Shannon wrote: What ever our "inalienabl
joshfl wrote: The U.S. is a republic, but the U.S. has democracy Precisely - so that the federal system, Republic or no, is ultimately answerable to the democratic will of the people. Our Republic, whether at the federal or the state level, exists to moderate and control that will, not to replace it with an authoritarian judiciary. I will give you credit for your use of some obscure military manual to attempt a defense, that is a new twist I have never encountered. However, the fact that you have to resort to such a ludicrous source (which I'm sure you found on the internet and not in an actual library, and which I seriously doubt you have read) does not strengthen your position. What is truly amazing, however, is your use of the concept of a Republic, probably the most anti-libertarian form of democracy imaginable, to defend what is essentially a radical libertarian argument. joshfl wrote: Do you not feel that the whole civil war / slavery situation is an example of why the feds cannot leave everything to the state and local governments. They feds have drawn and uphold a line that the democratic will of states and local governments cannot and should not usurp. Are you willing to recognize this as true as well as necessary? I recognize that is a modern, leftist interpretation of the very poorly written 14th amendment, and serves as the basic rational for the modern federal court's power grab over the last several decades, as well as the ACLU's justification for existence. joshfl wrote: That does not qualify as tyranny any more than your 'forcing me' to live in a society where Christians are able to practice their religion freely can qualify as tyranny. Do you consider it tyrannical for the constitution to allow the free practice of religion? I do not. Well it is tyranny to me. You are still establishing a system of law that defines for me the limits of how I might behave. In this case, I am being told that I cannot come together with those I share my community with and decide among ourselves the limits of acceptable social behavior within our community. That, in fact, we must bow to a centralized authority in all such matters. What you are argueing for is a system where the power to define the proper limits of acceptable social behavior rests in the hands of an elite group of authoritairans (such as the supreme court) and removed completely from the people. That is, you want
-
joshfl wrote: The U.S. is a republic, but the U.S. has democracy Precisely - so that the federal system, Republic or no, is ultimately answerable to the democratic will of the people. Our Republic, whether at the federal or the state level, exists to moderate and control that will, not to replace it with an authoritarian judiciary. I will give you credit for your use of some obscure military manual to attempt a defense, that is a new twist I have never encountered. However, the fact that you have to resort to such a ludicrous source (which I'm sure you found on the internet and not in an actual library, and which I seriously doubt you have read) does not strengthen your position. What is truly amazing, however, is your use of the concept of a Republic, probably the most anti-libertarian form of democracy imaginable, to defend what is essentially a radical libertarian argument. joshfl wrote: Do you not feel that the whole civil war / slavery situation is an example of why the feds cannot leave everything to the state and local governments. They feds have drawn and uphold a line that the democratic will of states and local governments cannot and should not usurp. Are you willing to recognize this as true as well as necessary? I recognize that is a modern, leftist interpretation of the very poorly written 14th amendment, and serves as the basic rational for the modern federal court's power grab over the last several decades, as well as the ACLU's justification for existence. joshfl wrote: That does not qualify as tyranny any more than your 'forcing me' to live in a society where Christians are able to practice their religion freely can qualify as tyranny. Do you consider it tyrannical for the constitution to allow the free practice of religion? I do not. Well it is tyranny to me. You are still establishing a system of law that defines for me the limits of how I might behave. In this case, I am being told that I cannot come together with those I share my community with and decide among ourselves the limits of acceptable social behavior within our community. That, in fact, we must bow to a centralized authority in all such matters. What you are argueing for is a system where the power to define the proper limits of acceptable social behavior rests in the hands of an elite group of authoritairans (such as the supreme court) and removed completely from the people. That is, you want
Stan Shannon wrote: Precisely Great, I am glad you can finally agree with me on what was our original point of contention. America IS A Republic, America has democracy. Therefore, America IS NOT A democracy. Stan Shannon wrote: so that the federal system, Republic or no, is ultimately answerable to the democratic will of the people. Our Republic, whether at the federal or the state level, exists to moderate and control that will not to replace it with an authoritarian judiciary. In our Republic the democratic will of the people is not the ultimate power. The federal government is. The south lost the war. Stan Shannon wrote: I will give you credit for your use of some obscure military manual to attempt a defense, that is a new twist I have never encountered. However, the fact that you have to resort to such a ludicrous source (which I'm sure you found on the internet and not in an actual library, and which I seriously doubt you have read) does not strengthen your position. It hurts so bad that you must resort to insults? It doesnt support your argument in any fashion to challenge me that I did not read my source. It also does not make my source less valid when you assert this charge. We obviously come from a different set of influences with a very different way of viewing things but I never charge you with being illiterate when I don't like what you are saying. I directly rebut it with my own rational for better or worse with respect to you and your opinions in hopes that we can come to an intelligent joint conclusion even if we simply agree to disagree. And why is a historical military manual that captured the sentiment of our military leadership at that time ludicrous in your opinion? Do you have that little respect for our veteran forces and the principles they fought for that you can label their principles and the entire source as a whole ludicrous? That is really sad to me. Stan Shannon wrote: What is truly amazing, however, is your use of the concept of a Republic, probably the most anti-libertarian form of democracy imaginable, to defend what is essentially a radical libertarian argument. I have never lent myself to labels well. Stan Shannon wrote: I recognize that is a modern, leftist interpretation of the very poorly written 14th amendment, and serves as the basic rational for the modern federal court's power grab
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Precisely Great, I am glad you can finally agree with me on what was our original point of contention. America IS A Republic, America has democracy. Therefore, America IS NOT A democracy. Stan Shannon wrote: so that the federal system, Republic or no, is ultimately answerable to the democratic will of the people. Our Republic, whether at the federal or the state level, exists to moderate and control that will not to replace it with an authoritarian judiciary. In our Republic the democratic will of the people is not the ultimate power. The federal government is. The south lost the war. Stan Shannon wrote: I will give you credit for your use of some obscure military manual to attempt a defense, that is a new twist I have never encountered. However, the fact that you have to resort to such a ludicrous source (which I'm sure you found on the internet and not in an actual library, and which I seriously doubt you have read) does not strengthen your position. It hurts so bad that you must resort to insults? It doesnt support your argument in any fashion to challenge me that I did not read my source. It also does not make my source less valid when you assert this charge. We obviously come from a different set of influences with a very different way of viewing things but I never charge you with being illiterate when I don't like what you are saying. I directly rebut it with my own rational for better or worse with respect to you and your opinions in hopes that we can come to an intelligent joint conclusion even if we simply agree to disagree. And why is a historical military manual that captured the sentiment of our military leadership at that time ludicrous in your opinion? Do you have that little respect for our veteran forces and the principles they fought for that you can label their principles and the entire source as a whole ludicrous? That is really sad to me. Stan Shannon wrote: What is truly amazing, however, is your use of the concept of a Republic, probably the most anti-libertarian form of democracy imaginable, to defend what is essentially a radical libertarian argument. I have never lent myself to labels well. Stan Shannon wrote: I recognize that is a modern, leftist interpretation of the very poorly written 14th amendment, and serves as the basic rational for the modern federal court's power grab
joshfl wrote: Great, I am glad you can finally agree with me on what was our original point of contention. America IS A Republic, America has democracy. Therefore, America IS NOT A democracy. I never disagreed. In fact, I am usually the person argueing the very points you are trying so feebly to make. But you have based your entire argument around a single document which you misunderstand and misquote. A republic is a species of democracy. It is simply a kind of democracy based upon elected representatives and constitutional law. We are a Cosntitutional Republic, but that does not mean that we are not also a democracy. We most certainly are. To understand why you need to do more reading than one silly army training manual from 1928. joshfl wrote: In our Republic the democratic will of the people is not the ultimate power. The federal government is. The south lost the war. Correct. The constitution is the ultimate power. But the constitution is framed and amended by the people's democratically elected representatives. Therefore, indirectly, the people are still the ultimate power. That is why the document begins with "We the people..." I agree also that the south lost the war, but the war was fought over the issue of secession and nothing else. It was not fought to foment revolutionary changes to the underlieing structure of our federalist system. Those have been nefarioiusly introduced into our system by succeeding generations of increasingly authoritarian socialists and have nothing to do with the Civil War. I do not deny, however, that these interpretations are now largely the law of the land. But that is largely what the current political debate is about. You represent an increasingly euro-centric perspective of liberty, while I cling to the original Jeffersonian ideal. Together, we encasulate the current political divide perfectly. joshfl wrote: It hurts so bad that you must resort to insults? It doesnt support your argument in any fashion to challenge me that I did not read my source. It also does not make my source less valid when you assert this charge. We obviously come from a different set of influences with a very different way of viewing things but I never charge you with being illiterate when I don't like what you are saying. I directly rebut it with my own rational for better or worse with respect to you and your opinions in hopes that we can come to an intelligent joint con
-
joshfl wrote: Great, I am glad you can finally agree with me on what was our original point of contention. America IS A Republic, America has democracy. Therefore, America IS NOT A democracy. I never disagreed. In fact, I am usually the person argueing the very points you are trying so feebly to make. But you have based your entire argument around a single document which you misunderstand and misquote. A republic is a species of democracy. It is simply a kind of democracy based upon elected representatives and constitutional law. We are a Cosntitutional Republic, but that does not mean that we are not also a democracy. We most certainly are. To understand why you need to do more reading than one silly army training manual from 1928. joshfl wrote: In our Republic the democratic will of the people is not the ultimate power. The federal government is. The south lost the war. Correct. The constitution is the ultimate power. But the constitution is framed and amended by the people's democratically elected representatives. Therefore, indirectly, the people are still the ultimate power. That is why the document begins with "We the people..." I agree also that the south lost the war, but the war was fought over the issue of secession and nothing else. It was not fought to foment revolutionary changes to the underlieing structure of our federalist system. Those have been nefarioiusly introduced into our system by succeeding generations of increasingly authoritarian socialists and have nothing to do with the Civil War. I do not deny, however, that these interpretations are now largely the law of the land. But that is largely what the current political debate is about. You represent an increasingly euro-centric perspective of liberty, while I cling to the original Jeffersonian ideal. Together, we encasulate the current political divide perfectly. joshfl wrote: It hurts so bad that you must resort to insults? It doesnt support your argument in any fashion to challenge me that I did not read my source. It also does not make my source less valid when you assert this charge. We obviously come from a different set of influences with a very different way of viewing things but I never charge you with being illiterate when I don't like what you are saying. I directly rebut it with my own rational for better or worse with respect to you and your opinions in hopes that we can come to an intelligent joint con
Stan Shannon wrote: I never disagreed. By contending that a republic is a species of democracy I perceive you did. I maintain my belief that a republic is not a species of democracy. I sense we are both growing tired of this so lets agree to disagree and postpone for future disputes. I have a weekend ahead of me and I'm sure you do to, and it seems we are at least alike in that we get passionate about these things and get so caught up it may distract both of us from enjoying the weekend ;) Stan Shannon wrote: I resort to insults (if you wish to call it that) because you are sadly typical of your generation's pathetically sad education. You find some lame "source" on the internet and use it to support your preconcieved world view. Just figure if I keep pointing it out maybe you will get a general idea of how often you simply provide insults and attempt to discredit my sources as some form of attempt at supporting your side. Stan Shannon wrote: I'm sure that got you an 'A' in some college corse somewhere. Yet, you've never gone beyond it because you are afraid you might discover something that challanges those preconcieved opinions which is precisely what getting an education was once all about. Unfortuantly, intellectual challange is something members of your generation have never been exposed to. It makes me feel very sad for you. LOL, you have no idea how funny this is. I wouldn't speak so quickly about preconceived opinions Stan as you are proudly displaying a few of your own. And once again this whole area you wrote amounts to an attempt to support your views with derogatory remarks directed towards me with no actual substance to support your own stated beliefs. Do you realize yet how out of hand this is? Stan Shannon wrote: I've had enough respect to actually wear the uniform and serve in combat as has every generation of my family since July 4, 1776. Have you? I can assure you that not a single American soldier has ever fought for your right to smoke pot. I am from a long line of military families and you can not define the concept of freedom that every single American soldier has fought for. Stan Shannon wrote: I do not wish to respond line by line to the remainder of your post Is that because you would really not like to address your own direct contradiction that I brought to light in the previous post?