Who's the Commie John D?
HCCRR
Gee, looks like these commies agree with you.
Russian Communists Hail House Vote
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
.c The Associated Press
MOSCOW (AP) -- For Russian Communist Viktor Ilyukhin, the House impeachment of
President Clinton is a triumph of law and Kenneth Starr is a man to envy.
Ilyukhin, a former senior prosecutor turned prominent lawmaker, has been trying
for years to prosecute President Boris Yeltsin. He finally succeeded last
summer in setting up a parliamentary panel to review charges against Yeltsin
ranging from treason to genocide against the Russian people. The latter, he
says, was masterminded by Jews -- an assertion that caused an uproar last week.
``You can't trust a man who can lie, especially if he's a U.S. president, so I
welcome the (House) move'' to impeach, Ilyukhin, a somber-looking 49-year-old,
said Monday.
Ilyukhin praised the U.S. legal system for setting high standards for those in
public office.
``The accusations (against Clinton) of obstructing justice and being dishonest
simply wouldn't sound serious here,'' Ilyukhin told The Associated Press. ``Our
president has been lying all his life and everyone has grown accustomed to
it.''
Ilyukhin also openly craves the power and funds that prosecutor Starr used to
investigate Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
``Starr's material situation has been much better'' than that of Yeltsin's
foes, Ilyukhin said.
Vadim Filimonov, a Communist who heads the parliamentary commission considering
impeachment charges against Yeltsin, also praised the U.S. House of
Representatives.
``I believe that a head of state must not only observe legal norms, but set a
moral example, and I back their vote,'' Filimonov said in an interview.
Unlike the Communists, the Russian media and public have mostly supported
Clinton throughout the scandal and derided his foes. Clinton's alleged
wrongdoing isn't considered serious in Russia, where the legal system is weak
and even such offenses as perjury are rarely prosecuted.
``American legislators are really strange people,'' the popular daily
Komsomolskaya Pravda scoffed Monday. ``Mrs. Clinton doesn't mind if her
handsome husband has an affair, and Bill himself hasn't embezzled from the
state, sold it to oligarchs, ruled as a dictator and robbed his countrymen into
poverty.''
Communists and other Yeltsin critics say he should be punished for sending
tanks against his hard-line foes in parliament in 1993, launching the
unsuccessful war in separatist Chechnya, ruining Russia's armed forces,
instigating the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, and waging genocide against
the Russian people.
The Duma's panel has already backed all the above charges except the last,
which it continued debating Monday. Once the panel finishes its work, the full
Duma will vote on whether to impeach.
Filimonov said Monday the vote is expected no earlier than February.
Several previous attempts to impeach Yeltsin failed, and the latest move is
broadly expected to collapse, too. Even if it wins a two-thirds majority in
both houses of parliament, it would need approval by the pro-Yeltsin
Constitutional and Supreme Courts.
Tod
At least the Communists in Russia are honest enough to call themselves what they
are,
unlike the Democrats here in the USA. The only reason the Democrats stand by
Clinton
is he is one of their own. Had a Republican President acted as Clinton has, the
Democrats
would be screaming for his blood. At least Nixon had the dignity to resign. It is
refreshing
to see a post from HCCRR with a subject line that doesn't start with "Re:"
John D.
HCCRR wrote in message <914478603$3...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}
}Gee, looks like these commies agree with you.
}
}
}
}Russian Communists Hail House Vote
Yes they do. I find it very disturbing that the Russian Communist have more
honor than our American Communist. You guys need to clean up your act
comrade.
John
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 24 Dec 98 16:35:01 GMT, Tod
<todve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
}
}At least the Communists in Russia are honest enough to
}call themselves what they are, unlike the Democrats here
}in the USA.
Who aren't even remotely Communists. Do you need
a definition?
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/ShortFAQ.htm
}The only reason the Democrats stand by Clinton is
}he is one of their own. Had a Republican President
}acted as Clinton has, the Democrats would be screaming
}for his blood.
Again, I bring up the example of Reagan. The Iran-
Contra affair had the potential for impeachment.
The Democrats certainly had the votes in Congress if
they had wanted to and were willing to ignore public
opinion polls the way the Republicans have. And Lawrence
Walsh showed far more forbearance in investigating
Reagan and Bush than Starr has; at least he *stuck*
to the original topic of his investigation. If
the Democrats had been playing by Republican rules,
then *Reagan* would have been impeached.
}At least Nixon had the dignity to resign.
Nixon was told by the Republicans (Barry Goldwater
in particular) that the gig was up. That's the only
reason I think he resigned. Clinton would do the
same if his support in Congress and the public
eroded. Remember, Nixon's approval rating was
rock-bottom (18 %?) *before* impeachment; not 70+ %
like Clinton's.
}It is refreshing to see a post from HCCRR with a
}subject line that doesn't start with "Re:"
You guys would complain about that, too.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNoKq58yPOTvd59tlAQEHYQP/T4S/E6yTip998sIr/AzOz1VgdXKIaz/Y
a7O6orqk5osHpvd5B53jlRzcHtkt6X8x3+jowEP/bnHiTCDrfpwRXa7YuuE6caaW
obzMMFpNDuHHbA5Qu200QjOxNURu9YiI1lSs0gA+NgfvUvK+RwTLdeig4WUhTFQp
MzZ4gYxesEs=
=Ee59
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stewart Millen
Remove the "-tain-" in the e-mail address for
sending e-mail to my home address, or contact
me at Stewart...@hotmail.com
PGP Key on Keyservers
Key ID: DDE7DB65
Key Fingerprint: 66 C0 E9 25 4F EB 46 1A
7E B9 04 EE AE F6 38 29
HCCRR
In article <914517301$2...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Tod
<todve...@hotmail.com> writes:
}
}At least the Communists in Russia are honest enough to call themselves what
}they are, unlike the Democrats here in the USA.
They call themselves communists because they believe in Communism, while
Democrats believe in a representative democracy. How hard is that for you to
understand?
The only reason the Democrats stand by Clinton is he is one of their own.
That maybe true, but that is hardly unprecedented in American politics.
Had a Republican President acted as >Clinton has, the Democrats would be
screaming for his blood.
You mean like Republicans such as Barr and Delay?
At least Nixon had >the dignity to resign.
Unlike Clinton, Nixon never publically apologized for his actions. Clinton has
done this ad naseum. The fact that Clinton won't put himself into a legal
noose is quite understandable, because he does have plans after his presidency.
Nixon also didn't resign until his Republican base vanished in Congress, if
you remember the words of his resignation speech August 8, 1974, this was his
reason for quitting, not the Watergate and other related matters. So don't
give this dignity business and try and compare Nixon and Clinton in this
matter.
It is refreshing to see a post from HCCRR with a subject line >that doesn't
start with "Re:"
I have done it before both as HCCRR and RARPOL over the last three years. I
don't really care what you think about my format BTW.
}
HCCRR
In article <914520002$5...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.net> writes:
}
}HCCRR wrote in message <914478603$3...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}
}}Gee, looks like these commies agree with you.
}}
}}Russian Communists Hail House Vote
}
}Yes they do. I find it very disturbing that the Russian Communist have more
}honor than our American Communist.
Honor? Good God man, these are same boobs who attempted two coups since 1991.
Are you heroes those who don't like the constitutional process of government?
You guys need to clean up your act
}comrade.
Given the nature of my post, you should be careful whom you call comrade,
comrade. After all you agree with Russian communists on this issue. Perhaps you
agree with them on other matters as well such as crushing those who disagree
with you by calling them traitors etc.
}
}John
}
}
HCCRR
In article <914533501$7...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
stewart...@hotmail.com (Stewart Millen) writes:
}
}On Thu, 24 Dec 98 16:35:01 GMT, Tod
}<todve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
}
}}
}}At least the Communists in Russia are honest enough to
}}call themselves what they are, unlike the Democrats here
}}in the USA.
}
}Who aren't even remotely Communists. Do you need
}a definition?
}
}http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/ShortFAQ.htm
They don't need no stinkin' definitions. They are happy with the ones they make
up for themselves.
}
}
}}The only reason the Democrats stand by Clinton is
}}he is one of their own. Had a Republican President
}}acted as Clinton has, the Democrats would be screaming
}}for his blood.
}
}Again, I bring up the example of Reagan. The Iran-
}Contra affair had the potential for impeachment.
}The Democrats certainly had the votes in Congress if
}they had wanted to and were willing to ignore public
}opinion polls the way the Republicans have. And Lawrence
}Walsh showed far more forbearance in investigating
}Reagan and Bush than Starr has; at least he *stuck*
}to the original topic of his investigation. If
}the Democrats had been playing by Republican rules,
}then *Reagan* would have been impeached.
Yep. His "crimes" come a hell of lot closer to the original meaning of "high
crimes and misdemeanors" than Clinton's little trysts. It is interesting
further that now we hear that Delay wants the Senate to remove Clinton based on
information so weak and unsubstantied, that they dared not use it in the
Judiciary Committee report. Personally this tells me that certain elements of
the GOP want nothing less than Clinton's head on a plater. Fine, see what
happens to the next GOP president. I personally will not give a chance. I will
demand his impeachment for any damned little thing he does wrong.
}
}}At least Nixon had the dignity to resign.
}
}Nixon was told by the Republicans (Barry Goldwater
}in particular) that the gig was up. That's the only
}reason I think he resigned. Clinton would do the
}same if his support in Congress and the public
}eroded. Remember, Nixon's approval rating was
}rock-bottom (18 %?) *before* impeachment; not 70+ %
}like Clinton's.
In fact the loss of a political base in Congress was Nixon's official reason
for resigning. Only years later did he come close to confessing to wrong doing
as Clinton has already done.
}
}}It is refreshing to see a post from HCCRR with a
}}subject line that doesn't start with "Re:"
}
}You guys would complain about that, too.
You know, Stew, I get the feeling they don't like me.
}
John D.
HCCRR wrote in message <914543407$11...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snip)
} Perhaps you
}agree with them on other matters as well such as crushing those who
disagree
}with you by calling them traitors etc.
(Sarcasm on) Right Randy, I see you really got me figured out. (Sarcasm off)
Merry Christmas comrade.
John
HCCRR
In article <914563202$17...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.net> writes:
}
}Merry Christmas comrade.
}
}John
Same to you, comrade.
aard...@maverick.net
In article <914543407$11...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
}
} In article <914520002$5...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
} <U...@forever.net> writes:
} }
} }HCCRR wrote in message <914478603$3...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
} }}
} }}Gee, looks like these commies agree with you.
} }}
} }}Russian Communists Hail House Vote
} }
} }Yes they do. I find it very disturbing that the Russian Communist have more
} }honor than our American Communist.
}
} Honor? Good God man, these are same boobs who attempted two coups since 1991.
} Are you heroes those who don't like the constitutional process of government?
}
} You guys need to clean up your act
} }comrade.
}
} Given the nature of my post, you should be careful whom you call comrade,
you
} agree with them on other matters as well such as crushing those who disagree
} with you by calling them traitors etc.
yeah john, what's the matter with you, man?
just because clinton sold american missile techology to the chinese in
exchange for campaign contributions *and* the chinese now have some nukes
pointed at us doesn't make him a traitor, ya know.
it doesn't mean that he sold out our country to our enemies...the...uh
uh...enemies of freedom. (does it?)
} }
} }John
} }
} }
}
}
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 24 Dec 98 23:50:08 GMT, hc...@aol.com
(HCCRR) wrote:
}You know, Stew, I get the feeling they don't like me.
Where on *earth* would you get that idea? :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNoO+eMyPOTvd59tlAQEhygP8CPbxliMtYt/A4oV7AF9I7fJKv0nbJTpT
S8anuxxz9Izadr2K4Uv5keLtiuAOLOupoQuT4pGldsCBoiAog+2WIuxwuagDydq4
gjoHA+MjHsCUK1Jdl8Iaq/xLaI1y0wW6wiPE+E9gEy+SAQLeBNxuOlDPMhG2awFw
jCiZzo189VE=
=CPUl
HCCRR
In article <914575800$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
aard...@maverick.net writes:
Do you have hard evidence for this claim? Do you hav proof Clinton ordered to
delivery of missile technology for a campaign contribution? A campaign
contribution? Think about it.
}
}it doesn't mean that he sold out our country to our enemies...the...uh
}uh...enemies of freedom. (does it?)
Well technically China is not our enemy, since as far as I know there is state
of war between us.
Wul Krag
On December 24th, HCCRR wrote:
} They call themselves communists because
} they believe in Communism, while Democrats
} believe in a representative democracy.
} How hard is that for you to understand?
I will have to agree with you on this one. Communism is a type of
government, just like a republic or a democracy. This, however,
doesn't comment on the type of economy a nation has. I think it is
more "fair" to call most Democrats "socialists." They want a large
government, who taxes the rich and give health care and welfare to the
poor. It also sounds like most Democrats want the government to
control the major means of production. We already have EPA laws that
tell people what privately owned land can be developed or not.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
.
HCCRR
In article <914780101$61...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}On December 24th, HCCRR wrote:
}
}} They call themselves communists because
}} they believe in Communism, while Democrats
}} believe in a representative democracy.
}} How hard is that for you to understand?
}
} I will have to agree with you on this one. Communism is a type of
}government, just like a republic or a democracy. This, however,
}doesn't comment on the type of economy a nation has.
Fair enough.
I think it is
}more "fair" to call most Democrats "socialists." They want a large
}government, who taxes the rich and give health care and welfare to the
}poor.
To desire a "large government", which BTW under Clinton there are less
employees of the Federal government than before he took office, is not limited
to socialists. Despite claims to the contrary, Hitler was not a socialist and
ran a very large government dedicated to the doctrines of racial purity and
world conquest.Two items that are not in the socialist agenda I might further
add, hence the reason Hitler is an extreme rightest because of his ultra
nationalism. I can't deny that some Democrats might be social democrats, but
the bulk of the party isn't. It is dedicated to using government to assist
those in the middle and lower classes who need help from time to time, while
the Republicans historically seek to assist those in the higher classes who
don't really help at all.
It also sounds like most Democrats want the government to
}control the major means of production. We already have EPA laws that
}tell people what privately owned land can be developed or not.
The EPA, created under a Republican President I might add, is designed to
protect our environment, not to own the land or the means of production. The
later is a definition of socialism. We might split hairs here, but regulation
is not the same as ownership. The constitution grants powers to regulate to the
federal government, and each state constitution has granted similar powers to
the respective state governments since the Revolution.
}_______________________________
PGISSource
Wul Krag <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
}We already have EPA laws that tell people
}what privately owned land can be
}developed or not.
That's generally not an EPA function. In the vast majority of such cases that
is a local government (county/state) level restriction controlled by planning
departments, zoning boards, locally elected commisioners, etc.
Many of those folks are even quite conservative yet restrictions still persist
even when they rule. In fact, such restrictions often are even -less- rights
sensitive since in many cases conservatives restrict more as a function of what
they consider "morally proper" for a community instead of what makes sense in
terms of actual impacts on the rights of others.
So I guess if you want to stretch things to claim Democrats as "socialists"
perhaps the equivalent could be done to brand the rank and file of
conservatives and hardcore Republicans as "fascists?" Personally I think both
are a stretch when applied to the bulk of either group, but .....
Mr. Wizard
Eric Pinnell
Wul Krag wrote:
} On December 24th, HCCRR wrote:
}
} } They call themselves communists because
} } they believe in Communism, while Democrats
} } believe in a representative democracy.
} } How hard is that for you to understand?
}
} I will have to agree with you on this one. Communism is a type of
} government, just like a republic or a democracy. This, however,
} doesn't comment on the type of economy a nation has. I think it is
} more "fair" to call most Democrats "socialists."
And the difference between the Socialists and Communists is?...
} They want a large
} government, who taxes the rich and give health care and welfare to the
} poor. It also sounds like most Democrats want the government to
} control the major means of production. We already have EPA laws that
} tell people what privately owned land can be developed or not.
And how is this really different from the Republicans? After all, they
want Big government
to censor the Internet. The Reps may talk about downsizing the federal
government, but they
don't actually DO it. I'll believe them when they turn the Social Security
fund over to the
states, and get rid of HHS, EPA and all those other illegal federal
bureaucracies.
Eric Pinnell
Eric Pinnell
HCCRR wrote:
} The EPA, created under a Republican President I might add, is designed to
} protect our environment, not to own the land or the means of production. The
} later is a definition of socialism. We might split hairs here, but regulation
} is not the same as ownership. The constitution grants powers to regulate to the
} federal government, and each state constitution has granted similar powers to
} the respective state governments since the Revolution.
The constitution grants the federal government the power to REGULATE
*INTERSTATECOMMERCE*. Land owning and usage is not interstate commerce. Go read
the original
constitutional debates. You'll find the interstate commerce clause was intended to
ensure
the federal government had the power to prevent trade wars among the states.
Eric Pinnell
Wul Krag
On December 17th, HCCRR wrote:
} To desire a "large government", which BTW
} under Clinton there are less employees of
} the Federal government than before he took
} office, is not limited to socialists.
Big deal? The size of a government doesn't indicate what it wants to
do with it's size. Socialism is when the government controls the
major means of production, period. Big government, smaller government
but still big, democratic or republic, that part doesn't matter. If
the government controls the major means of production (not own, simply
"control"), then it is socialism.
} The EPA, created under a Republican
} President I might add, is designed to
} protect our environment, not to own the
} land or the means of production.
Water front property cannot be developed due to an insect, a dam
cannot be built because of a flower, forests cannot be logged because
of birds, the list goes on. Sounds like they are dorking with the
means of production to me.
How many gas stations had to close due to the EPA? How many farmers
are paid to NOT grow crops while people go hungry in this country?
Under current EPA regulations, most of the mid-west qualifies as a
wet-land durring the winter months.
Wul Krag
On December 27th, Mr. Wizard wrote:
} That's generally not an EPA function. In
} the vast majority of such cases that is a
} local government (county/state) level
} restriction controlled by planning
} departments, zoning boards, locally
} elected commisioners, etc.
Since when?!?!?! Need I remind you that the EPA has the authority to
impose fines and to prevent development? Sure local government does
also, but the EPA can stop development it wants to, even ones that
local government has approved of. A clear violation of the
constitution, but then again since when has this nation cared about
the constitution?
Wul Krag
On December 27th, Eric Pinnell wrote:
} And the difference between the
} Socialists and Communists is?...
Do you mean other then the first is a type of economy, while the other
is a type of government? Your above question is like asking what's
the difference between a Democrat and someone who reads books.
However, to answer your question:
Socialism is an economy based on the government controling the major
means of production.
Communism is a theoretical form of government developed by Karl Marx.
Capitalism, if left unchecked, will cause a working class revolt and
form a new government based on cooperation rather then competition,
where the major means of production aren't controled but rather used
to benefit all people.
A common misunderstanding is that Cuba and the ex-Soviet Union
are/were communist. They aren't, but socialist. There has yet to be
a true "communist" nation according to Marxian theory.
John D.
Wul Krag wrote in message
<914798101$73...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snip)
}A common misunderstanding is that Cuba and the ex-Soviet Union
}are/were communist. They aren't, but socialist. There has yet to be
}a true "communist" nation according to Marxian theory.
Wul, I think a better understanding would be that the Soviet Union and Cuba
are the real world application of Communism. True communism as laid out by
Marx is utopian and can never occur. Thus the distinction between Socialist
and Communist is only relevant in the class room. The logical end (as we are
currently seeing) to "Socialist" forms of government will be closely
associated to the old Soviet form of Communism.
John
John
PGISSource
Wul Krag <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
}} That's generally not an EPA function. In
}} the vast majority of such cases that is a
}} local government (county/state) level
}} restriction controlled by planning
}} departments, zoning boards, locally
}} elected commisioners, etc.
}
}Since when?!?!?!
Oh, quite a while. Ask around. Really. You'll find far more folks restricted in
their activities by local agencies than by the feds.
}Need I remind you that the EPA has the
}authority to impose fines and to prevent
}development? Sure local government does
}also,
Yep. And the locals use it a lot more, too.
}but the EPA can stop development it wants
}to, even ones that local government has
}approved of.
Yep. Sometimes useful since local government can be too readily bought off with
dreams of tax plums from new development which in the end is often detrimental
to preexisting uses or the rights of local residents.
} A clear violation of the constitution,
Not necessarily. It's hard to argue that limiting impacts that affect the
rights of other property owners is a constitutional violation. Consider for
instance leakage from fuel tanks causing groundwater contamination. Toxic dump
sites. Degradation of natural windbreaks leading to soil deflation, erosion,
siltation of water bodies, etc. And a host of other similar types of problems.
I'm sure you agree that the rights of a large polluter are greater than the
rights of those subjected to their pollution or other impacts, correct?
As to habitat protection? Arguably, the Constitution didn't see that far ahead.
There were still massive wildernesses to settle and the impacts of the
industrial revolution hadn't even been felt yet. I'd bet that if those factors
had been different, some adjustment would have been made in the Constitution to
allow for some level of protection. After all, the concept of good stewardship
wasn't lost on the founding fathers, just that they lacked knowledge in some
areas.
}but then again since when has this nation
}cared about the constitution?
Since the very beginning of the 19th century? :-)
While I admit that there are too many instances of abuse in environmental
policy, some of which might be unconstitutional in certain cases, I'm not
convinced that the conceptual approach itself is that bad or that such cases
comprise a majority of all actions. For the moment it looks just like we need
cleanup and more checks on the system, not abandonment.
For what it's worth, most (not all) planners and environmentalists I know feel
the same. The mucking up seems to arise more on the political than the
technical side of the equation. Ever notice how in coastal and marshy areas
where folks aren't allowed to do driveways hotels still get built? Surplus
shopping malls? Etc? That is NOT a trend most eco types like. Nor are the
abuses of eminent domain, etc. All run counter to the regard for the rights of
private individuals most of us would prefer to protect -first-.
In short, political and commercial abuse is a longstanding problem. That won't
be solved by gutting the controlling systems. It will only evidence in newer,
more horrible ways.
Mr. Wizard
HCCRR
In article <914785516$68...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Eric Pinnell
<epi...@ibm.net> writes:
}
}Wul Krag wrote:
}
}} On December 24th, HCCRR wrote:
}}
}} } They call themselves communists because
}} } they believe in Communism, while Democrats
}} } believe in a representative democracy.
}} } How hard is that for you to understand?
}}
}} I will have to agree with you on this one. Communism is a type of
}} government, just like a republic or a democracy. This, however,
}} doesn't comment on the type of economy a nation has. I think it is
}} more "fair" to call most Democrats "socialists."
}
} And the difference between the Socialists and Communists is?...
Well it depends. Most socialists now are often called social democrats because
they respect the rules of a representative democracy and the individual rights
of man as seen by many such parties in Western Europe, while a Communist is one
who subsribes to some form of Marxism-Leninism be it Stalinist, Maoist,
Fidelist, or whatever. The main thing is that communists do not respect the
rules of representative democracy and the individual rights of man. That is it
in an nutshell..
}
}} They want a large
}} government, who taxes the rich and give health care and welfare to the
}} poor. It also sounds like most Democrats want the government to
}} control the major means of production. We already have EPA laws that
}} tell people what privately owned land can be developed or not.
}
} And how is this really different from the Republicans? After all, they
}want Big government to censor the Internet. The Reps may talk about downsizing
the federal government, but they don't actually DO it.
Well the GOP dominated Supreme Court has struck down those attempts, does that
count?
I'll believe them when they turn the Social Security fund over to the states
Convice the voters of this. But then again you don't vote in the United States
do you?
, and get rid of HHS, EPA and all those other illegal federal bureaucracies.
Got case law to prove they are illegal?
}
}Eric Pinnell
HCCRR
In article <914785520$68...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Eric Pinnell
<epi...@ibm.net> writes:
}
}HCCRR wrote:
}
}} The EPA, created under a Republican President I might add, is designed to
}} protect our environment, not to own the land or the means of production.
}The
}} later is a definition of socialism. We might split hairs here, but
}regulation
}} is not the same as ownership. The constitution grants powers to regulate to
}the
}} federal government, and each state constitution has granted similar powers
}to
}} the respective state governments since the Revolution.
}
} The constitution grants the federal government the power to REGULATE
}*INTERSTATECOMMERCE*. Land owning and usage is not interstate commerce.
Its says commerce among the states, not interstate. As for land owning, this
is almost entirely regulated by the states for the most part. Further, our
Founding Fathers were not visionaries, who could anticipate the future all
conditions, therefore they could not see the emergence of a national
industrized economy and its effects on the social structure. Therefore they
wrote the Constitution in such a way, as Jefferson stated, to make it a
document for the living subject to different interpretations to fit the needs
of that generation. Had we relied on a strict constructionist view of the
Constitution during the Great Depression, there is little doubt in my mind that
we might not even have a United States today at all.
Go read the original constitutional debates. You'll find the interstate
commerce clause was intended to ensure the federal government had the power to
prevent trade wars among the states.
Not just trade wars, but allow free trade among the states you might add.
However, the federal government has had the power regulate commerce among the
states for along time as seen with its regulation of many rivers within the
Union.
}
}Eric Pinnell
}
Wul Krag
On December 28th, Mr. Wizard wrote:
[in regards to the EPA]
}} A clear violation of the constitution,
}
} Not necessarily. It's hard to argue that
} limiting impacts that affect the rights of
} other property owners is a constitutional
} violation. Consider for instance leakage
} from fuel tanks causing groundwater
} contamination. Toxic dump sites.
} Degradation of natural windbreaks leading
} to soil deflation, erosion, siltation of
} water bodies, etc.
Don't take this the wrong way, I'm very much interested in saving
the environment. Alternative energy sources such as solar, wind,
dams, fusion, the list goes on. I hate oil use, clear-cutting of
forests, and unsafe drinking water due to contamination as much as any
"environmentalist."
However, what I'm saying is that the US Constitution doesn't mention
anything like that as the duty of the government to regulate! Again,
the government trying to protect you from yourself. Local governments
should make laws that reflect their community. Regulate the
environment at that level, NOT at the national level.
Do you honestly think Ted Kennedy, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, and
Maxine Waters are in a position to understand the issues involved in
every environmental problem accross the nation? Do you think they are
more able to raise your children then you are? Do they really care
about the poor and homeless in your community? Do you want Tipper
Gore censoring the music you listen to, or Senator Exon censor what
Internet sites you can view? I contend that all of these above
examples are NOT in the power of the US Federal Government according
to the constitution, and therefore any federal laws in these areas are
flat out wrong.
Wul Krag
On December 27th, John D wrote:
}} A common misunderstanding is that
}} Cuba and the ex-Soviet Union are/
}} were communist. They aren't, but
}} socialist. There has yet to be a
}} true "communist" nation according
}} to Marxian theory.
}
} Wul, I think a better understanding
} would be that the Soviet Union and
} Cuba are the real world application
} of Communism. True communism as laid
} out by Marx is utopian and can never
} occur.
Ah, but that is the real question, isn't it? If it doesn't follow
the theory laid out by Marx, then can it really be called communism?
I guess in a way that the Soviet "form of Communism" is different
enough from socialism since there was no private property at all.
This is also different from Marx's theory. In a way, there can never
be "anarchy" as a form of government either.
So, if you ask what is the difference between Socialism and the
Soviet Communism...
Socialism is then the government controls the major means of production.
Soviet Communism is when the government owns all property.
Still, NOT the same.
Wul Krag
On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
} Further, our Founding Fathers were not
} visionaries, who could anticipate the
} future all conditions, therefore they
} could not see the emergence of a
} national industrized economy and its
} effects on the social structure.
I've heard that argument before. I wasn't impressed with it then, I'm
not impressed with it now.
People say that back in the 1780's, "arms" meant a muzzle loaded
weapon, and therefore that is the only weapon you have the
constitutional right to own. The clause that congress must secure for
the protection of scientific and artistic works through patents also
means that they should give tax money to those programs.
However, if you read the constitution as it is written, the intent
is clear. Government should be small, who's power exists only to
protect the STATES, and the people ONLY when in foreign nations or in
other states with different rights (such as legal age to marry). The
individual states are the ones who make laws to protect and regulate
it's citizenship, NOT the federal government.
Let the local government regulate when you can flush your toilet for
all I care, but that isn't a job of the Federal Government. I don't
care if the EPA talk about the water table and contamination due to
additional fecal material durring peak times of the day, IT ISN'T
THERE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, THAT DUTY BELONGS TO THE STATES!
John D.
Wul Krag wrote in message
<914855702$87...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snip)
}Socialism is then the government controls the major means of production.
}
}Soviet Communism is when the government owns all property.
}
} Still, NOT the same.
I agree, always have agreed with this definition. The point being, one of
direction. With the Fed penchant for usurping power from the States and the
more recent attacks on the tobacco industries, gun manufacturers and
intrusiveness of the EPA on private property rights...etc.
Where are we likely to end up? The *control* the Fed has over our property,
right now, is bringing us closer to the Soviet scenario. That's why I
said:
Wul Krag
On December 28th, John D wrote:
} Where are we likely to end up? The
} *control* the Fed has over our
} property, right now, is bringing us
} closer to the Soviet scenario.
} That's why I said:
}
} "The logical end (as we are
} currently seeing) to "Socialist"
} forms of government will be
} closely associated to the old
} Soviet form of Communism."
I would argue that this is the "logical end" to ANY government that
either tries to protect you from yourself, or is just large in
general.
I understand why the EPA was created, to protect you from yourself.
I understand why we have gun control, to protect you from yourself.
I understand why we have federal rules and regulations on the tobacco
industry, to protect you from yourself. However, all these rules
could and SHOULD be imposed at the state or local level NOT the
federal level of government. That tendency to "mean well" by
protecting you from yourself is what leads to socialism. "Oh, we
should all have universal health care coverage, it's only fair, and
will protect you incase you lose your job." Need I say more? :)
HCCRR
In article <914798101$73...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}On December 27th, Eric Pinnell wrote:
}
}} And the difference between the
}} Socialists and Communists is?...
}
}Do you mean other then the first is a type of economy, while the other
}is a type of government? Your above question is like asking what's
}the difference between a Democrat and someone who reads books.
}However, to answer your question:
}
}Socialism is an economy based on the government controling the major
}means of production.
Actually, to Communists, Socialism is merely an historical stage of development
on between capitalism and full communism. Lenin invented this stage to justify
the need for the Soviet state.
}
}Communism is a theoretical form of government developed by Karl Marx.
}Capitalism, if left unchecked, will cause a working class revolt and
}form a new government based on cooperation rather then competition,
}where the major means of production aren't controled but rather used
}to benefit all people.
Essentially correct. Like under some aspects of libertarianism, the state is
supposed to wither away.
}
}A common misunderstanding is that Cuba and the ex-Soviet Union
}are/were communist. They aren't, but socialist.
Hence the title Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Yep, that is also correct.
There has yet to be
}a true "communist" nation according to Marxian theory.
Nope. But communism has come to mean in actuality and inspite of Marx's ideas,
the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist totalitarian monster.
HCCRR
In article <914799901$74...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.net> writes:
}
}Wul Krag wrote in message
}<914798101$73...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}(snip)
}
}}A common misunderstanding is that Cuba and the ex-Soviet Union
}}are/were communist. They aren't, but socialist. There has yet to be
}}a true "communist" nation according to Marxian theory.
}
}
}Wul, I think a better understanding would be that the Soviet Union and Cuba
}are the real world application of Communism. True communism as laid out by
}Marx is utopian and can never occur.
Alert the media, John and I are in agreement here.
Thus the distinction between Socialist
}and Communist is only relevant in the class room.
Not really because with the development of Marxism-Leninism (communism), the
socialist world became divided into communist and social democratic camps. The
German Social Democrats, the French Socialists, and the British Labourites are
clear examples of the later.
The logical end (as we are
}currently seeing) to "Socialist" forms of government will be closely
}associated to the old Soviet form of Communism.
Then how come Germany, France, and Great Britain, not mention New Zealand,
Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, as well as numerous other countries, never
developed into the Soviet form of communism after years of social democratic
government?
}
}John
}
HCCRR
In article <914797201$73...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}On December 17th, HCCRR wrote:
}
}} To desire a "large government", which BTW
}} under Clinton there are less employees of
}} the Federal government than before he took
}} office, is not limited to socialists.
}
}Big deal? The size of a government doesn't indicate what it wants to
}do with it's size. Socialism is when the government controls the
}major means of production, period.
Owns, not regulates. That is the difference.
Big government, smaller government
}but still big, democratic or republic, that part doesn't matter. If
}the government controls the major means of production (not own, simply
}"control"), then it is socialism.
Once again, the socialist and communist dogma speak of state ownership of the
means of production, not the regulation of it for the safety and health of the
public.
}
}} The EPA, created under a Republican
}} President I might add, is designed to
}} protect our environment, not to own the
}} land or the means of production.
}
} Water front property cannot be developed due to an insect, a dam
}cannot be built because of a flower, forests cannot be logged because
}of birds, the list goes on. Sounds like they are dorking with the
}means of production to me.
Perhaps overregulating, but, again, that is not the same as state ownership.
State ownership of the means of the production would mean there would be no
free enterprise at all.
} How many gas stations had to close due to the EPA?
How many leak like sieves with dangerous chemicals?
How many farmers
}are paid to NOT grow crops while people go hungry in this country?
I don't think that is the cause of hunger in the United States. The reason why
farmers are paid to not grow crops is protect them from over production, a
problem that farmers were incapable of solving.
}Under current EPA regulations, most of the mid-west qualifies as a
}wet-land durring the winter months.
What regulations?
}
HCCRR
In article <914855702$87...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}On December 27th, John D wrote:
}
}}} A common misunderstanding is that
}}} Cuba and the ex-Soviet Union are/
}}} were communist. They aren't, but
}}} socialist. There has yet to be a
}}} true "communist" nation according
}}} to Marxian theory.
}}
}} Wul, I think a better understanding
}} would be that the Soviet Union and
}} Cuba are the real world application
}} of Communism. True communism as laid
}} out by Marx is utopian and can never
}} occur.
}
} Ah, but that is the real question, isn't it? If it doesn't follow
}the theory laid out by Marx, then can it really be called communism?
Probably better to call it Marxism-Leninism, Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, or
Marxist-Leninism-Maoism.
}I guess in a way that the Soviet "form of Communism" is different
}enough from socialism since there was no private property at all.
}This is also different from Marx's theory. In a way, there can never
}be "anarchy" as a form of government either.
It would be an oxymoron.
} So, if you ask what is the difference between Socialism and the
}Soviet Communism...
}
}Socialism is then the government controls the major means of production.
Do you define regulation and control as the same? Regulation is done to
protect health and safety, while control maybe an end itself.
}
}Soviet Communism is when the government owns all property.
And when that government is truly totalitarian, in other words, no opposition
parties or competitive elections. Don't overlook the political angle.
}
} Still, NOT the same.
Essentially yes, they are not more the same did is Liberalism with either
socialism or communism.
HCCRR
In article <914857501$88...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}
}} Further, our Founding Fathers were not
}} visionaries, who could anticipate the
}} future all conditions, therefore they
}} could not see the emergence of a
}} national industrized economy and its
}} effects on the social structure.
}
}I've heard that argument before. I wasn't impressed with it then, I'm
}not impressed with it now.
Sorry to hear, given that is what history has shown.
} People say that back in the 1780's, "arms" meant a muzzle loaded
}weapon, and therefore that is the only weapon you have the
}constitutional right to own. The clause that congress must secure for
}the protection of scientific and artistic works through patents also
}means that they should give tax money to those programs.
I have heard the former, but not the later.
} However, if you read the constitution as it is written, the intent
}is clear. Government should be small, who's power exists only to
}protect the STATES, and the people ONLY when in foreign nations or in
}other states with different rights (such as legal age to marry).
Yes, but that's only part of it. It was also designed to control those states
who had abused their powers during the 1780s when ignoring treaties, imposing
treason on people just to seize land, and passing laws impairing contracts.
Section 10 of Article I is directed to control those abuses. Remember, the main
reason for the creation of the Constitution was to INCREASE the powers of the
federal government vis a vis the states.
The
}individual states are the ones who make laws to protect and regulate
}it's citizenship, NOT the federal government.
That might have been true before the 14th amendment.
} Let the local government regulate when you can flush your toilet for
}all I care, but that isn't a job of the Federal Government. I don't
}care if the EPA talk about the water table and contamination due to
}additional fecal material durring peak times of the day, IT ISN'T
}THERE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, THAT DUTY BELONGS TO THE STATES!
Then you must get the courts and the Congress to agree with you on that.
Failing that, then the states should call for a Constitutional Convention to
remedy perceived abuses of authority by the Federal government. BTW I doubt
many of our colleagues on the pro side, would want the states to have this
power as well.
}
HCCRR
In article <914859304$89...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.net> writes:
}
}Wul Krag wrote in message
}<914855702$87...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}(snip)
}
}}Socialism is then the government controls the major means of production.
}}
}}Soviet Communism is when the government owns all property.
}}
}} Still, NOT the same.
}
}
}I agree, always have agreed with this definition. The point being, one of
}direction. With the Fed penchant for usurping power from the States and the
}more recent attacks on the tobacco industries, gun manufacturers and
}intrusiveness of the EPA on private property rights...etc.
None of which is Marxist Leninist.
}
}Where are we likely to end up? The *control* the Fed has over our property,
}right now, is bringing us closer to the Soviet scenario. That's why I
}said:
}
}"The logical end (as we are currently seeing) to "Socialist" forms of
}government will be closely associated to the old Soviet form of Communism."
But you have no historical models that support your conclusions do you?
}
}John
John D.
HCCRR wrote in message <914880912$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snip)
}
}But you have no historical models that support your conclusions do you?
It's a developing story, give it some time. We have some friends in London
who say the Government their is almost to the point where their watching
ones every move. Cameras and Video are everywhere. They say the EU promises
to be worse.
John
Wul Krag
On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
} Then how come Germany, France, and Great
} Britain, not mention New Zealand,
} Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, as
} well as numerous other countries, never
} developed into the Soviet form of
} communism after years of social
} democratic government?
If the people vote for leaders who eventually create a government that
uses the same ideas found in soviet communism, is it still "social
democrat" since it was created via the democratic process?
In this country alone, there is a major push towards a national ID
card, that holds all your information and required to be with you at
all times. That sure seems reminiscent of the soviet form of
communism, only imposed through the democratic process. Therefore, is
it communism or simply social democratism?
Ever watch the British house of commons on TV late at night? You
should try it if you don't think there is a major push for communism
in the UK.
Wul Krag
On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}} Socialism is then the government controls
}} the major means of production.
}
} Do you define regulation and control as the
} same? Regulation is done to protect health
} and safety, while control maybe an end
} itself.
Regulations count as "control" under socialism if they are to an
extreem that prohibit or limit the private decisions made concerning
the means of production.
For example, imagine if a private company owns a large red-wood
forest, and wishes to cut it down. If the EPA tells them that they
must re-plant trees at a 2:1 ratio with the ones cut, that is simply a
regulation. The company is free to cut all it wants, just re-plant
twice as many. However, if EPA regulations prohibit the cutting of
the forest for whatever reason, then that counts as socialistic
control. The government is controling the means of production through
it's limitations imposed on it's use and availability.
In other words, they are not the same, but regulations can be used
to control the means of production and therefore can count as a method
of controling. No matter how well meaning the regulation is, it can
still serve as a way to control the means of production.
}} Soviet Communism is when the government
}} owns all property.
}
} And when that government is truly
} totalitarian, in other words, no
} opposition parties or competitive
} elections. Don't overlook the political
} angle.
I intentionally overlooked the political, since otherwise the
question of socialism vrs communism is one of an economic process vrs
a political process. The political arguments for/against communism
should be addressed against the democratic or republic forms of
government.
But if you wish to include them, then communism is a form of
government where the government controls everything, including you.
Any thoughts you may or may not have that are against the government
are treason, any activity you do that is against the government is
treason, any property you own that the government doesn't know about
is treason. There is no other political parties since that would be
treason. There is no protest about the current state of the nation
since that would be treason. Think of the game "Paranoia," just
switch who the "bad guys" and "good guys" are.
Wul Krag
On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
} But communism has come to mean in
} actuality and inspite of Marx's ideas,
} the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist
} totalitarian monster.
It may have come to mean that in a political speech sense. "We must
stop those commie bastards!" etc etc etc. However, that isn't what it
means. The Soviet form is a perversion of Communism, but in reality
is socialism on a power trip.
Wul Krag
On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}} Let the local government regulate
}} when you can flush your toilet for
}} all I care, but that isn't a job of
}} the Federal Government. I don't
}} care if the EPA talk about the water
}} table and contamination due to
}} additional fecal material durring
}} peak times of the day, IT ISN'T
}} THERE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, THAT DUTY
}} BELONGS TO THE STATES!
}
} Then you must get the courts and the
} Congress to agree with you on that.
That's the problem, isn't it? The Constitution is great and is a
lovely document to see, yet doesn't amount to much of anything
anymore. Congress can pass laws and the President signs them. Laws
that are "unconstitutional" are only thrown out by the courts if the
court addresses it's constitutionality. If the government wishes to
take away any one of your rights as outlined in the constitution, they
can UNTIL the court says they cannot. If the court doesn't want to
touch it, the government can do it all it wants.
Wul Krag
On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}} Socialism is when the government controls
}} the major means of production, period.
}
} Owns, not regulates. That is the difference.
<...>
} Once again, the socialist and communist
} dogma speak of state ownership of the means
} of production, not the regulation of it for
} the safety and health of the public.
Controls, not always owns or regulates.
If the government controls the means of production, it is socialism.
There has never been the requirement for the federal government to
"own" the means of production, only control them. As for regulations
intended for public safety, they take on two forms.
The first form permits people/companies to do what they wish, just
that they have to do something else in addition to make sure nothing
bad happens. Clear-cutting of forests, strip-mining, these types of
regulations don't control the means of production, only alters how you
go about getting and using them.
The second form of regulations limit the use of the means of
production to make sure nothing bad happens, and therefore qualifies
as control under socialism. Land developers cannot build on a section
of land because of a rare insect, dams cannot be build because it will
create a lake that will alter the ecosystem, these types of
regulations do control the means of production.
Regulations, if used to limit the availability and use of the means
of production (even those privately owned), do qualify as governmental
"control" under the definition of Socialism. Not all regulations,
only those that prohibit or limit the use of resources.
Wul Krag
On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}} How many farmers are paid to NOT grow
}} crops while people go hungry in this
}} country?
}
} I don't think that is the cause of
} hunger in the United States. The reason
} why farmers are paid to not grow crops
} is protect them from over production, a
} problem that farmers were incapable of
} solving.
Yes, I heard that before also. And yes, I'm not impressed with it now
either.
How do we currently feed the hungry homeless in this nation? Soup
kitchens and other federal programs that always seem to be getting
about 25% of the budget that they really need to buy food? Let the
farmers grow the food, but have the the government buy the surplus and
distribute it to the programs that feed the hungry. Still no surplus
on the store shelves, it costs the government about the same, and many
more poor and homeless will have something to eat.
}} Under current EPA regulations, most of
}} the mid-west qualifies as a wet-land
}} durring the winter months.
}
} What regulations?
According to the EPA's Office of Water, a wetland is:
"those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support and that
under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs and similar areas."
In more general terms, any plot of land with water saturated soil
for over a month qualifies as a wetland under this definition and how
the EPA applies it.
Mark Seitz
The answer to the question posed, "How do you feed the hungry
homeless", the answer is, you don't.
And when you say "Let the government buy food" what you're actually
saying is, "use tax money". Well, I have a problem with that, and there
are probably millions of Americans who have a problem with
"re-distributing wealth" in that fashion also.
America is full, time to thin out the herd.
HCCRR
In article <914898001$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.net> writes:
}
}}But you have no historical models that support your conclusions do you?
}
}
}It's a developing story, give it some time.
In other words, no, you don't.
We have some friends in London
}who say the Government their is almost to the point where their watching
}ones every move. Cameras and Video are everywhere. They say the EU promises
}to be worse.
So they say that Britain and the EU are communist?
}
}John
HCCRR
In article <914939401$11...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}
}} Then how come Germany, France, and Great
}} Britain, not mention New Zealand,
}} Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, as
}} well as numerous other countries, never
}} developed into the Soviet form of
}} communism after years of social
}} democratic government?
}
}If the people vote for leaders who eventually create a government that
}uses the same ideas found in soviet communism, is it still "social
}democrat" since it was created via the democratic process?
If those ideas are indeed the same as in soviet communism, which meant
ultimately creating a one party totalitarian state without a democratic process
at all Communism in the soviet sense is much more than an economic model but a
sociopolitical one as well.
} In this country alone, there is a major push towards a national ID
}card, that holds all your information and required to be with you at
}all times. That sure seems reminiscent of the soviet form of
}communism, only imposed through the democratic process. Therefore, is
}it communism or simply social democratism?
So far this is merely a proposal, and further more the idea of having a
national ID is no more communist than the having a passports is tsarist.
} Ever watch the British house of commons on TV late at night?
Actually I follow British politics quite closely.
You should try it if you don't think there is a major push for communism
}in the UK.
Is Blair pushing for the creation of a one party state? Good God his party,
with the support of the people, ended 18 years of one party rule in Britain. It
seem to me the centerpiece of this year's legislation has to do with devolving
political power to London, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland at the expense
of the Parliament, and make an hereditary House of Lords more reflective of the
popular will A communist Blair would weaken or destroy the power and
independence of local government as was done in the old Soviet Union.
Kaa Byington
Wul Krag wrote:
}
} On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}
} }} crops while people go hungry in this
} }} country?
} }
} } I don't think that is the cause of
} } hunger in the United States. The reason
} } why farmers are paid to not grow crops
} } is protect them from over production, a
} } problem that farmers were incapable of
} } solving.
}
} Yes, I heard that before also. And yes, I'm not impressed with it now
} either.
} How do we currently feed the hungry homeless in this nation? Soup
} kitchens and other federal programs that always seem to be getting
} about 25% of the budget that they really need to buy food? Let the
} farmers grow the food, but have the the government buy the surplus and
} distribute it to the programs that feed the hungry. Still no surplus
} on the store shelves, it costs the government about the same, and many
} more poor and homeless will have something to eat.
}
This was tried during the 50s and 60s. The poor--welfare recipients--
were issued "commodities", agricultural surplus. They'd get 20 pounds
of lard one month, and 15 pounds of rye flour the next. It didn't
work--nobody could figure out how to use 20 pounds of lard. Since
then,'
the Food Stamps program does the same thing, only a lot more
intelligently.
However, the farm surplus problem is one that seems to be insoluble.
Interestingly enough, a book that was recommended on MAM, by militia
types, "Rural Radicals" by CAtherine Stock, explains this all very well
indeed. I recommend it, too. I got it from Amazon.com. for about $12.
Soup kitchens and the like are local, and almost always run by
charities, not government at any level. The homeless are exactly that
because they fall through the cracks in the "safety net." They aren't
eligible for any government assistance, at any level, being neither old,
minor children, nor (officially) disabled.
} }} Under current EPA regulations, most of
} }} the mid-west qualifies as a wet-land
} }} durring the winter months.
} }
} } What regulations?
}
} According to the EPA's Office of Water, a wetland is:
}
} "those areas that are inundated or saturated
} by surface or ground water at a frequency
} and duration sufficient to support and that
} under normal circumstances do support, a
} prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
} for life in saturated soil conditions.
} Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
} bogs and similar areas."
}
} In more general terms, any plot of land with water saturated soil
} for over a month qualifies as a wetland under this definition and how
} the EPA applies it.
}
}
Oh, come on. That's the biological definition of "wetlands" and "one
month" of being under water doesn't make a wheat field a "swamp."
About once a year my refrigerator fits that definition.
Anyway, you're giving the EPA a bum rap. Their mandate is air and water
pollution control--unless wetlands are full of pesticides or other toxic
waste, it's not within their purview.
Kaa Byington
Wul Krag wrote:
}
} On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}
You've confused "natural resources" with "means of production." Water,
Timber and minerals are natural resources--they were there before
government or man himself existed. "Means of production" means capital
investment in industry--factories, now corporations, that use natural
resources as raw materials for whatever products they produce.
It so happens that under our Constitution the federal government owns
(not just controls) most of our natural resources, that is, the land,
and that which is on it or under it, particularly in the western United
States. If you want to call that "socialism" you should be aware that
it's been that way since the Founding Fathers, I suspect before the word
even existed. It was Thomas Jefferson who acquired the Louisiana
Purchase for a few million of federal money and opened it up to
development, according to federal laws. Any country who lets its
natural resources be plundered by anyone who comes along isn't going to
last very long. Those are public lands--yours and mine--that are being
clear cut and mined out.
Think about this: back in the 80s, when Japan was riding high,, and the
US was in recession, the Prime Minister of Japan suggested that Japanese
banks should refuse to roll over the US Treasury notes (some 17% of
them) they owned and instead demand the cessation to Japan, of the
Western United States in repayment. IF that had happened, would you
feel so strongly about "ownership" of those resources being "socialist"
and therefore bad?
Kaa Byington
Wul Krag wrote:
}
} On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}
} }} when you can flush your toilet for
} }} all I care, but that isn't a job of
} }} the Federal Government. I don't
} }} care if the EPA talk about the water
} }} table and contamination due to
} }} additional fecal material durring
} }} peak times of the day, IT ISN'T
} }} THERE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, THAT DUTY
} }} BELONGS TO THE STATES!
} }
} } Then you must get the courts and the
} } Congress to agree with you on that.
}
} That's the problem, isn't it? The Constitution is great and is a
} lovely document to see, yet doesn't amount to much of anything
} anymore. Congress can pass laws and the President signs them. Laws
} that are "unconstitutional" are only thrown out by the courts if the
} court addresses it's constitutionality. If the government wishes to
} take away any one of your rights as outlined in the constitution, they
} can UNTIL the court says they cannot. If the court doesn't want to
} touch it, the government can do it all it wants.
}
Interesting that when Congress passed the Communications Decency Act,
which almost everyone on the internet opposed as censorship and a First
Amendment violation, the ACLU (horrors) got a judge to issue an
injuction against enforcing it within 24 hours, and an appeals court
declared it unconstitutional thereafter. 24 hours is pretty quick
action, don't yo think?
Wul Krag
On December 29th, Mark Seitz wrote:
} The answer to the question posed, "How
} do you feed the hungry homeless", the
} answer is, you don't.
I'm sorry, it seems that you caught us in the middle of an argument
that doesn't make much sense at this point.:)
I raised the question of why are farmers paid, with tax dollars, to
NOT grow food while people go hungry in this country.
} And when you say "Let the government
} buy food" what you're actually saying
} is, "use tax money".
If the government is already using my tax money to pay farmers to
NOT grow food, then using it to buy the surplus to feed the hungry
instead doesn't change my tax bill. However, as to your point, I
think that any direct tax on income is against my rights. Income tax
is a tax on the ability to work, and should be abolished. But hey, I
don't see Ted Kennedy willing to change his mind, so we either have to
deal with it or revolt.
Wul Krag
On December 29th, HCCRR wrote:
} So they say that Britain and the
} EU are communist?
They definitly are over dominating socialists on power trips, so you
decide. :)
It's funny when you think that we here in the USA always love to
talk about freedom, and love to remember the tyranny we faced all
those years ago, yet we engage in that activity with the help of the
UN almost every day. Just once I would love to hear a President
support the spirit of the IRA's desire to be free, as our forefathers
felt in the 1700's. Or better yet, to no longer support the idea of
circumventing the sovereignty a foreign nation has over it's own lands.
Currently, it seems that everything is in our nation's intrest, and
everything threatens our "way of life." If our way of life is the
false sense of freedom when we are in fact prisoners, then yes I guess
everything is a threat towards it afterall.
Wul Krag
On December 29th, HCCRR wrote:
} You've confused "natural resources"
} with "means of production."
No I haven't.
} Water, Timber and minerals are natural
} resources
That all qualify as a means of production as I have learned it
through every economics course I have ever taken... "Means or
Production" is the method of producing, and is NOT limited to just
factories and such, but includes the resources used in the production.
An electric company needs to build a dam to increase energy
production, MEANS OR PRODUCTION. A company needs to buy land to build
a new factory, MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
} Means of production" means capital
} investment in industry--factories,
} now corporations, that use natural
} resources as raw materials for
} whatever products they produce.
Hu? Means of Production is only $$$, and nothing more??? That's
nothing short of silly. However, if you wish to argue that line, I
can do it also. Ever hear of the term "income tax?" A method for the
government to control how much net income a person or corperation has
to invest, and therefore a form of socialism as outlined in your
argument above.
} It so happens that under our
} Constitution the federal government
} owns (not just controls) most of our
} natural resources, that is, the land,
} and that which is on it or under it,
} particularly in the western United
} States.
Ah yes. I don't really own the land that my house is on, it's really
the Government's. It's not really MY possession, I simply have the
right to keep it secure from other private citizens. Sounds more like
the Soviet perversion of Communism rather then Socialism.
Wul Krag
Ug: I have a couple of posts that I attributed to HCCRR rather then
Kaa Byington (the real author). That was a mistake, and I'm sorry.
They were also posted in an "off-shoot" topic of feeding the homeless
that indicates this as it's parent topic. I apologize for the trouble
this has caused. It's ironic that I discovered this error on a note
that would actually qualify under that topic... :)
On December 29th, Kaa Byington wrote:
} This was tried during the 50s and 60s.
} The poor--welfare recipients--were
} issued "commodities", agricultural
} surplus. They'd get 20 pounds of lard
} one month, and 15 pounds of rye flour
} the next. It didn't work--nobody
} could figure out how to use 20 pounds
} of lard.
Sounds stupid to me. No one can use 15 pounds of rye flower all by
itself. However, give them 1 pound of lard, 1 pound of rye flower,
etc etc etc. That makes more sense then 35 gallons of milk all at once.
} Since then,' the Food Stamps program
} does the same thing, only a lot more
} intelligently.
Yet we still have people who go hungry in this nation, who don't get
food stamps. My only "point" is that while we still have people
starving in this nation, the government pays farmers to NOT grow food.
We then pay private people to buy food from the grocery store. And
we STILL don't get everyone. Typical government program, it's stupid
beyond belief and flat out doesn't work! Since when has Ted Kennedy
cared about the homeless in your community?
Wul Krag
} Oh, come on. That's the biological
} definition of "wetlands" and "one
} month" of being under water doesn't
} make a wheat field a "swamp." About
} once a year my refrigerator fits that
} definition.
But according to the EPA, it does!!! I'm not kidding, if they look at
your land and there is standing water, it's a wetland. You have to
wait until it dries out so you can beg the EPA back out to see it was
only a temporary condition and not the normal state of the land. They
don't care about it rained 27 days and this is the only low spot for
53 miles, if it has water it's a wetland.
Wul Krag
On December 30th, Kaa wrote:
}} Congress can pass laws and the President
}} signs them. Laws that are
}} "unconstitutional" are only thrown out by
}} the courts if the court addresses it's
}} constitutionality.
}
} Interesting that when Congress passed the
} Communications Decency Act, which almost
} everyone on the internet opposed as
} censorship and a First Amendment violation,
} the ACLU (horrors) got a judge to issue an
} injuction against enforcing it within 24
} hours, and an appeals court declared it
} unconstitutional thereafter. 24 hours is
} pretty quick action, don't yo think?
Yes it was. And Roe vrs Wade wasn't. Your point is...?
And if the court didn't address the constitutionality of the
Communications Decency Act, it would still exist as law. How many
people were forced to represent themselves in a non-capital offense
trial untill that was addressed by the courts?
PGISSource
Wul Krag <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
}} Oh, come on. That's the biological
}} definition of "wetlands" and "one
}} month" of being under water doesn't
}} make a wheat field a "swamp." About
}} once a year my refrigerator fits that
}} definition.
}
}But according to the EPA, it does!!! I'm not
}kidding, if they look at your land and there is
}standing water, it's a wetland.
While "wetlands" (an aggregate term for a variety of forms) are difficult to
define, in very general lay terms the main characteristics used to define them
are:
- flooding
- soils that evolve from flooding ("hydric soils",
easy to test for)
- water table level
- presence of vegetation adapted to flooding
(again readily surveyed)
These standards are a bit more involved than you indicate above. Despite urban
myths to the contrary, the presence of water alone is not enough. Your swimming
pool doesn't qualify, for instance. :-) Granted, some errors might be made
based upon outdated soils maps and such where funding for updates has been
inadequate, as well as poor recognition of indicator species, but those aren't
really the norm and they can be resisted when they happen.
Also, on the fed end it's the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) who traditionally
deal with most wetland developments, not EPA. Now EPA does have a growing role
due to wastewater treatment issues, and so on, but in most cases they are still
a minor force compared to the locals planning departments, state agencies, and
similar groups on that end.
}You have to wait until it dries out so you can beg
}the EPA back out to see it was only a temporary
}condition and not the normal state of the land.
The soils don't change, wet or dry. Indicator species reflect the underlying
nature. These are not things that change significantly between wet and dry
conditions.
Of course, a lot of data defining wetlands is outdated and was performed using
less than perfect approaches. Unfortunately, it costs money to resurvey. Tax
money that most conservatives don't want to spend. But without those new
surveys, how really can you expect the situation to be improved?
}They don't care about it rained 27 days and this
}is the only low spot for 53 miles, if it has water
}it's a wetland.
I know this is a tad nitpicky given the likely rhetorical nature of your point,
but if the area is the only low spot for 53 miles, it very likely IS a wetland,
even if just a transitory one. :-) The scenario you mention is actually fairly
common in some areas like the southwest where monsoonal rain patterns prevail.
But perhaps the more important question is why do wetlands matter? Is it just
an eco-freak "warm and fuzzy" commie-inspired land-grabbing habitat issue as
many believe? No. Wetlands serve a vital role that among other things helps
protect the often pre-existing INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of downstream and regional
residents. Not to mention their economic interests.
First, remember that wetlands serve as a "catchment." That is they temporarily
collect and hold water during higher magnitude storm or runoff events. Major
benefits from this include:
- lessening flooding. This is a -very- real and positive
impact on folks' property rights since wetlands are
the pre-existing protection of their property. Destroying
wetlands is the rights impact, not preserving them.
- allowing potentially detrimental materials to settle out
of runoff waters thus providing cleaner water for
drinking, etc. Again, since this is the natural condition,
preserving wetlands preserves rights while destroying
wetlands damages rights. Remember, the clean water
existed before the wetland development. Impacting that
IS impacting a "right" the downstream folks have.
- nutrient cycling. This helps, among other things, the
natural right of downstream agriculture. Again, preserving
wetlands preserves that right.
- fisheries support. Again, folks who rely on fishing for their
livelihoods have a RIGHT to not be impacted by poorly
considered and rights insensitive development upstream.
Proper preservation is a pro-rights stance.
- phosphorus and nitrogen uptake. This has benefits not so
much in terms of the atmosphere, but in terms of downstream
water quality and fisheries. This helps in terms of recreational
water uses, too, since excessive organics can lead to problems
like "red tides," pfysteria, etc. which impact not only economics
but human health. Again, preservation preserves not only
wetlands but also rights.
I could go on, but you likely get the point. Wetlands preservation is as much
to protect pre-existing rights of PEOPLE as anything else. Remember, downstream
folks were most commonly there BEFORE wetlands were settled. Thus it's not just
a "warm and fuzzy" thing for the little critters. It's an issue of preserving
human rights in a pre-existing population.
Secondly, wetlands not only help in terms of water quality, but also may have
benefits in areas like sewage disposal. This area gets into a different aspect,
though, where potential abuses of "eminent domain" concepts can too readily
come into play and therefore is not really an issue of "rights" though it does
have technical merit. I'm not ready to debate this point at the moment, though,
since it falls outside the domain of the premise that wetlands preservation is
also rights preservation. I also have reservations about the ecological
soundness of such activities. So let's consider that one tangental for the
moment.
That said, a reasonable question is why only now have wetlands become so
important? First, their vital roles in terms of the rights of local PEOPLE were
poorly understood until the 1970's. As a result, megacorps were allowed too
often, with COE and other often local gov't help, to drain and destroy such
vital areas thus impacting a lot of PEOPLE. In fact, nationwide as much as
40-50% of the wetlands were destroyed. In some of the worst cases, like
California, the amount reportedly exceeds 95%. Considering the issues discussed
above, that's a LOT of downstream property rights abuse. It's also a lot of tax
dollars wasted trying to work around the problems like flooding which
development created.
Regretably, it's very hard to go after the folks that cost we the taxpayer so
much and so thoroughly abused the rights of so many during that period (1800's
to the early 1980's). At this point, the only remaining option is to try to
limit further abuse of the rights of downstream folks and taxpayers.
Unfortunately, most of the prime wetland has already been raped by the
corporate exploitationists. The same kind of "me only" folks that gave us
600,000 layoffs last year. And I think most would agree that it would be
equally unfair to go after the current owners of the developed properties.
Beyond that, even if we did take their lands back, a bad idea no matter how you
cut it, rehabilitation of wetlands is far too costly. Preservation of what's
left, therefore, is the main remaining tool to preserve downstream rights.
Sadly, though, most of the remaining wetlands quite often consist of smaller
parcels, less readily developed areas, or regions which for transportation or
other reasons weren't economically viable for "development." Most of these
because of those characteristics are in private hands. Whereas in an ideal
system preservation could have been spread over a broader spectrum through
mitigation, the unbridled and misguided development by the rapists since the
1830's (pre-federal) makes that infeasible at this point. In other words, the
rights of current owners are once more impacted by the abuses of past
rights-insensitive folks. But does that mean the current owners of small plots
themselves have the "right" to ignore the "rights" of those downstream simply
because rights abuse has historically been accepted? No.
So in the end, the reality is that wetlands are not the simple issue many wish
to believe. The nature and history of the problem, including misguided
fed/state/local policies, have given us a real headache. But we must remain
ever conscious of the rights of those downstream or who depend upon the related
economies, too. So within that framework whose rights do you think should be
taken away, Krag? What solutions do you recommend? I favor better surveys to
limit errors, weight in favor of private vs corporate developers, and public
funding to help in mitigation efforts on the part of small landowners. But many
conservatives consider such ideas too costly thus leaving us with a fundamental
problem which impacts the small owners disproportionately.
Mr. Wizard
Kaa Byington
Wul Krag wrote:
}
} On December 29th, HCCRR wrote:
}
} } You've confused "natural resources"
} } with "means of production."
}
} No I haven't.
}
} } Water, Timber and minerals are natural
} } resources
}
} That all qualify as a means of production as I have learned it
} through every economics course I have ever taken... "Means or
} Production" is the method of producing, and is NOT limited to just
} factories and such, but includes the resources used in the production.
I've taken a lot of econ courses, too, and never once heard the phrase
"means of production" used. Capital, labor, raw materials. I remember
the definitions of communism, socialism, etc. (means of produ tion) from
history courses. You're torturing words, here, and I'm not sure what
your point is.
} An electric company needs to build a dam to increase energy
} production, MEANS OR PRODUCTION. A company needs to buy land to build
} a new factory, MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
A dam "takes" water and makes it into electricity, a sawmill takes trees
and makes them into 2x4s or chips for paper. ARe you incapapble of
telling the difference between Hoover Dam and the Colorado river, or a
living tree and your newspaper?
}
} } Means of production" means capital
} } investment in industry--factories,
} } now corporations, that use natural
} } resources as raw materials for
} } whatever products they produce.
}
} Hu? Means of Production is only $$$, and nothing more???
No, read that again.
Did you learn the phrase "capital investment" in your econ course?
Did you learn that the three big things you need to produce anything
are:
capital (to build the factory, the machinery) labor and raw materials?
That's
} nothing short of silly. However, if you wish to argue that line, I
} can do it also. Ever hear of the term "income tax?" A method for the
} government to control how much net income a person or corperation has
} to invest, and therefore a form of socialism as outlined in your
} argument above.
The government has a lot better ways than the income tax to "control"
investment--such as tax breaks, loan guarantees, contracts, grants.
}
} } It so happens that under our
} } Constitution the federal government
} } owns (not just controls) most of our
} } natural resources, that is, the land,
} } and that which is on it or under it,
} } particularly in the western United
} } States.
}
} Ah yes. I don't really own the land that my house is on, it's really
} the Government's. It's not really MY possession, I simply have the
} right to keep it secure from other private citizens. Sounds more like
} the Soviet perversion of Communism rather then Socialism.
Not what I said. You are not a natural resource, are you? The Federal
government owns 27% of all the land in the 50 states, most of it in the
West. These are called public lands. 66% of Alaska, 45% of
California,62% of Idaho, 83% of Nevada, etc. is publically owned. Much
of it is forested. a lot of it is desert. There are a lot of minerals
under the land, as well, and a lot of water resources (or lack of them)
The feds, through the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management
(mostly) not only "controls" the use of this land and these resources,
but owns them. Most of the time the agencies who manage these lands
and resources try to preserve them from destruction by big business, who
would, given the opportunity, clear cut every forest in America and sell
it to the Japanese.
Other than the fact that you no doubt think this is a "perversion" of
"Soviet communism", what is your complaint? How else does this
country, or any country preserve its natural resources for future
generations other than by controlling them? Got a better idea?
Kaa Byington
Wul Krag wrote:
}
} On December 30th, Kaa wrote:
}
} }} Congress can pass laws and the President
} }} signs them. Laws that are
} }} "unconstitutional" are only thrown out by
} }} the courts if the court addresses it's
} }} constitutionality.
} }
} } Interesting that when Congress passed the
} } Communications Decency Act, which almost
} } everyone on the internet opposed as
} } censorship and a First Amendment violation,
} } the ACLU (horrors) got a judge to issue an
} } injuction against enforcing it within 24
} } hours, and an appeals court declared it
} } unconstitutional thereafter. 24 hours is
} } pretty quick action, don't yo think?
}
} Yes it was. And Roe vrs Wade wasn't. Your point is...?
} And if the court didn't address the constitutionality of the
} Communications Decency Act, it would still exist as law.
And if I didn't live in California, I'd live somewhere else.
You are making a circular argument. The CDA was unconstitutional, Roe
v. Wade was not. The courts can only rule on constitutionality. If you
think its a bad law, though constitutional--you have to get it repealed
or changed through the legislative body, Congress or the state
legislature or whatever.
How many
} people were forced to represent themselves in a non-capital offense
} trial untill that was addressed by the courts?
Until about 1968 when a little guy named Gideon petitioned the Supreme
Court from his cell in a Florida penitentiary. Amazing story. Read
Gideon's Trumpet, by Anthony Lewis.
}>
} .
HCCRR
In article <914941201$11...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}
}}} Socialism is then the government controls
}}} the major means of production.
}}
}} Do you define regulation and control as the
}} same? Regulation is done to protect health
}} and safety, while control maybe an end
}} itself.
}
} Regulations count as "control" under socialism if they are to an
}extreem that prohibit or limit the private decisions made concerning
}the means of production.
How about decisions about health and safety? That is the source of the
overwhelming majority of regulations in the United States.
} For example, imagine if a private company owns a large red-wood
}forest, and wishes to cut it down. If the EPA tells them that they
}must re-plant trees at a 2:1 ratio with the ones cut, that is simply a
}regulation. The company is free to cut all it wants, just re-plant
}twice as many. However, if EPA regulations prohibit the cutting of
}the forest for whatever reason, then that counts as socialistic
}control.
Well, I am not certain about this regulation, so you may have me a
disadvantage, but given the rape of our natural resources by many companies in
the past, it doesn't surprise me that such regulation is needed.
The government is controling the means of production through
}it's limitations imposed on it's use and availability.
} In other words, they are not the same, but regulations can be used
}to control the means of production and therefore can count as a method
}of controling. No matter how well meaning the regulation is, it can
}still serve as a way to control the means of production.
But this isn't socialism, and certainly not in the soviet kind.
}
}}} Soviet Communism is when the government
}}} owns all property.
}}
}} And when that government is truly
}} totalitarian, in other words, no
}} opposition parties or competitive
}} elections. Don't overlook the political
}} angle.
}
} I intentionally overlooked the political, since otherwise the
}question of socialism vrs communism is one of an economic process vrs
}a political process. The political arguments for/against communism
}should be addressed against the democratic or republic forms of
}government.
} But if you wish to include them, then communism is a form of
}government where the government controls everything, including you.
}Any thoughts you may or may not have that are against the government
}are treason, any activity you do that is against the government is
}treason, any property you own that the government doesn't know about
}is treason. There is no other political parties since that would be
}treason. There is no protest about the current state of the nation
}since that would be treason. Think of the game "Paranoia," just
}switch who the "bad guys" and "good guys" are.
In other words, none of this describes the United States nor Canada, nor the
Western Nations of Europe.
HCCRR
In article <914941202$11...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}
}} But communism has come to mean in
}} actuality and inspite of Marx's ideas,
}} the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist
}} totalitarian monster.
}
}It may have come to mean that in a political speech sense. "We must
}stop those commie bastards!" etc etc etc. However, that isn't what it
}means. The Soviet form is a perversion of Communism, but in reality
}is socialism on a power trip.
That is because of its totalitarian character, refusal to recognize the
legitimacy of others and their beliefs.
HCCRR
In article <914942101$12...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}
}}} Let the local government regulate
}}} when you can flush your toilet for
}}} all I care, but that isn't a job of
}}} the Federal Government. I don't
}}} care if the EPA talk about the water
}}} table and contamination due to
}}} additional fecal material durring
}}} peak times of the day, IT ISN'T
}}} THERE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, THAT DUTY
}}} BELONGS TO THE STATES!
}}
}} Then you must get the courts and the
}} Congress to agree with you on that.
}
} That's the problem, isn't it? The Constitution is great and is a
}lovely document to see, yet doesn't amount to much of anything
}anymore. Congress can pass laws and the President signs them. Laws
}that are "unconstitutional" are only thrown out by the courts if the
}court addresses it's constitutionality. If the government wishes to
}take away any one of your rights as outlined in the constitution, they
}can UNTIL the court says they cannot. If the court doesn't want to
}touch it, the government can do it all it wants.
However in many cases injunctions against such laws are imposed before a
hearing is held to determine constitutionality. If memory serves that has
happened in numerous cases ranging from the Sawyer case of 1952 to the CDA of
1996. But how else would determine the constitutionality of an act if not with
the assistance of the courts?
}
HCCRR
In article <914943901$12...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}
}On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}
}}} Socialism is when the government controls
}only those that prohibit or limit the use of resources.
You are changing the classic definitions of socialism to attack the
environmental movement aren't you?
HCCRR
In article <915027602$15...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}
}On December 29th, HCCRR wrote:
}
}} So they say that Britain and the
}} EU are communist?
}
}They definitly are over dominating socialists on power trips, so you
}decide. :)
Well, that maybe hard to do without verifiable and accepted definitions of
socialism on power trips. Previously you have used this to describe the
political nature of communism, but now you apply to apply Blair's government in
Britain.
} It's funny when you think that we here in the USA always love to
}talk about freedom, and love to remember the tyranny we faced all
}those years ago, yet we engage in that activity with the help of the
}UN almost every day. Just once I would love to hear a President
}support the spirit of the IRA's desire to be free, as our forefathers
}felt in the 1700's.
The IRA is a criminal terrorist organization that is even outlawed in the
Republic of Ireland. Besides the Irish-English conflict predates communism and
socialism, and have nothing to do with it. In fact, there are off shoots of the
IRA that have developed rather Marxian tendencies. Do you want a American
president champion them?
Or better yet, to no longer support the idea of
}circumventing the sovereignty a foreign nation has over it's own lands.
} Currently, it seems that everything is in our nation's intrest, and
}everything threatens our "way of life." If our way of life is the
}false sense of freedom when we are in fact prisoners, then yes I guess
}everything is a threat towards it afterall.
Well, President Clinton has been the first President to seriously deal with the
Irish problem and has made immense progress, to the point that the people of
Northern Ireland may have their own sovereignty. Remember also that Ulster,
had a chance to join the Irish Republic in 1921, but the protestant majority
opposed it to remain within the United Kingdom.
HCCRR
In article <914945701$12...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}
}On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}
}}} How many farmers are paid to NOT grow
}}} crops while people go hungry in this
}}} country?
}}
}} I don't think that is the cause of
}} hunger in the United States. The reason
}} why farmers are paid to not grow crops
}} is protect them from over production, a
}} problem that farmers were incapable of
}} solving.
}
}Yes, I heard that before also. And yes, I'm not impressed with it now
}either.
} How do we currently feed the hungry homeless in this nation? Soup
}kitchens and other federal programs that always seem to be getting
}about 25% of the budget that they really need to buy food? Let the
}farmers grow the food, but have the the government buy the surplus and
}distribute it to the programs that feed the hungry. Still no surplus
}on the store shelves, it costs the government about the same, and many
}more poor and homeless will have something to eat.
How much of food production are talking here? Remember that farmers also have
to worry about world markets. Your ideal here is laudable, but maybe
simplistic.
In 1919, farms prices collasped to such a low level and depression hit rural
America 10 years before the rest of the country, and why did this occur? Over
production. Even the amount of food needed for the army and for European relief
was not enough to help them.
John D.
HCCRR wrote in message <915303913$24...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snip)
}You are changing the classic definitions of socialism to attack the
}environmental movement aren't you?
Really no need to do that is there? Interesting quote here don't you think
comrade.
"This is true in the struggle to save the environment . . . we must be
organizers, the leaders of these movements . . . Human society cannot
basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism.
Socialism is the only structure that make it possible." Gus Hall, Communist
Party of the United States -Ecology 1972
John
HCCRR
In article <915307503$25...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.net> writes:
The ultimate irony of course, is that Soviet Communism,the remnents of which
you apparently see some merit in given your past comments, cared not one wit
for the environment during their 74 years of rule. As for Gus Hall, I think he
has supported your views on gun control in the past. Does that make you a
communist as well?
Kaa Byington
Jimmy Carter cancelled grain sales to the Soviet Union in 1979 to
protest the invastion of Afghanistan and that (plus overextension of
credit) caused the farm disasters of the 1980s. And set off some of the
militia movement.
Kaa Byington
John D. wrote:
}
} HCCRR wrote in message <915303913$24...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
} (snip)
}
} }You are changing the classic definitions of socialism to attack the
} }environmental movement aren't you?
}
} Really no need to do that is there? Interesting quote here don't you think
} comrade.
}
} "This is true in the struggle to save the environment . . . we must be
} organizers, the leaders of these movements . . . Human society cannot
} basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism.
} Socialism is the only structure that make it possible." Gus Hall, Communist
} Party of the United States -Ecology 1972
}
} John
That's exactly what Theodore Roosevelt said, using only a slightly
different vocabulary. Congress agreed with him and that's why we have
millions of acres of protected national forests and public lands,
National Parks. Gus Hall was about 90 years too late.
Of course, the really Socialist countries, like the USSR, and Eastern
Europe, did a lousy job of protecting their environment.
John D.
HCCRR wrote in message <915343503$6...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snip)
}The ultimate irony of course, is that Soviet Communism,the remnents of
which
}you apparently see some merit in given your past comments, cared not one
wit
}for the environment during their 74 years of rule.
That's the point, they still don't. "It's not the evironment stupid."
As for Gus Hall, I think he
}has supported your views on gun control in the past. Does that make you a
}communist as well?
So, are you saying Gus Hall the socialist communist supports the Second
Amendment? And everyone else that supports the Second Amendment are
Communist.? Good luck trying to spin that one comrade.
John
Wul Krag
On January 2nd 1999, HCCRR wrote:
}} Regulations count as "control" under
}} socialism if they are to an extreem
}} that prohibit or limit the private
}} decisions made concerning the means
}} of production.
}
} How about decisions about health and
} safety? That is the source of the
} overwhelming majority of regulations
} in the United States.
And that is, overwhelmingly, the cause of socialism in most instances.
Yes, ANY regulation, even those intended to protect people, that
limit or prohibit the use or gathering of the means or production is
socialism. Regulations that protect people that do not limit the
means of production are NOT socialistic control, so please stop
lumping them together in one category.
} But this isn't socialism, and certainly
} not in the soviet kind.
I never said it was. The Soviet perversion of communism was when the
government owned all property, and there was NO private property of
any kind. Socialism is when the government controls the means of
production. There is no doubt that the Soviet form was Socialistic
under that definition, but it went well past that.
} In other words, none of this describes
} the United States nor Canada, nor the
} Western Nations of Europe.
Stop trying to "mix and match" my arguments here.
Are you talking about communism, socialism, Soviet perversion of
communism, or what? I was addressing socialism, NOT communism. What
argument do you wish me to address?
Wul Krag
On January 2nd 1999, HCCRR wrote:
}} Just once I would love to hear a
}} President support the spirit of the
}} IRA's desire to be free, as our
}} forefathers felt in the 1700's.
}
} The IRA is a criminal terrorist
} organization that is even outlawed in
} the Republic of Ireland.
<<snip>>
} Do you want a American president
} champion them?
You missed the point, so I will go into greater detail for you since I
obviously hit a nerve with you.
I'm not talking about the terrorism or the civilian bombings, but
the idea of being free. the IRA wishes to be a free nation, apart
from the "UK." Don't forget that British foreign policy has been one
of "trade with us or we will take you over." Remember India? So, as
I said... "Just once I would love to hear a President support the
spirit of the IRA's desire to be free, as our forefathers felt in the
1700's."
} Besides the Irish-English conflict predates
} communism and socialism, and have nothing
} to do with it. In fact, there are off
} shoots of the IRA that have developed rather
} Marxian tendencies.
So what? If they wish independence, and desire a form of government
similar to the Soviet perversion of Communism, they have the right to
do so. For us to impose our morality and views upon them is flat out
wrong. If they desire to be free, I'm all for it.
Wul Krag
On January 2nd 1999, HCCRR wrote:
} However in many cases injunctions
} against such laws are imposed before
} a hearing is held to determine
} constitutionality. If memory serves
} that has happened in numerous cases
} ranging from the Sawyer case of 1952
} to the CDA of 1996.
But not Roe V Wade. I can think of a few more, but the the case names
fails me for the moment. As for your injunctions, again the court
places them on the laws.
I see, yet again, that the entire point of my post didn't seem to
register with you. You assume that every law passed by congress is
constitutional, and every unconstitutional one has an automatic
injunction placed upon it by the courts. Yes injunctions occure, but
how many unconstitutional laws were overturned only after a long court
battle that did NOT have an injunction against the law while it's
constitutionality was addressed?
But how else would determine the constitutionality of an act if not
with
the assistance of the courts?
Wul Krag
On January 2nd 1999, HCCRR wrote:
}} Regulations, if used to limit the
}} availability and use of the means of
}} production (even those privately owned),
}} do qualify as governmental "control"
}} under the definition of Socialism. Not
}} all regulations, only those that
}} prohibit or limit the use of resources.
}
} You are changing the classic definitions
} of socialism to attack the environmental
} movement aren't you?
That is how I learned it. Now I'm willing to accept that 3 economics
classes, countless televisionion documentaries, countless financial
debate programs, etc etc etc, are all wrong and you are right, but I
doubt it.
Wul Krag
Wul Krag
On January 3rd 1999, Kaa Byington wrote:
} That's exactly what Theodore Roosevelt
} said, using only a slightly different
} vocabulary. Congress agreed with him
} and that's why we have millions of
} acres of protected national forests
} and public lands, National Parks.
Hmmm... So Gus Hall, speaking as a communist trying to gain
political power through environmental scare tactics, ended up sounding
just like Theodore Roosevelt? And didn't FDR some years later
developed the idea of the government supporting the people through
social programs? What about LBJ's "Great Society" that turned into
the "Great Flop"?
And who said we haven't had socialist presidents?
Socialism (As given by "The American Heritage Dictionary", 1994) - "A
social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods
are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole
community." (NOTE: Aren't national parks owned collectively, and
programs like welfare paid for by everyone?)
As given by countless economics texts - An economic system in which
the government controls the means of production.
I still fail to understand any part of your argument.
HCCRR
In article <915463201$13...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}On January 2nd 1999, HCCRR wrote:
}
}}} Regulations count as "control" under
}}} socialism if they are to an extreem
}}} that prohibit or limit the private
}}} decisions made concerning the means
}}} of production.
}}
}} How about decisions about health and
}} safety? That is the source of the
}} overwhelming majority of regulations
}} in the United States.
}
}And that is, overwhelmingly, the cause of socialism in most instances.
No socialism is an outgrowth of a situation that doesn't exist anymore, i.e.
sweat shops and child labor and the like.
} Yes, ANY regulation, even those intended to protect people, that
}limit or prohibit the use or gathering of the means or production is
}socialism.
Based on what? According to your logic then the Constitution supports
socialism, because it recognizes the need for state inspection laws.
Regulations that protect people that do not limit the
}means of production are NOT socialistic control, so please stop
}lumping them together in one category.
Okay give me some concrete examples.
}
}} But this isn't socialism, and certainly
}} not in the soviet kind.
}
}I never said it was. The Soviet perversion of communism was when the
}government owned all property, and there was NO private property of
}any kind. Socialism is when the government controls the means of
}production. There is no doubt that the Soviet form was Socialistic
}under that definition, but it went well past that.
Yes, you leave out the political side of the equation. Socialism is much more
than an economic philosophy, it is political as well. All your definitions of
what is socialist or communist or whatever, conveniently leave this important
element out.
}
}} In other words, none of this describes
}} the United States nor Canada, nor the
}} Western Nations of Europe.
}
}Stop trying to "mix and match" my arguments here.
} Are you talking about communism, socialism, Soviet perversion of
}communism, or what?
I believe it was you who sought to establish that Britain under Blair was
becoming communist, not me.
I was addressing socialism, NOT communism. What
}argument do you wish me to address?
How about discussing socialism not just as an economic issue, but as a
political one too.
HCCRR
In article <915457802$4...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.net> writes:
}
}HCCRR wrote in message <915343503$6...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}(snip)
}
}}The ultimate irony of course, is that Soviet Communism,the remnents of
}which
}}you apparently see some merit in given your past comments, cared not one
}wit
}}for the environment during their 74 years of rule.
}
}That's the point, they still don't. "It's not the evironment stupid."
Like you really care about the environment? Hell you would stripe away every
law on the books, both federal and state.
}
}
} As for Gus Hall, I think he
}}has supported your views on gun control in the past. Does that make you a
}}communist as well?
}
}
}So, are you saying Gus Hall the socialist communist supports the Second
}Amendment?
He did back in the 1970s. He supported some notion of people's militias if
memory serves.
And everyone else that supports the Second Amendment are
}Communist.? Good luck trying to spin that one comrade.
Is that not the same logic you have applied here? You quote some communist
making statements that sound like he supporting the enviromental movement to
make the ludicrous point that those of us who support environmental measures
are communists. God what a hypocrite you are. Glad you outed yourself.
}
}John
}
HCCRR
In article <915464104$14...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}On January 2nd 1999, HCCRR wrote:
}
}} However in many cases injunctions
}} against such laws are imposed before
}} a hearing is held to determine
}} constitutionality. If memory serves
}} that has happened in numerous cases
}} ranging from the Sawyer case of 1952
}} to the CDA of 1996.
}
}But not Roe V Wade.
I am not sure I follow? I suppose their many instances in which injunction are
not imposed. Perhaps this case was rather different.
I can think of a few more, but the the case names
}fails me for the moment. As for your injunctions, again the court
}places them on the laws.
Who else would do it?
} I see, yet again, that the entire point of my post didn't seem to
}register with you. You assume that every law passed by congress is
}constitutional,
No I don't. Read my comments above again. In many cases, is what I wrote, not
in all cases. I assume that a majority of the members of both Houses think it
is constitutional, and that the President thinks it is constitutional when he
signs it. I may not agree, as I didn't agree with attempts to pass flag burning
bans or the CDA. This was simply my opinion. Others who felt like me filed a
suit in the courts to challenge the constitutionality of these acts, and
eventually the Supreme Court decided what was the correct view.
and every unconstitutional one has an automatic
}injunction placed upon it by the courts.
Nope that isn't correct either.
Yes injunctions occure, but
}how many unconstitutional laws were overturned only after a long court
}battle that did NOT have an injunction against the law while it's
}constitutionality was addressed?
Many. The Jim Crow laws for one. Many were on the books for some 90 years.
}
}
}
} But how else would determine the constitutionality of an act if not
}with the assistance of the courts?
Right, that is always my point. The Courts are the final arbiter. You and I may
disagree, but our opinions are only those of private citizens and carry no
legal weight. If we were in Congress our opinions would count more because we
had the power to pass laws for all. Nonetheless, the Courts must ultimately
decide the issue.
HCCRR
In article <915465001$15...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}On January 2nd 1999, HCCRR wrote:
}
}}} Regulations, if used to limit the
}}} availability and use of the means of
}}} production (even those privately owned),
}}} do qualify as governmental "control"
}}} under the definition of Socialism. Not
}}} all regulations, only those that
}}} prohibit or limit the use of resources.
}}
}} You are changing the classic definitions
}} of socialism to attack the environmental
}} movement aren't you?
}
}That is how I learned it. Now I'm willing to accept that 3 economics
}classes, countless televisionion documentaries, countless financial
}debate programs, etc etc etc, are all wrong and you are right, but I
}doubt it.
Uh, there is much more to socialism than just economic theory. It is foremost a
political ideology. But then again, your definition, as Kaa pointed out,
paints Teddy Roosevelt as a socialist. Is this your position? Or could it be a
hell of lot more complex than simply economics.
}
HCCRR
In article <915464101$14...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}On January 2nd 1999, HCCRR wrote:
}
}}} Just once I would love to hear a
}}} President support the spirit of the
}}} IRA's desire to be free, as our
}}} forefathers felt in the 1700's.
}}
}} The IRA is a criminal terrorist
}} organization that is even outlawed in
}} the Republic of Ireland.
}<<snip>>
}} Do you want a American president
}} champion them?
}
}You missed the point, so I will go into greater detail for you since I
}obviously hit a nerve with you.
I live in Oklahoma. Terrorism will always strike a nerve with me.
} I'm not talking about the terrorism or the civilian bombings, but
}the idea of being free. the IRA wishes to be a free nation, apart
}from the "UK."
But they seem quite willing to kill other Irishmen to accomplish that.
Don't forget that British foreign policy has been one
}of "trade with us or we will take you over." Remember India?
Yep. It got its independence in 1947, about a quarter of a century after most
of Ireland did.
So, as
}I said... "Just once I would love to hear a President support the
}spirit of the IRA's desire to be free, as our forefathers felt in the
}1700's."
Except our forefathers did not going around blowing up buildings killing
children and women. They did not practice the art of assassination based on a
person's religious beliefs. I include, along with the IRA, I might add, the
Protestants as well.
}
}} Besides the Irish-English conflict predates
}} communism and socialism, and have nothing
}} to do with it. In fact, there are off
}} shoots of the IRA that have developed rather
}} Marxian tendencies.
}
} So what? If they wish independence, and desire a form of government
}similar to the Soviet perversion of Communism, they have the right to
}do so. For us to impose our morality and views upon them is flat out
}wrong. If they desire to be free, I'm all for it.
I am still trying to figure out how this IRA business has anything do with
socialism or communism.
}
John D.
HCCRR wrote in message <915487508$39...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snip)
}Is that not the same logic you have applied here? You quote some communist
}making statements that sound like he supporting the enviromental movement
to
}make the ludicrous point that those of us who support environmental
measures
}are communists. God what a hypocrite you are. Glad you outed yourself.
What a fantasyland you live in comrade. If you had dynamite for brains you
couldn't blow your nose.
John
Munkanber
Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed game, it goes like this. He has
not information so he does something like this:
OK, wise guy (or little boy, or child, etc.) what proof do you have?
Where are the hard facts? Quote your sources.
On Sat, 2 Jan 99 19:05:05 GMT, hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
}
}In article <914941201$11...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
}<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}}
}}On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}}
}}}} Socialism is then the government controls
}}}} the major means of production.
}}}
}}} Do you define regulation and control as the
}}} same? Regulation is done to protect health
}}} and safety, while control maybe an end
}}} itself.
}}
}} Regulations count as "control" under socialism if they are to an
}}extreem that prohibit or limit the private decisions made concerning
}}the means of production.
}
}How about decisions about health and safety? That is the source of the
}overwhelming majority of regulations in the United States.
}
}} For example, imagine if a private company owns a large red-wood
}}forest, and wishes to cut it down. If the EPA tells them that they
}}must re-plant trees at a 2:1 ratio with the ones cut, that is simply a
}}regulation. The company is free to cut all it wants, just re-plant
}}twice as many. However, if EPA regulations prohibit the cutting of
}}the forest for whatever reason, then that counts as socialistic
}}control.
}
}Well, I am not certain about this regulation, so you may have me a
}disadvantage, but given the rape of our natural resources by many companies in
}the past, it doesn't surprise me that such regulation is needed.
}
}
} The government is controling the means of production through
}}it's limitations imposed on it's use and availability.
}} In other words, they are not the same, but regulations can be used
}}to control the means of production and therefore can count as a method
}}of controling. No matter how well meaning the regulation is, it can
}}still serve as a way to control the means of production.
}
}But this isn't socialism, and certainly not in the soviet kind.
}
}}
}}}} Soviet Communism is when the government
}}}} owns all property.
}}}
}}} And when that government is truly
}}} totalitarian, in other words, no
}}} opposition parties or competitive
}}} elections. Don't overlook the political
}}} angle.
}}
}} I intentionally overlooked the political, since otherwise the
}}question of socialism vrs communism is one of an economic process vrs
}}a political process. The political arguments for/against communism
}}should be addressed against the democratic or republic forms of
}}government.
}} But if you wish to include them, then communism is a form of
}}government where the government controls everything, including you.
}}Any thoughts you may or may not have that are against the government
}}are treason, any activity you do that is against the government is
}}treason, any property you own that the government doesn't know about
}}is treason. There is no other political parties since that would be
}}treason. There is no protest about the current state of the nation
}}since that would be treason. Think of the game "Paranoia," just
}}switch who the "bad guys" and "good guys" are.
}
Munkanber
Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed game, it goes like this. He has
not information so he does something like this:
OK, wise guy (or little boy, or child, etc.) what proof do you have?
Where are the hard facts? Quote your sources.
On Sat, 2 Jan 99 19:05:06 GMT, hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
}
}In article <914941202$11...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
}<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}}
}}On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}}
Munkanber
Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed game, it goes like this. He has
not information so he does something like this:
OK, wise guy (or little boy, or child, etc.) what proof do you have?
Where are the hard facts? Quote your sources.
On Sat, 2 Jan 99 19:05:11 GMT, hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
}
}In article <914942101$12...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
}<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}}
}}On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}}
}}}} Let the local government regulate
}}}} when you can flush your toilet for
}}}} all I care, but that isn't a job of
}}}} the Federal Government. I don't
}}}} care if the EPA talk about the water
}}}} table and contamination due to
}}}} additional fecal material durring
}}}} peak times of the day, IT ISN'T
}}}} THERE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, THAT DUTY
}}}} BELONGS TO THE STATES!
}}}
}}} Then you must get the courts and the
}}} Congress to agree with you on that.
}}
}} That's the problem, isn't it? The Constitution is great and is a
}}lovely document to see, yet doesn't amount to much of anything
}}anymore. Congress can pass laws and the President signs them. Laws
}}that are "unconstitutional" are only thrown out by the courts if the
}}court addresses it's constitutionality. If the government wishes to
}}take away any one of your rights as outlined in the constitution, they
}}can UNTIL the court says they cannot. If the court doesn't want to
}}touch it, the government can do it all it wants.
}
}However in many cases injunctions against such laws are imposed before a
}hearing is held to determine constitutionality. If memory serves that has
}happened in numerous cases ranging from the Sawyer case of 1952 to the CDA of
}1996. But how else would determine the constitutionality of an act if not with
Munkanber
Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed game, it goes like this. He has
not information so he does something like this:
OK, wise guy (or little boy, or child, etc.) what proof do you have?
Where are the hard facts? Quote your sources.
On Sat, 2 Jan 99 19:05:13 GMT, hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
}
}In article <914943901$12...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
}<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}}
}}
}}On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}}
}}}} Socialism is when the government controls
}}}} the major means of production, period.
}}}
}}} Owns, not regulates. That is the difference.
}}<...>
}}} Once again, the socialist and communist
}}} dogma speak of state ownership of the means
}}} of production, not the regulation of it for
}}} the safety and health of the public.
}}
}}Controls, not always owns or regulates.
}}
}} If the government controls the means of production, it is socialism.
}} There has never been the requirement for the federal government to
}}"own" the means of production, only control them. As for regulations
}}intended for public safety, they take on two forms.
}} The first form permits people/companies to do what they wish, just
}}that they have to do something else in addition to make sure nothing
}}bad happens. Clear-cutting of forests, strip-mining, these types of
}}regulations don't control the means of production, only alters how you
}}go about getting and using them.
}
}} The second form of regulations limit the use of the means of
}}production to make sure nothing bad happens, and therefore qualifies
}}as control under socialism. Land developers cannot build on a section
}}of land because of a rare insect, dams cannot be build because it will
}}create a lake that will alter the ecosystem, these types of
}}regulations do control the means of production.
Munkanber
Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed game, it goes like this. He has
not information so he does something like this:
OK, wise guy (or little boy, or child, etc.) what proof do you have?
Where are the hard facts? Quote your sources.
On Sun, 3 Jan 99 6:05:03 GMT, hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
}
}In article <915307503$25...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
}<U...@forever.net> writes:
}
}}
}}HCCRR wrote in message <915303913$24...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}
}}(snip)
}}
}}}You are changing the classic definitions of socialism to attack the
}}}environmental movement aren't you?
}}
}}
}}Really no need to do that is there? Interesting quote here don't you think
}}comrade.
}}
}}"This is true in the struggle to save the environment . . . we must be
}}organizers, the leaders of these movements . . . Human society cannot
}}basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism.
}}Socialism is the only structure that make it possible." Gus Hall, Communist
}}Party of the United States -Ecology 1972
}}
}}John
}}
}
}The ultimate irony of course, is that Soviet Communism,the remnents of which
}you apparently see some merit in given your past comments, cared not one wit
}for the environment during their 74 years of rule. As for Gus Hall, I think he
PGISSource
hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}No socialism is an outgrowth of a situation
}that doesn't exist anymore, i.e.
}sweat shops and child labor and the like.
Actually, those situations still exist especially for the poor and immigrants.
Further, many folks now find themselves laid off from jobs that produce
tangible products and forced into "service economy" positions supporting a less
production-oriented outlook. Often these are jobs where "full time" employment
isn't allowed so as to not put the employers in the position of providing
benefits. If allowed to progress too far, this situation likely could produce
many of the same stresses that gave rise to radical socialism such as you
mention, HCCRR. If so, "leftist" upheaval may well be the result once again.
On the other hand, now largely abandoned or poo-pooed government interevention
has served as a safety valve to prevent such hardcore "leftist" upheavals. A
point, I think, too many people have forgotten. In this as in many other areas,
the government protects the "right" far more than the "left" which often gets
only a few crumbs amidst much bitching and moaning from the right..
Mr. Wizard
Munkanber
On Mon, 4 Jan 99 22:05:08 GMT, hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
}
}In article <915457802$4...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
}<U...@forever.net> writes:
}
}}
}}HCCRR wrote in message <915343503$6...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}
}}(snip)
}}
}}}The ultimate irony of course, is that Soviet Communism,the remnents of
}}which
}}}you apparently see some merit in given your past comments, cared not one
}}wit
}}}for the environment during their 74 years of rule.
}}
}}That's the point, they still don't. "It's not the evironment stupid."
}
}Like you really care about the environment? Hell you would stripe away every
}law on the books, both federal and state.
}
Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed game, it goes like this. He has
not information so he does something like this:
OK, wise guy (or little boy, or child, etc.) what proof do you have?
Where are the hard facts? Quote your sources.
}
}}
}} As for Gus Hall, I think he
}}}has supported your views on gun control in the past. Does that make you a
}}}communist as well?
}}
}}
}}So, are you saying Gus Hall the socialist communist supports the Second
}}Amendment?
}
}He did back in the 1970s. He supported some notion of people's militias if
}memory serves.
}
} And everyone else that supports the Second Amendment are
}}Communist.? Good luck trying to spin that one comrade.
}
}Is that not the same logic you have applied here? You quote some communist
}making statements that sound like he supporting the enviromental movement to
}make the ludicrous point that those of us who support environmental measures
}are communists. God what a hypocrite you are. Glad you outed yourself.
}
}}
}}John
}}
}
}
}
}
}
Munkanber
Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed game, it goes like this. He has
not information so he does something like this:
OK, wise guy (or little boy, or child, etc.) what proof do you have?
Where are the hard facts? Quote your sources.
On Sat, 2 Jan 99 19:05:17 GMT, hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}In article <914945701$12...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
}<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}}
}}
}}On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}}
}}}} How many farmers are paid to NOT grow
}}}} crops while people go hungry in this
}}}} country?
}}}
}}} I don't think that is the cause of
}}} hunger in the United States. The reason
}}} why farmers are paid to not grow crops
}}} is protect them from over production, a
}}} problem that farmers were incapable of
}}} solving.
}}
}}Yes, I heard that before also. And yes, I'm not impressed with it now
}}either.
}} How do we currently feed the hungry homeless in this nation? Soup
}}kitchens and other federal programs that always seem to be getting
}}about 25% of the budget that they really need to buy food? Let the
}}farmers grow the food, but have the the government buy the surplus and
}}distribute it to the programs that feed the hungry. Still no surplus
}}on the store shelves, it costs the government about the same, and many
}}more poor and homeless will have something to eat.
}
}How much of food production are talking here? Remember that farmers also have
}to worry about world markets. Your ideal here is laudable, but maybe
}simplistic.
}
Munkanber
Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed game, it goes like this. He has
not information so he does something like this:
OK, wise guy (or little boy, or child, etc.) what proof do you have?
Where are the hard facts? Quote your sources.
On Wed, 30 Dec 98 3:50:02 GMT, hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
}
}In article <914939401$11...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
}<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}}
}}On December 28th, HCCRR wrote:
}}
}}} Then how come Germany, France, and Great
}}} Britain, not mention New Zealand,
}}} Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, as
}}} well as numerous other countries, never
}}} developed into the Soviet form of
}}} communism after years of social
}}} democratic government?
}}
}}If the people vote for leaders who eventually create a government that
}}uses the same ideas found in soviet communism, is it still "social
}}democrat" since it was created via the democratic process?
}
}If those ideas are indeed the same as in soviet communism, which meant
}ultimately creating a one party totalitarian state without a democratic process
}at all Communism in the soviet sense is much more than an economic model but a
}sociopolitical one as well.
}
}
}} In this country alone, there is a major push towards a national ID
}}card, that holds all your information and required to be with you at
}}all times. That sure seems reminiscent of the soviet form of
}}communism, only imposed through the democratic process. Therefore, is
}}it communism or simply social democratism?
}
}So far this is merely a proposal, and further more the idea of having a
}national ID is no more communist than the having a passports is tsarist.
}
}} Ever watch the British house of commons on TV late at night?
}
}Actually I follow British politics quite closely.
}
} You should try it if you don't think there is a major push for communism
}}in the UK.
}
}Is Blair pushing for the creation of a one party state? Good God his party,
}with the support of the people, ended 18 years of one party rule in Britain. It
}seem to me the centerpiece of this year's legislation has to do with devolving
}political power to London, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland at the expense
}of the Parliament, and make an hereditary House of Lords more reflective of the
}popular will A communist Blair would weaken or destroy the power and
}independence of local government as was done in the old Soviet Union.
}
}
}
}
}
}
Munkanber
Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed game, it goes like this. He has
not information so he does something like this:
OK, wise guy (or little boy, or child, etc.) what proof do you have?
Where are the hard facts? Quote your sources.
On Mon, 4 Jan 99 22:05:07 GMT, hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
}
}In article <915463201$13...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
}<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}}
}}On January 2nd 1999, HCCRR wrote:
}}
}}}} Regulations count as "control" under
}}}} socialism if they are to an extreem
}}}} that prohibit or limit the private
}}}} decisions made concerning the means
}}}} of production.
}}}
}}} How about decisions about health and
}}} safety? That is the source of the
}}} overwhelming majority of regulations
}}} in the United States.
}}
}}And that is, overwhelmingly, the cause of socialism in most instances.
}
}No socialism is an outgrowth of a situation that doesn't exist anymore, i.e.
}sweat shops and child labor and the like.
}
}
}} Yes, ANY regulation, even those intended to protect people, that
}}limit or prohibit the use or gathering of the means or production is
}}socialism.
}
}Based on what? According to your logic then the Constitution supports
}socialism, because it recognizes the need for state inspection laws.
}
}
} Regulations that protect people that do not limit the
}}means of production are NOT socialistic control, so please stop
}}lumping them together in one category.
}
}Okay give me some concrete examples.
}
}}
}}} But this isn't socialism, and certainly
}}} not in the soviet kind.
}}
}}I never said it was. The Soviet perversion of communism was when the
}}government owned all property, and there was NO private property of
}}any kind. Socialism is when the government controls the means of
}}production. There is no doubt that the Soviet form was Socialistic
}}under that definition, but it went well past that.
}
}Yes, you leave out the political side of the equation. Socialism is much more
}than an economic philosophy, it is political as well. All your definitions of
}what is socialist or communist or whatever, conveniently leave this important
}element out.
}
}}
}}} In other words, none of this describes
}}} the United States nor Canada, nor the
}}} Western Nations of Europe.
}}
Munkanber
Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed game, it goes like this. He has
not information so he does something like this:
OK, wise guy (or little boy, or child, etc.) what proof do you have?
Where are the hard facts? Quote your sources.
On Mon, 4 Jan 99 22:05:10 GMT, hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
}
}In article <915464104$14...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
}<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}}
}}On January 2nd 1999, HCCRR wrote:
}}
}}} However in many cases injunctions
}}} against such laws are imposed before
}}} a hearing is held to determine
}}} constitutionality. If memory serves
}}} that has happened in numerous cases
}}} ranging from the Sawyer case of 1952
}}} to the CDA of 1996.
}}
}} But how else would determine the constitutionality of an act if not
}}with the assistance of the courts?
}
Munkanber
Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed game, it goes like this. He has
not information so he does something like this:
OK, wise guy (or little boy, or child, etc.) what proof do you have?
Where are the hard facts? Quote your sources.
On Mon, 4 Jan 99 22:05:14 GMT, hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
}
}In article <915465001$15...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
}<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}}
}}On January 2nd 1999, HCCRR wrote:
}}
}}}} Regulations, if used to limit the
}}}} availability and use of the means of
}}}} production (even those privately owned),
}}}} do qualify as governmental "control"
}}}} under the definition of Socialism. Not
}}}} all regulations, only those that
}}}} prohibit or limit the use of resources.
}}}
}}} You are changing the classic definitions
}}} of socialism to attack the environmental
}}} movement aren't you?
}}
Munkanber
Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed game, it goes like this. He has
not information so he does something like this:
OK, wise guy (or little boy, or child, etc.) what proof do you have?
Where are the hard facts? Quote your sources.
On Sat, 2 Jan 99 19:05:15 GMT, hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
}
}In article <915027602$15...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
}<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}}
}}
}}On December 29th, HCCRR wrote:
}}
}}} So they say that Britain and the
}}} EU are communist?
}}
}}They definitly are over dominating socialists on power trips, so you
}}decide. :)
}
}Well, that maybe hard to do without verifiable and accepted definitions of
}socialism on power trips. Previously you have used this to describe the
}political nature of communism, but now you apply to apply Blair's government in
}Britain.
}
}} It's funny when you think that we here in the USA always love to
}}talk about freedom, and love to remember the tyranny we faced all
}}those years ago, yet we engage in that activity with the help of the
}}UN almost every day. Just once I would love to hear a President
}}support the spirit of the IRA's desire to be free, as our forefathers
}}felt in the 1700's.
}
}The IRA is a criminal terrorist organization that is even outlawed in the
}Republic of Ireland. Besides the Irish-English conflict predates communism and
}socialism, and have nothing to do with it. In fact, there are off shoots of the
}IRA that have developed rather Marxian tendencies. Do you want a American
}president champion them?
}
}
} Or better yet, to no longer support the idea of
}}circumventing the sovereignty a foreign nation has over it's own lands.
}} Currently, it seems that everything is in our nation's intrest, and
}}everything threatens our "way of life." If our way of life is the
}}false sense of freedom when we are in fact prisoners, then yes I guess
}}everything is a threat towards it afterall.
}
}Well, President Clinton has been the first President to seriously deal with the
}Irish problem and has made immense progress, to the point that the people of
}Northern Ireland may have their own sovereignty. Remember also that Ulster,
}had a chance to join the Irish Republic in 1921, but the protestant majority
}opposed it to remain within the United Kingdom.
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Munkanber
Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed game, it goes like this. He has
no information so he does something like this:
OK, wise guy (or little boy, or child, etc.) what proof do you have?
Where are the hard facts? Quote your sources.
On Mon, 4 Jan 99 22:05:22 GMT, hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
}In article <915464101$14...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Wul Krag
}<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}}
}}On January 2nd 1999, HCCRR wrote:
}}
}}}} Just once I would love to hear a
}}}} President support the spirit of the
}}}} IRA's desire to be free, as our
}}}} forefathers felt in the 1700's.
}}}
}}} The IRA is a criminal terrorist
}}} organization that is even outlawed in
}}} the Republic of Ireland.
}}<<snip>>
}}} Do you want a American president
}}} champion them?
}}
}}You missed the point, so I will go into greater detail for you since I
}}obviously hit a nerve with you.
}
}I live in Oklahoma. Terrorism will always strike a nerve with me.
}
}
}} I'm not talking about the terrorism or the civilian bombings, but
}}the idea of being free. the IRA wishes to be a free nation, apart
}}from the "UK."
}
}But they seem quite willing to kill other Irishmen to accomplish that.
}
} Don't forget that British foreign policy has been one
}}of "trade with us or we will take you over." Remember India?
}
}Yep. It got its independence in 1947, about a quarter of a century after most
}of Ireland did.
}
} So, as
}}I said... "Just once I would love to hear a President support the
}}spirit of the IRA's desire to be free, as our forefathers felt in the
}}1700's."
}
}Except our forefathers did not going around blowing up buildings killing
}children and women. They did not practice the art of assassination based on a
}person's religious beliefs. I include, along with the IRA, I might add, the
}Protestants as well.
}
}}
}}} Besides the Irish-English conflict predates
}}} communism and socialism, and have nothing
}}} to do with it. In fact, there are off
}}} shoots of the IRA that have developed rather
}}} Marxian tendencies.
}}
PGISSource
Munk...@tk3-9.com (Munkanber) wrote:
}Here's how HCCRR plays his little Fed
}game, it goes like this.
Interesting. Having skipped through a lot of repeats of the same post from you
Munkanber, I'm struck by only one thing: How much like nazi-Joe Pothier you
sound like. Are you two related? Different paranoias, but essentially the same
dementias. <chuckle> Though it is kinda funny how nazi-Joe reappears, the
Valgosi pop up again, and you start -your- spews. All at the same time. Post
New Years hangovers? Or maybe a closer relationship? After all, nazi-Joe
Pothier's cohort (who nazi-Joe was actively encouraging) -also- went after
HCCRR/RARPOL with a vengeance.
Mr. Wizard
HCCRR
In article <915489301$42...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.net> writes:
}
}
}HCCRR wrote in message <915487508$39...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}(snip)
}
}}Is that not the same logic you have applied here? You quote some communist
}}making statements that sound like he supporting the enviromental movement
}to
}}make the ludicrous point that those of us who support environmental
}measures
}}are communists. God what a hypocrite you are. Glad you outed yourself.
}
}
}What a fantasyland you live in comrade. If you had dynamite for brains you
}couldn't blow your nose.
}
}John
}
Well John, wasn't that your intention and point? Isn't that what you seek to
say those who support the enviroment are no different thatn communists? Do you
deny this?
Wul Krag
On January 6th, HCCRR wrote:
} Except that the IRA has never spoke for
} the majority of Northern Irish, much less
} the Irish, south of the border. I have
} reread my comment. You seem to overlook
} that the IRA's methods are so heinous,
} that they are outlawed in the Republic as
} well.
That's probably why I wrote "I'm not talking about the terrorism or
the civilian bombings, but the idea of being free." No matter how
much I agree or disagree with McVeigh's political views that the
Federal Government has been engaging in unconstitutional behavior,
killing inocent people was flat out wrong. Any "war", even in his own
mind, should be addressed against the government or military, not the
civilian population. In his hatred, he became worse then anything he
could have been fighting against.
Be that a community in Vietnam, a Northern Irish home, or the people
of Oklahoma. Attacking and killing people trying to scratch out a
living is more disgusting then any reason a person can have for doing
it in the first place. McVeigh should die for the crimes he commited
against the people of Oklahoma. For the child who will never see his
mother again, for the mother who will never see her baby again, for
the man who lost his entire family.
With that said, I hope you will take the time to try and understand
what I am writing here. The SPIRIT of being free. You know, "I want
to be free." The US should support that feeling no matter where it
exists. Not always the actions people take in hopes of gaining that
freedom, but the desire to be free. Terrorism against a civilian
population is disgusting, but not the wish to be free. Understand the
difference?
Wul Krag
On January 6th, HCCRR wrote:
}} The method of electing their leaders
}} has nothing to do with the programs
}} and laws that the leaders pass.
}
} Sure it does. This has been part of
} the ideas of socialists as well for
} years.
The term "Socialism" is a form of economic policy, NOT a form of
government. How a socialistic nation picks it's leaders can range
from Democratic to the Soviet form of Communism. If socialistic
nations tend to migrate towards one government or another is a
different argument unrelated to what socialism means.
Now, if you again wish to address the political speach circuit, be
my guest. Since when has Washington been in touch with reality
anyhow? :)
} I don't agree with it, because I don't
} think your definitions of control,
} regulate, and own are all the same
} either. That is the essense of our
} dispute I suppose.
That I can accept. I have always been told that "control" under the
defition of Socialism is the ability to have resources used or not
used. While something like "that is my forest and I will cut the
trees down when I'm darn good and ready" does qualify as control, so
does "you cannot cut down that forest, even if you own it." The
second form of "control" is held by the Federal Government through
environmental regulations relating to endangered species and land
preservation.
"Cut down your trees, just replant more then you cut" isn't control,
but "don't cut down any" is. It's not just the control to use, but
also the control to NOT use. The Federal Government does have the
authority to limit the use of resources REQUIRED to produce products.
Now, as Kaa asked before, do resources qualify as means of
production? Well, trees ARE the means or production to a lumber mill
making 2x4's. Trees ARE the means or production in paper. Silicon,
Boron, and a host of other chemicals are required to make
semi-conductors. Resources required to produce a product do qualify
as a means or production.
Wul Krag
On January 6th, HCCRR wrote:
} What is your point here? The court
} can't file a injunction until a citizen
} requests it.
And even then, can refuse to do so. The law is then on the books
until a court case addresses it's constitutionality in the appeal
process, that can also be turned down.
} What is your deal here? Why is this
} upsetting you?
I'm not "upset," only a little dissapointed in what seems to be your
contention that if a court doesn't place an injunction on a law, the
law is within the power of the legislative branch of government to
create. This "power" is only assumed until the court later addresses
this point. I haven't seen you acknowledge that yet.
John D.
HCCRR wrote in message <915598211$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snip)
}Well John, wasn't that your intention and point? Isn't that what you seek
to
}say those who support the enviroment are no different thatn communists? Do
you
}deny this?
I'm saying the sheep (like yourself) who follow the *communist socialist*
leaders of the environmental movement are gullible twits. That, I don't
deny.
I also don't deny that you're the biggest waste of time on this news group.
John