 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0402/18.fritz.shtmlThis in truly an outrage, an invasion of civil liberties.
These goons are fascist and need to be KICKED OUT OF OFFICE, regardless of their party or ANY OTHER ISSUE.The fact that they can even consider this makes them unqualified to govern as OUR representatives.
I know the Sons of Liberty would have tarred and feathered these bastards.
I wonder how much $ in bribes the dying audio industry has spent buying these pigeons.
KP
Follow Ups:
(nt) no text
- This signature is monophonic -
no text
Would still stink like shit!This is an all to typical example of political grandstanding....furthering the career of a X/Y/Z politician at the expense of human freedom.
The mere idea that these rogues could be so cavilier with the liberties of the people of these United States of America is so repulsive it makes me nauseuous thinking of it.
As to the issue at hand however.....Freedom to live as one pleases is not freedom to steal the fruits of another's labor. Those who pirate (and this is the best term for it) copyrighted material are no better than the power-mad despots who are atempting to use this very crime to further intrude into the lives of non-criminals.
I hope that 'free' Creed download was worth it.
Rob
Look, guys, its all very well to debate this stuff on this and any other forum. It is in fact, a good thing to do.But, in our sound-bite democratic republic (I record sound bites for a living), it is all too easy for the debate to
turn into deulling BS.If you want to do something productive, write your Congressman, if you happen to know who he is, and the two Senators from your state. (Yes, you have two, and they both work for you.) Believe it or not, they are actually looking for input from you. It keeps them in office to know what you are thinking. In the abscence of any direct communications from you, they rely on what lobbyists tell them, and some pseudoscientific crap that focus groups and marketing professionals pipe up their butts. And, they pay for it!
When was the last time you wrote a letter to one of these elected officials? For that matter, when was the last time you voted? In a school board election? In a City Council election? In anything at all?
We have, I fear, become a society where people would rather bitch than take action, would rather find an enemy in "another" group of American citizens, than to look to the common good. IF WE DO NOT, AS CITIZENS, START THINKING FOR OURSELVES (F*CK THE MEDIA, LEFT AND RIGHT), AND TAKING ACTION ACCORDINGLY, THEN WE RUN THE SAME RISK AS GERMANY IN THE THIRTIES! We do not need a "Great White Father" of any stripe, we just need to re-assert our roles as the stock-holders in this great experiment!
Unfortunately, we just might have to get up off of our butts and actually exert some small amount of effort to do so. Ironically, the effort required is less than ever. We don't even need pens.
Jim
What else would you expect from a Southern Democrat. It all started with Tipper Gore and her self righteous witch hunts. Big Brother is here!
Nowhere in my reply did I state a political affiliation for I have none and vote my conscience. Look before you leap to illogical conclusions. May I assume by your obvious distaste for Republicans that you are a dumbocrat? No go away before I taunt you some more.
Assumption? I don't have to make any assumption the thoughtlessness of your comment speaks for itself. It's a typical Politicalspeak response to any topic - it's a soundbyte that generalizes Southern Democrats as "self righteous" and as "big brother". It's a simple strategy the Republicans/Conservatives (Democrats too - but usually not in the opening remarks of a conversation) have been using for several years now when dealing with almost any topic. Since they seem to consider the average American too stupid to actually be able to understand the topic at hand they will simply make a generalization like you did in most responses -> > What else would you expect from a Southern Democrat. It all
> > started with Tipper Gore and her self righteous witch hunts. Big
> > Brother is here!Now don't come back and try to argue some other point - the point of this topic is royalties and copy protection. My objection is towards your response is the obvious generalization behind your response - its non responsive to the topic and potentially politically damaging to Democrats and Southern Democrats in particular. Isn't that the obvious intent of your remark?
As if Republicans are any less witch hunters, self righteous and more in tune with the common man than the Democrats. It's my opinion that both parties are "big brother" and they effectively cloud the issues by partison infighting and most Americans seem content with jumping on board on side or the other and this is why they get away with the crap that they do. Comments and attitudes reflected by comments like you make are a major source of why American politicians can ignore the real issue that are of concern to educated Americans (budget and fiscal stability).
> > May I assume by your obvious distaste for Republicans that you are
> > a dumbocrat?
Typical soundbytathon. Shy off topic and attack with broad obvious generalizations. Sure it'll generate support of the uneducated, illerate and closed minded.> > No go away before I taunt you some more.
Gee I'm really bruised by your simplemindedness. Help!
nt
I could have predicted your tired brain - this threads strecthed your brain beyond it's natural limit. It's been tough for you so now go get the "ZZZZZzzzz"s you admit you need.Another simpleton soundbyte. Where's the
> > > No go away before I taunt you some more.
nt
The thing is that you are probably not a bad guy but you are trapped in this one upsmanship thing with me and it will never end unless one of us realizes the stupid futility of it. I therefore pardon you. You may now proceed to search for another individual to flame. Go now. Go in peace. You may consider yourself the victor if it pleases you. By the way, you spell guess with a g my man, not a q.
KP
If you're unhappy about what the Demos and Repos are doing to America, support the only viable alternative: the Libertarian Party. For the price of one "magic" power cord, you can help build a real alternative to "business as usual." And if you don't, then don't complain about what the likes of Feinstein, Ashcroft and the rest of the Repo/Demo hacks and tools are doing to America! (As of 4/20, the front page of their web site - link below - has a story about the insidious copy-protection bill.)
See my post below.
the looser is forced to play by the winners rules?
More people wanted Joe Smith in office. This now means that ALL people must do what Joe Smith says....even those who did not want Joe Smith as their leader in the first place. Tyranny is tryanny.I am a registered Libertarian (although I have not voted or re-registered in about 5 years). This party has a very consistent platform when it comes to promoting the goal of human freedom. Trouble is that all that goes out the window in the end because they seek to use the coersive power of the state to establish that goal....oxymoronic IMO.
I made a choice to not participate in the political process because I realized that even if my guy won, someone else would be forced to obey someone they did not want to. That is tyrany and I can't support it.
I actively try to ignore the state as much as possible (most people do most of the time anyway). When I come up against a statute I do not agree with I make a moral choice to either go against my beliefs or accept the consequences of standing with my convictions. Since most laws are basically state mandated forms of ethics or curteousy, my own principles are not challenged often. However, I am a coward at heart and as such bend over and take when they are (pay my taxes, use phosphate-free laundry detergent, drive emssions correct cars, etc.).
I most folks are no different, save maybe a little less verbous in stating the obvious.In short ....don't vote......any vote is ultimately a statement of support for despotism.
Thanks for putting up with the rant,
Rob
KP
nt.
Fritz Hollings is a d......rat. All the rest, eccept one Republican, are d.........rats. Did I say "RATS"?
What are you just now discovering the partison nature of American politics? Are we to believe the Republicans are more likely to break ranks than the Democrats? Or isn't is obvious to you that most politicians vote based on party line instead of personal conviction most of the time?
KP
..the main paymasters are the Legal Profession in Holling`s case, whilst Time Warner, AT&T and Disney (!!!) also contributed heavily to his funding; in general the entertainment industry contributions to the Democrats were 24.2 million, to the Republicans 13.3 million.Do a search and you`ll find lots of information about this disgraceful abuse of public office on this forum - maybe `Digital` too.
What you have to consider about politicians is that they`re only in office for a limited time and tend to make as many fiends in high places as possible.
Hollings will now be content that a directorship/advisory position on one of his benevolant corporations` boards is already assured once he is ousted from politics, and his lack of integrity should ensure an extremely profitable career.Personally I`ve never copied a CD, downloaded an MP3 file or bought a pirated CD in my life, but in the unlikely event I`m offered some pirated album from a major label which I`m actually interested in, what the Hell. There`s no way I`m going to help fund their buying of influence in public (that`s a laugh!) office, and the errosion of the democratic process.
The likes of Chesky, Audioquest, Mapleshade, Telarc, John Marks Records etc deserve supporting and the less cash tendered to the majors, the more we can use to purchase audiophile discs.
Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.
I would never knowingly purchase anythin pirated. However I would also not use that as a vehicle for sticking it to a politician/corporation (please accept my apology if I misread you here). Stealing is stealing, no matter who benefits or suffers.Again please correct me if I misunderstood what you were saying.
Rob
Were this the only instance of the money used to buy elections talking through those who win public office, probably more from the Republicans than the Democrats, I would not be concerned. The Enron debacle comes to mine as well as ANWAR. The only way we can rejoin the league of modern democracies is to pass a national amendment saying that restricting corporations from making campaign contribution is not a restriction of "their" freedom of speech. Not anticipating modern democracy or realizing that we would still be laboring under a 200 year old constitution, the founding fathers saddled us with the need for politicians to propose amendments and to ratify them. As a result such an amendment has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing. Our only chance is for the conniving to be unenforceable like Napster, or for other interests to check their advance. Democracy as a conflict among interests, that really pleases me!
I do not feel that restricting First Amendmend rights by limiting contributions is productive. I think that kind of cure is worse than the desease.
What we need afre people to keep themselves and each other infomred through forums such as this.
They can buy the rats, but the can't buy our votes, and we can kick the rats out.
That's how it's supposed to work.I don't think we need to "rejoin the league of modern democracies."
We were the first Republic in nearly 2000 years, and there's still no nation who match the US in openess and civil rights.
We need to keep it that way, however, and we are under siege from inside.KP
I study voting behavior and know from mine and other's research that only a small fraction of even voters are even minimally informed. Eighty-seven percent of voters vote their party identification with few even knowing the position of their party's candidates. Also nearly 90 percent of the time the candidate spending the most money wins and he is usually the incumbent. It is a chicken and egg conundrum. Interests invest in the incumbents because they win, and thus incumbents spend more and win.I don't know how one measure's openness, but I know the Dutch and English feel more freedom to critize officials and strikes are much more common in France and Italy.
Also no other democracy allows the multiple millions of dollars to be spent on elections. U.S. Representative typically spend more than a million to win their offices. Money is the root of our problem.
Money is not the problem, Power is. These fools spend the money they do to aquire power. If all they wanted was money, they would invest and shelter their earnings like every other right-mined individual. No they want power....the power of the state to force others to cow-tow to their moral vision.
Europe is proof positive that curbing the amounts of money that can be spent does nothing to stop morally superior boors from seeking and aquiring state power......they just get a better deal than their State-side partners in crime.You think the Reps & Dems have a lock on things here? Spend some time in the UK and look at the Cons & Labs. The party control over power there is vastly greater than here in the US. The parties themselves determine when elections are held. And France.....well it's France.
KP is completely correct....limiting expression, directly or inderectly, is and always has been, the goal of campaign finance reform. It is merely another incumbancy-preserving, process-clogging, freedom-eating wolf in sheeps clothing.
Rob
I would agree that power motivates some to seek public office, but the means to seek office here is money from interests which comes with strings. Elsewhere, especially in parliamentary systems with no primaries (we alone use these), the political parties are the means to gaining office. At least in that circumstance their interest is in retaining their office-holders. Here when the interest say jump, the office-holders must say, how high.I do not understand your reasoning on campaign finance reform. With 99 percent of incumbents who run winning now and with 76 percent of congressional districts being uncompetitive, the modest reforms will do nothing in my opinion. This is, of course, what the interests want. This is not what I want and will never get. I would limit candidates to spending say $10,000 in elections, which is more than is allowed in the UK. Money is the root of limiting electoral choice, but we would also need to take district line drawing out of the hands of state legislatures also.
Thanks much for the healthy dialogue.You really restated my opening position....money is merely a tool to power, power remains the goal in EVERY case. The motivations of the power-seeker may be wonderfully alturistic....after all who would seek a job that makes such high demands on one's time with such comparably low pay? Who but the most self sacrificing among us. Good intentions abound in politics. This is the case here, in Europe and everywhere else.
Primary elections are indeed unique to the US. This is a good thing IMO because it removes that much more power from the hands of the party. The rank and file members of the parties have a chance to decide who will represent them. In parlimentary systems the ones already in power decide who is next exclusively...not exactly representative democracy. This emphasizes my second point of the level of party control in the European systems.And you effectively underscore my third point. This legislation is not likely to change anything regarding how money undergirds the electoral system. What therefore does it acomplish? Simply put it ends up making the voice of the un-moneyed, average Joe harder to hear. Money will still flow in whatever proportion or path. The Johns who have it will still try to buy the best hookers they can afford. And what of you and me? We have just had a few more decibels shaved off what was left of our voices.
Mind you all of this said, i do not think this legislation will pass the enevitable constitutional challenge.
Rob
I agree that the SC will probably strike this as unconstitutional. It is irrelevant to me. What we need desparately is campaign expenditure limits and a constitutional amendment to allow this. We will, however, never get this proposed by those elected by the vast money spent on elections. It may be, however, that average Americans will start seeking to buy their politician resulting in gridlock with none gettinbg their way. What a democracy!
I still maintain that the amount of money, in and of itself, has got naught to do with it. The main (probably only) reason the money amounts are so high is that TV advertising costs big green.Scenario: we pass legislation to limit amounts contributed hard and fast...no way around it.... the pols finally can only receive so much money. What then? Who pays for the TV time? The taxpayer? The TV corps & stations by being forced to supply 'free' airtime? If it's all free who decides how much time A, B or C candidate gets? What about other expenses? Travel, legal fees, etc. is all this to be gratis as well?
I think CFR is making an issue out of a non-issue. I don't care how much money a pol gets his hands on or really even where he got it from...if I were to ever vote again, I would vote for the guy spouting the most ideas I agree with. I think this is what the vast majority of voters do. Either by way of individual canditates stated positions or by party line, the voter backs the guy whose ideas he likes best.
Thanks,
RobBTW to save bandwidth here, if you want to dissus anything futher. fell free to e-mail me at the following:
so4fun@ptd.net
rbrenner@tycotelecom.com
Agreed that this is stupid and distasteful legislation at best. But don't even bother worrying about it. Any such system, even if it were implemented (which I am sure it will not be) would of course be immediately cracked before it was even released. Not to mention no one is going to make you buy a new computer, or update your OS. And of course they wouldn't bother making a version for the better OS'es like Mac or Unix, only for Windoze of course. And how would it rat you out if you aren't connected to the net? So many holes in this pathetic idea it doesn't even bear discussing from a "it may happen" point of view.FWIW,
-Ed Sawyer
nt
It's ok to impose "special" taxes on smokers and alcohol users, then to pass RICO legislation to allow the government to steal from "suspected" criminals, pass an Emergency Bank act in the mid 70s the allows the government take money out of any US citizens bank account, excessive taxes, pillage the social security fund, run massive deficits and the massive murder of innocent Afghanis, Iraqis, Bosnians and Serbs. Not to mention allowing the proliferation of unequal educational systems, attaching pay raises to the ethics bill, allowing poor performing FAA, CIA, FBI officials to remain in power after 9/11, allowing the war on drugs (ie - Americans who use drugs) to waste billions of dollars and imprisoning tens of thousand of emotionally/mentally disturbed Americans with drug problems.Flashbacks my ass - its perfectly par for the course - jackbooted thugs is right and if I had my way .....
Power corrupts...just shake the hand of a "politician." I LOVE the deprecation, I really do!The two worst Republican presidents to take part in taking away personal freedoms: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
THE REPUBLICANS ARE BECOMING DEMOCRATS; THE DEMOCRATS ARE BECOMING REPUBLICANS
Elect me King...I promise to stop the manufacturing of transistors and to reward the inventors of new vacuum tubes.
The Ho's get paid and they gotta perform. Sponsor a bill that will
never get passed, become the darling of a desperate sector, and rake in the large green.
Looks like business as usual to me.
Can't be level ya got your tail all straightened out over business
as usual.
JRM.
Oh, they do have a token Republican lined up.
Which federal services are you willing to give up to save taxes? National defense; Social Security; air fight controllers; the FBI; drug and food purity inspections; air purity measures; federal highways; payment on the national debt; air port security; federal restrictions on the use of controlled substances? Republicans in Congress and the presidency do lower taxes for the wealthiest 1 percent. Is that your income level?
But don't deny that Democrats are the party of restricted civil liberties and higher taxes. And hey, it seems that is what alot of us US "burgers"* want.* German for citizens
Cheers!
KP
Restricted civil liberties? - For who? -Ask a woman that wants an abortion - which party is likely to restrict her liberties.
Ask a Black Man - Which party led the way for his civil rights.
Ask any minority - which party helps them achieve equality.
Which party is usually first to jump into the censorship array?
If the GOP was a Champion of Civil Liberties, I would be a Republican without hestitation.
Maybe you have not heard of the Civil Liberties Union?
But, I think man, You have been getting your news from Rush Limbaugh way too long.
Cut-Throat
I support neither party....hate them both with equal fervor. But you may be too quick to applaud the Dems here:
Ask a woman that wants an abortion - which party is likely to restrict her liberties.
What of the liberty of the child? Is not life itself the most basic of all rights?
Ask a Black Man - Which party led the way for his civil rights.
Why the self-same party that restricted their rights for 90 years. And had it not been for JFK, they would have contiued to do so for 90 more.
Ask any minority - which party helps them achieve equality.
That must be the same party that tells them they are not compotent enough to do anything with out the help of the state.
Which party is usually first to jump into the censorship array?
Here the parties differ only in what they desire to censor.....The Reps want to force you to look at porn less and read the bible more by sponsoring all types of legislation to restrict access to anything they deem 'obscene'....the Dems want to restrict you in critizing any group that is in their constituency by promoting all types of hate-speach/crime laws and anti-descrimination legislation. Both parties are actively trying to control what you think by limiting your expression of, and access to ideas they find offensive.Horses of different colors are horses all the same.
Rob
Rights of an unborn mass of cells - give me a break! You claim to not be on one side of the fence or the other. But this statement gave you away. - And now I am done with you!
Cut-Throat
I saw the Wizard of Oz.I made no claim to be neutral on any given issue. I line up with both party lines on various issues. I belive abortion on demand to be immoral. I believe the prima facia right in that situation belongs to the child, not the mother. This in no way makes me a Republican any more than supporting abortion makes you a Democrat.
I reieterate that I do not support either party....I do not. I may side with one party or the other ideologically, but I do not stand with either overall. And the really strange thing is, the ideas I seem to agree wiht in either party are the ones they seem quickest to cave on when they actually get in power.
Thanks,
Rob
Agree totally.
The Dems are ever so quick to bring up the civil rights legislation as their Magna Carta.It is important to remember that all those poor demonstators we saw being hosed-down, beaten and mauled by dogs suffered these atrocities at the hands of Democratic administrations. Segregation was created and maintained by nearly exclusively Democratic administrations. Almost all the pols who actively spoke out against civil rights at the time were Democrats.
The light of national awareness had been shown on the dirty litle world of the segregated south. National level Democrats had no choice but to pass this legislation.
I think the best that Democrats can say is that they recognized the horror that their party helped perpetuate and in a crisis of concience, voted to end it. What they cannot say (bit effectively do) is that were it not for them standing up to evil Republicans, the plight of the black man in the South would still stand today.it is important not to white-wash the fence of history, whether it be done with the left hand or the right.
Rob
Of course, interpretations will vary from the point of view of the observer and from the prevailing thought of the time.
It is also a grave injustice to judge any person outside of the expectations of his/her time.KP
But I still think the Democrats too have been undermined by money's role in our elections, and it is going to get worse.As to Garth's post below, just think about a world without Limbaugh and dependent on NPR. It is the conservative's worst nightmare.
According to American conservatives, this would make you a liberal!
Norm, you are just way to dogmatic.How many boxes do you have?
Maybe this is because I am old and have lived for 23 years in Texas. Our local NPR has difficulties in getting funding because it is too liberal. I certainly view NPR as invaluably more complete than the networks or newspapers.
they don't have an affiliate here in socialist Germany!Everything is relative!
If he's not on NPR we don't get him over here.Cheers!
The only federal services the GOP is willing to cut is Welfare. That's all they talk about. It's only 2 percent of the federal budget, but the misinformed conservatives believe with all their heart that it would solve all of the federal monetary problems.They don't want to be confused by facts and figures, they have their predjudices and that is what they want to believe.
One of the reason that we have a liberal biased media, is that they are informed. The general public is not!
Cut-Throat
x
Well, that says it all--We have a liberal biased media, and the general public is not informed. That must be why they keep electing Democrats.
Over 80% of income taxes are paid by those making $75,000 or more per year--So it stands to reason that they would benefit the most by a tax cut.
Can open up a whole can of worms. In all actuality, it does not matter whom is in The Office nor in Congress as they all are big spenders for anything and their favorite pork barrel programs. Yes, I hear the federal deficit... how do you think that happened? Being fiscally responsible? We all know if the US Govt was a business they would have closed down long ago. So, even if we had a good third party contender it would not take long for it to turn out like the other two. They all know how to steal and spend your money better than you do. Food for thought but now I will get lost in music.
Government provides services and corporations provide services. Corporations steal and spend your money probably in greater measure than government does and you have no say over their leadership. In state and local government, and to a lessor degree, national government, you can "vote with your feet," moving to where you find service levels and taxes more to your suiting. Poorly run businesses merely go out of business, but governments cannot. Like you I would prefer on topic posts and music.
Yes, those corporations that you talk about are government protected business (jet fighters, tanks, missiles, hence Boeing General Dynamics, etc.) Corporate agriculture (giving your tax money out not to plant anything like Scottie Pippen for one, whom is not a farmer, (pro basketball player), and other land owners who rent their farm land out not to grow anything or to artificially protect their farm prices). Problem is (voters) are poorly informed by a press that reports one sided news be it CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC most newspapers for the left or FOX for the right (read the European newpapers they are actually much better for reporting our news in America.Actually the only fair tax is property tax where you can actually see where your money goes (libraries, ambulance, schools, fire, police). The other state and federal is mostly squandered away. Roads and highways are not paid by State or Federal tax but by Federal and state gas taxes. Also, this stupid drug war where you spend 30 billion dollars a year to fight someting you can never win. All it does is make drugs more expensive and lines the pockets of politicians in third world countries and the DEA to keep them employed. I can go on but my music is calling.
I would agree with your property tax were it gathered on all purchases including travel and stocks and services and were it gathered nationally and distributed by need. This, of course, would be a flat rate income tax, which I would support were it to be 40% of all income including corportate income with no deductions for anything. This would generate the present level of tax income in the U.S. Are you for this?
How about 15% and if you wanted to give 40% they would welcome it with welcome hands. I'm sorry but I don't understand why would anyone would want to to work 40% of their hard earned dollars for Uncle Sam to spend on wasted programs (like they do now). Know what I mean?
When my Dad was my age (I am in my 40's) he only paid less than 15% of his income in taxes and that included all taxes. If he were to pay now what he was making then it and you included all taxes (state, local, sales, utility, phone, rental cars, airline tickets, (my favorite property tax), hotel bed tax, cell phone, gasoline, and the big Federal tax and countless others I have neglected to mention pushes it way above 40%. What did you get for it that you didn't get back then???? I remember when they gave that little teaser "tax rebate" last year and tax lovers complained, these same people did not give it back but wanted more even though they didn't pay anything.
Actually for about the last forty years, the average individual paid about 15 percent of their income to state and local taxes and 15 percent in national taxes of all sorts. Social Security taxes have increased greatly since then. It now average just below 37 percent and of course varies depending on whether you live in NH with no sales or income taxes or NY with both.Please bear in mind that with the exception of 5 percent of income typically saved by Americans that the rest goes to corporations for good and services as does most of your taxes. The difference is that the poor get services somewhat equal to those who pay high taxes when it comes to government. Even the poor get air flight controller when they fly.
Please also remember that with our low government services we pay lower taxes than all other developed democracies.
Well, Norm, I guess we agree to disagree. That is what democracy is all about, right? When I said 15% I meant all taxes, social security included. Yes, that tax continues to increase and I will probably never see it as the wonderful government may see that I make too much to have any of my money back. I think it will take another Boston Tea Party for people to come to their senses. Of course, too many Americans find the taste of tea too... distasteful.As regards paying income to corporations.. that is our choice. Isn't that the point of living in America? If I don't want a Chrysler, I don't buy one. I don't have to give them 40% just because I'm exisiting in the same space as their automobiles. I can buy a Hyundai if I want to (and I don't!!), but the choice is mine. I don't have to tithe the corporations 5% because they are there.
As to services the poor receive, you are correct. We all receive certain services from our Federal Government, but what is your point? Most services received are not distributed equitably, and the services we do receive are very poorly administered. I'd much prefer to hire my OWN air flight controller (of course, along with my consortium, which would offer benefits, retirement, etc), and be assured that I could fire his ASS if he screwed up. If he did a good job, he'd get raises, bonuses, and good retirement. Hey, does this sound like good old fashioned capitalism??? Yup, cause that's what it is, and it works if you let it.
As a response to "Please also remember that with our low government services we pay lower taxes than all other developed democracies", just think... if everyday you were punched in the jaw, you'd feel pretty special if you only got whacked on the back of the head once a week.
Regards,
Michael
p.s. if people out there are reading this and getting annoyed/happy/ involved/anything, that is GOOD. The point is people should be discussing this and deciding the course our country should take. That is called democracy, which is a GREAT institution.
The percentage of GNP captured in state, local, and national taxes can be learned going way back. I just have studied it since the 1930s. It soars in WWII falls back and increases slightly since.Who is going to pay for the poor air flight controller? Or who is going to pay for the doctor of the poor with a contagious deceases? I have seen no evidence that corporations do it more efficiently because they can just declare bankruptcy.
The real question is where is the quality of life better?
I would really be in trouble were this not an open society, and probably so would you for communicating with me.
You know that I try to engage my students in such questions with only limited success. All they are interested in is drinking and high paying jobs.
Because that sounds like Rush Limbaugh BS to me. Start thinking for yourself!
That are working 2-3 jobs at minimum wage. Do you really believe that a CEO is "worth" 30 million a year?
Cut-Throat
No, I do not. As a matter of fact, the companies in which I am most familiar, manage to make money in "spite" of the CEO.I am simply stating that you cannot get a tax cut if you do not pay taxes...
.
Dianne Feinstein is one of the greatest threats to freedom that we have in America. If one were to take a look at the bills that she supports, you would know where i'm coming from. Sean
>
Dianne Feinstein is rather predictable, isn't she!
She was actually a fairly good mayoy of SF. Should have stayed there. Talk about rising to one's level of incompetance!
Between the "War on Drugs" and now the "War on Terror" we are seeing a very dangerous trend towards increased federalization of the government.Keep this in mind: The Federal Government was kept WEAK by the founding fathers for a reason. For the same reason they separated church from state and for the same reason the military is not allowed to play role in law enforcement and is ultimately under the leadership of an elected official (The President, as Commander in Chief).
The three evils that we had learned from Europe were that of rule by the clergy, rule by the military, and ruled by nobility.
As the continue to absorb new powers in at ever accelerating pace, the Federal Government is threatening to give itself the role of a ruling nobility.
States, local, and individual rights are the heart of this country. We must preserve these.
Sean, please do post what other nonsense this neo-Fascist is proposing.
I have lived under both Fascist and Communist dictatorships. I have always loved history, an I can tell you with all my heart that this country in Man's greatest creation. To see it in danger of slipping into the very thing it was created NOT TO BE angers me very deeply.
Although I was not born is this nation, I feel that this country was created by people like me, for people like me. I was born in Havana, Cuba but I AM AN AMERICAN in the true sense of the word. Not by accident of birth, but by freedom of the heart and the mind. I can write volumes on how/why this country came about, and one day I might.
well, thank you for letting me vent
KP
you up on stage! You are just the sort of American that both parties would love to have as a spokesman! Unfortunately, you seem to be thinking for yourself, which will never do!You, sir, are indeed an American, and I, for one, am very glad to have you here.
Jim
It is refreshing to see posts such as Killer Piglets, expressing such love for our freedoms that so many natural born Americans take for granted.There are no easy answers, however, it does seem that the Big Buck (mainstream) music industry has their hands in a few pockets. If they procede with the copy gaurd crap, we audiophiles will feel it the most, with sub-standard sonics. I can't see how any audiophile could support such a Bill.
Installation of police like software seems like a violation of my rights as a citizen of the United States. Big Brother indeed!
Yours in music,
Brian
Dear K-P;I agree with most of your post and I admire your passion for liberty.
I must offer one important clarification though. Perhaps unconsciously, you have slipped into inaccurate but pervasive ahistorical jargon. The Constitution does NOT provide or ordain "separation" of Church and State. That is a much later re-interpretation by people whose agenda is anti-freedom of religion rather than pro-freedom of religion.
The Constitution forbids "Establishment" of religion; that is a different kettle of fish. No "State Church." (And had there been a State Church back then it would have been Presbyterian or Episcopal.) The Constitution forbids the State from requiring membership in any particular church and forbids the State from directly supporting any particular church by financial levies on the general population.
The Constitution does not mandate hostility to organized religion, although many people think and act as though that were so. The First Congress gathered under the new Constitution, as one of its first acts established a Chaplaincy. Still active today. Every session starts with a prayer. Even today. That is not "separation," nor should it be. What is forbidden is "establishment."
The Founding fathers recognized that far above the risks of the tyranny of the clerisy, the nobility, or the military, was the risk of the tyranny of unfettered unreformed human greed, anger, and lust, and that the only checks on these evils were found in education and spirituality. This is not to posit that the Founding Fathers held any consensus on the form that spirituality and education should take other than it should be "liberal" in the classical sense of freeing man from ignorance, prejudice, and base desires.
When you read their speeches, you can only conclude that Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. were telling Americans that they had so far failed in the mission God had set them out on; and viewing history, you can see that after much anguish, most of us have come to agree and have asked God's help in doing better.
The founding fathers all knew that liberty makes sense only if people use liberty to fulfill their spiritual destinies. Otherwise, the lessons of history still are that societies end up as prisons or jungles.
And of course I agree that Doyanne Foynstoyn is a person totally lacking in integrity, all the better to make room for her astounding ambition. Had she been in Rome, hers would have been the second dagger into old Julius.
Pax et lux, et 'viva Christo Rey,'
JOHN
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of". That is the actual amendment in regards to seperation of church and state. The term "seperation of church and state" is just a description of what is clearly said in the first amendment. The clear goal was to keep government from interfering with peoples' right to choose to worship or not worship as they wish. Our founding fathers hardly held any consensus on religion in any way shape or form. An obvious good reason for preventing government from promoting or discouraging any form of religion or non religion
KP
Agreed completely
The authors of the Constitution exceeded their authority to meet the problems of the time, a much simpler time. For one thing they could not have imagined that any government, much less the federal government would do so much in our lives. Then Congress met every two years for typically 60 days as there was nothing to do.I am most perplexed as to where in the Constitution education and spirituality are seen as an important check. Like our idiot, Tom Delay, I think you would like no separation between government and religion. Well, sir, I think that religion is responsible for most of the excesses and abuse of others in history. Religion helps many cope with their experiences in life, but I think mankind would have been better off to have no organized religion with each person finding what comfort he or she needs privately.
You wrote:"The authors of the Constitution exceeded their authority..."
This simply does not make any sense. The draft Constitution had to be ratified. If the people had thought the Framers had gone beyond what the people wanted, the Constitution would not have been ratified. Please read The Federalist and a good history on ratification.
I never said that the Constitution was sacred.
I never said that the Constitution itself said that education and spirituality were checks upon disordered passions, certain of the Framers, most notably Jefferson and Adams, explicitly wrote so in their letters and speeches.
Again, you misread my post on "separation." That is a false doctrine. It is not in the Constitution. "No establishment " is in the Constitution. I do not want an established religion. But I do not want government to be hostile to religion.
As far as causing misery, please explain how religion is the cause of the dozens of millions killed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. What we usually hear is that the Pope did not do enough to stop Hitler. Hitler's explicit aims were to exterminate Judiasm and marginize Christianity. Nazism and Communism together killed more people than all previous religious conflicts since the founding of Christianity. The source book for that is " The Black Book of Communism" by Courtois. Both Nazism and Communism denied the existence of a personal creator God who acts in human history.
Cordially,
JOHN
The Constitution was not ratified by the people, which to use your language, if you read and comprehended you would know. The state legislatures ratified the Constitution and they were elected by those eligible to vote who in most states were propertied white men. Also remember that Pennsylvania elections shortly after the ratification process began saw a majority of anti-federalist elected, so the lame duck legislature ratified the document quickly. The Federalist papers are propaganda to get the Constitution ratified. I have assigned them in classes for years often noting the datedness of their thinking.The size of the wall that Jefferson mentioned is what we are debating, but I do want a government detached from religion. I did not misread your post, but rather think any breach is a breach.
I do not know what "marginize" means, but it certainly is curious to read that Hitler was as motivated against Christianity as Judaism. What about the Crusades, the conflict between Hindu and Moslem, the Inquisition, etc.? Who is Courts? Judging from what other books those who bought this book on Amazon, it looks like a rightest book of questionable accuracy.
I just do not see the same path to perfection you see. Sorry!
I didn't say anything about a path to perfection, and I have tired of your willful failing to get the point. And franky I am aghast at the notion that you teach somewhere.The Federalist was persuasion. If you wish to call it propaganda, that's your problem, not mine. Jefferson's throwaway line has no legal effect. The text of the Constitution does.
The author's name is Courtois. His book has withstood peer review. Your inability to type his name correctly is precisely what I mean by your reading comprehensioin problems.
When someone points out my inability to run a mile in four minutes, I do not accuse them of nastiness.
Please never again assume that you can say unsubstantiated ideologically based nonsense without being called on it. I can tell by your anger that you are unreasonable. Good luck.
Like any other (or maybe more than most) emotional motivator (nationalism comes to mind) that can cause large numbers of people to put out huge amounts of energy towrds a goal, religion is a double edge sword.It has provided impetus for great achievements. It was the religious monks who kept knowledge alive, if only by rote, after the fall of Rome. Wester civ came very close to extinction at that point, and it took it over half a millenium before it began to recover.
Religion was one of the forces behind the Age of Discovery, as the Spanish and Portuguese used the energy of their faiths do expand into the new world.
Islam, a religion now in disaray, was a bundle of positve energy when Europe was in the Dark Ages. The first steps towards modern medecine and science, as well as great advances in mathematic were made during this Islamic Renaissance.
Certainly great works of comunal effor from the Pyramids to the great catherdrals, not to mention works such as La Pieta and David, have been motivated by this force.
This is obviously a tiny list of what religion has contributed
On the dark side, religion has brough about some of the most brutal and horrific acts committed by man. The fervor to convert by the Spanish resulted in the deaths of millions (aqlthough to be fair most were killed by deseases such as smallpx).
The 30 years war, a war which had exceeded in brutality previous wars by such a degree at it ushered in a one and a half centurry period of limited ware fare, with proper "rules of engagement" between armies to minimize civialian deaths was caused by strife between Cathloics and Protestants.And, yes, Hitler did intend to eventually replace Christianity but this he did not adress publically. The fact is that hatred he harnessed and directed agaianst the Jews was already there, and had been there for centuries. His was simply the most organized assault on Jews in history. Before him, these were limited local affairs.
Well, I could ramble for hours so I will spare you all.
Remember, the wolrd is not black and white, but shades of grey. There is no human endeavor that does not bring it's share of good and evil with it.excuse typo's I do not have time to spellcheck
KP
Neatly wound Libertarianism and Christianity.God bless America, huh. (That always sounds arrogant to me.)
While i agree with the majority of your post, Abraham Lincoln was NOT the great liberator that most people think he was. Let's just say that while Abe did not want slavery here, he also didn't want African Americans here either. Try reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates for a hint as to the direction that he wanted to take had he not been murdered. This is not part of "revisionist history" as it is taught in better schools by knowledgeable teachers.As to "Dr" Martin Luther King aka Michael King, i'll not bother going there. That subject was covered in the outside asylum a while back. He was far closer to sinner than saint. That's why his FBI files were sealed at the request of his wife ( Coretta Scott King ) for another 23 years. Sean
>PS... When people pray, it does not mean it is to the same God that you or i might worship. Then again, you and i might even worship different God's.
I am intimately familiar with all of the well-known secondary sources and many of the primary ones as well, I earned an AB in American Civilization at Brown. Lincoln was not above race-baiting--he said that he didn't need a law to keep him from marrying a freed slave, but if Mr. Douglas felt it was necessary (guffaws)... .My post months back said that I though the Lincoln was a Messianic nutcase, and Dave Robinson needed to up his medication. In addition to my history degree, I have a law degree, and I do admit that Lincoln had a legal fig leaf to hide behind in mobilizing the Army. But it is one thing to mobilize the Army and another thing to say "And God willed that War come."
Liberia was founded as somewhere to send freed slaves. There's no dispute that Lincoln envisioned Emanicpation as a practical nightmare. But he also saw it as a moral imperative.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a plagiarist and an adulterer and a big vain idiot. But Pslamist King David, the most recited poet in human history, was a murdering adulterer, and he is pictured on church windows the world over. God uses flawed or even evil people to effect His purposes.
It's too bad the politicians today do not take King at his word and try for a color-blind society where the content of one's character is more important than the color of one's skin, either way.
Pax et lux,
John
nt
It's easy to be smart when you can follow you guys and just say "I agree." The level of this conversation is refreshing. It's just too bad I have to turn off cable news and come to an audio forum to find it.Gee, I guess I could try something radical like reading.
Keep up the good work.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
