Political Crossfire Forums

[psholtz]

Kamel wrote: psholtz wrote: Kamel wrote: So, if we are a policed state, and Bush is this big bad tyrant who has total control, why would he allow all these conspiracy web sites get out?
Because he's too busy building the Trans-Texas Corridor right now..

Take a glance out your window.. All I see is a fence and my neighbors house....
Look harder.



Quote: Quote:
I'm no Democrat.

I hate democracy altogether.. whether it refers to the political party by that name, or whether it refers to the Grecian political theory.

I don't think very highly of Wilson, FDR or Truman either, per your earlier post. But it's the democrats who have given these conspiracy theories. You already made clear how you feel about past presidents
Generally speaking -- in so far as there really is a Right-Left dichotomy (<- something I don't totally believe in) -- the conspiracy theorists almost universally come from the far, hard, super-conservative Right.

If I had to place myself into a political pigeonhole, it would probably be that one.

[Snake]

psholtz wrote: They can't just "turn off" the Internet, even if they wanted to...
If they did, they would betray the only god they serve: the almighty dollar.
The internet doesn't even make up half of Americas income. Ever hear of buissiness, i.e. shopping malls, dept. stores, any store in general, actually, the automotive business, the gas stations, exxon, texaco, mobile, the cell pones, advertising, television, computers, calculators, dvds, cd's, radio, etc, etc, the list goes on, and Uncle Sam takes a cut from it all. The internet is just a drop in the bucket

[psholtz]

Kamel wrote: psholtz wrote: They can't just "turn off" the Internet, even if they wanted to...
If they did, they would betray the only god they serve: the almighty dollar.
The internet doesn't even make up half of Americas income. Ever hear of buissiness, i.e. shopping malls, dept. stores, any store in general, actually, the automotive business, the gas stations, exxon, texaco, mobile, the cell pones, advertising, television, computers, calculators, dvds, cd's, radio, etc, etc, the list goes on, and Uncle Sam takes a cut from it all. The internet is just a drop in the bucket
Many of these businesses you just described process their transactions electronically, they manage their logistics using B2B extranets, etc..

The whole outsourcing trend, whether you're talking about outsourcing IT or whether you're talking about outsourcing run-of-the-mill factory jobs, and which is a very core component of the free trade/globalization that the government so loves, would very difficult to manage w/o the low costs provided for by Internet networking..

The government's not going to "turn off" the Internet...

They very likely will however, try to tax and regulate and control it. Perhaps more so through the UN than through the US.

[Snake]

They can turn it off if they want to, even temporarily to remove unwanted conspiracy sites. The point is, I think you give the government too much credit.

[psholtz]

Kamel wrote: They can turn it off if they want to, even temporarily to remove unwanted conspiracy sites. The point is, I think you give the government too much credit.
I give the government too much credit?

This coming from a guy who thinks the government can "shut off' the Internet w/ the flip of a button? :lol:

You mortals amuse me.. you really do..

[LostSoul3412]

My apologies for my poor grammar, I meant to say "You think that isn't happening?".

agentkgb wrote: the more control they have, the more they will be able to do so and the less the people will be able to stop them.

So?

[LostSoul3412]

psholtz wrote: I give the government too much credit?

Impossible.

The government has vast amounts of power that are granted by the Constitution itself. All it takes is a keen eye to see the nearly unlimited extent of the American government's power. Unfortunately, most people would rather close their eyes than see the truth of their own government.

But, the question remains, is this bad?

[psholtz]

LostSoul3412 wrote: psholtz wrote: I give the government too much credit?

Impossible.

The government has vast amounts of power that are granted by the Constitution itself. All it takes is a keen eye to see the nearly unlimited extent of the American government's power. Unfortunately, most people would rather close their eyes than see the truth of their own government.

But, the question remains, is this bad?
What are you talking about?

Very little of your post above makes much sense..

[LostSoul3412]

psholtz wrote: What are you talking about?

Very little of your post above makes much sense..

Think about it, the Constitution itself is a government document put in place to dictate the establish, and operation of government activity. However, also in place are the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, as many know, are specific rights of the people that government (or a particular branch of the federal government) cannot infringe upon. However, also listed is the Ninth Amendment, which basically states that the rights of the people are not listed within the Constitution, and that the people reserve all rights not specifically protected within the Constitution, or regulated by government law. Because of that, government has full legal authority to restrict and regulate any right not specifically protected within the Constitution, including things like life, liberty, and property. If Congress wanted to, it could pass legislation calling for the extermination of all ethnic minorities under the "common defense" or "general welfare" clause of the Constitution. The same can also be applied to any group of individuals. A Republican dominated government could pass legislation calling for the extermination of all registered Democrats in an effort to provide for the "general welfare", since the "right to life" is not specifically protected within the Constitution.

I am not saying that this will happen, I'm simply saying that the government has legal authority to do so.

However, the question I pose, is is this a bad thing?

[psholtz]

LostSoul3412 wrote: psholtz wrote: What are you talking about?

Very little of your post above makes much sense..

Think about it, the Constitution itself is a government document put in place to dictate the establish, and operation of government activity. However, also in place are the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, as many know, are specific rights of the people that government (or a particular branch of the federal government) cannot infringe upon. However, also listed is the Ninth Amendment, which basically states that the rights of the people are not listed within the Constitution, and that the people reserve all rights not specifically protected within the Constitution, or regulated by government law. Because of that, government has full legal authority to restrict and regulate any right not specifically protected within the Constitution, including things like life, liberty, and property. If Congress wanted to, it could pass legislation calling for the extermination of all ethnic minorities under the "common defense" or "general welfare" clause of the Constitution. The same can also be applied to any group of individuals. A Republican dominated government could pass legislation calling for the extermination of all registered Democrats in an effort to provide for the "general welfare", since the "right to life" is not specifically protected within the Constitution.
I don't know how you managed to pull that out the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Quote: I am not saying that this will happen, I'm simply saying that the government has legal authority to do so.
No, it doesn't.

Of course, that's not going to stop the government from raping and pillaging all day long, as ours has been doing for at least 100 years, but that's where the courage and responsibility of the people themselves comes into play.

Quote: However, the question I pose, is is this a bad thing?
Is what a bad thing?

The government stomping around waving guns and killing people?

Yes, of course that's bad..

And yes, of course that's what all governments degade into when the people grow irresponsible.

[Snake]

psholtz wrote:
I give the government too much credit?

This coming from a guy who thinks the government can "shut off' the Internet w/ the flip of a button? :lol: Never said at the flip of a button. But it could be done if deemed nessacary.

[psholtz]

Kamel wrote: psholtz wrote:
I give the government too much credit?

This coming from a guy who thinks the government can "shut off' the Internet w/ the flip of a button? :lol: Never said at the flip of a button. But it could be done if deemed nessacary.
The Internet was specifically designed by DARPA to persist and survive in the event of a nuclear attack. I strongly doubt that the government would desire to simply "turn off" the Internet, and even if they did, I doubt they could successfully pull it off.

Moreover, if the government did so, they would betray the one and only god they serve: the almighty dollar.

Perhaps you're giving the government a bit too much credit?

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: My apologies for my poor grammar, I meant to say "You think that isn't happening?".

agentkgb wrote: the more control they have, the more they will be able to do so and the less the people will be able to stop them.

So?
So the people have less control than the rich few who are in the government and the government can do as it pleases without fear of the people revolting. A dictatorship would be possible.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: So the people have less control than the rich few who are in the government and the government can do as it pleases without fear of the people revolting. A dictatorship would be possible.

So?

[psholtz]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: So the people have less control than the rich few who are in the government and the government can do as it pleases without fear of the people revolting. A dictatorship would be possible.

So?
Do the names Hitler and Stalin mean nothing to you? :shock:

[LostSoul3412]

psholtz wrote: Do the names Hitler and Stalin mean nothing to you? :shock:

I'm not saying we dismantle the Constitution. I'm just asking what would be so bad if the government had absolute control. (Such as the Illuminati)

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: psholtz wrote: Do the names Hitler and Stalin mean nothing to you? :shock:

I'm not saying we dismantle the Constitution. I'm just asking what would be so bad if the government had absolute control.
If it had absolute control what could stop them from dismantling the Constitution?

[psholtz]

LostSoul3412 wrote: psholtz wrote: Do the names Hitler and Stalin mean nothing to you? :shock:

I'm not saying we dismantle the Constitution. I'm just asking what would be so bad if the government had absolute control. (Such as the Illuminati)
Try looking at Hitler or Stalin..

Your question is absurd..

Besides the government is already pretty close to having absolute control.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: If it had absolute control what could stop them from dismantling the Constitution?

The same reason they aren't haven't.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: If it had absolute control what could stop them from dismantling the Constitution?

The same reason they aren't haven't.
"They aren't haven't"? That reason isn't out of the goodness of their hearts, it's because we still have some power and would stop them. If the government had absolute power, nothing would stop them.