Teh new US pledge of allegiance

**Antimatter** · March 24th, 2004, 05:46 AM

In no way am I against the American people themselves.
However, given the current worldwide situation, the US government throwing their weight around on a massive scale, disregarding international law and making gestapo laws that go against their national constitution, it's not surprising that there are peace protestors and anti-americanism...
History gives good parallels in the current day situation. We're seeing the rise of a Nazi like regime that feeds the majority of the world a daily dose of propaganda and thinks it can get away with anything.
You don't see much on TV about the concentration camps in Iraq where every male 14-80 from entire towns is held without charge...just reminded every now and then about daily bomb attacks against occupying forces, a constant threat to every American citizen in the world.
You hear all the time about the thousands of innocent people killed in the attack on the twin towers but hardly a thing about the thousands of civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq by coalition forces.
How will GWB find a way to get the population grant him emergency powers that make the senate virtually powerless? How will he get the people of America to throw their support behind him that allows him to declare every country a terrorist threat...one at a time?
Other countries don't seem to have any problems stepping up intelligence and counter terrorist forces in response to a terrorist threat.
Why does GWB think this is such an impractical way of dealing with terrorism? Why is he in fact going out of his way to try and increase the terrorist threat by increasing resentment in the rest of the world?

**jaeger** · March 24th, 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Antimatter

(No need to repeat that mess.)

Congrats. You managed three Nazi references in a single post. Care to try for four?

**Cleetus** · March 24th, 2004, 02:46 PM

Might as well try, don't think he really understands what a Nazi is anyway

**silencio** · March 25th, 2004, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Might as well try, don't think he really understands what a Nazi is anyway

I always thought the nazi's stood for socialism, racial supremacy, the rejection of materialism, and, of course, murdering Jews. ...sounds quite the opposite of the US to me.

**confus-ed** · March 25th, 2004, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by silencio

I always thought the nazi's stood for socialism, racial supremacy, the rejection of materialism, and, of course, murdering Jews. ...sounds quite the opposite of the US to me.

So time for a bit of Yank 'baiting' then ..

Some 'mixing-up-stirring-type' folks might put it maybe like this ..

Mmmm lets see you have rampant capitalism without any social responsibility (so welfare, free medicare, old age pensions etc always come high on your priority lists don't they ? Let the strong get stronger & the weak ? .. hell they are just weak !), you have the KKK & still have a severe racial discrimination problem in many areas, you absolutely love materialism - give us more stuff & the bigger & shinier the better & if we screw up the planet with all this who cares? & you like killing Arabs - I mean Terrorists - well you aim at Terrorists, but mostly you hit innocent folks, & enrage the rest of them making some more Terrorists to shoot at ...

So what where those differences again ? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones !

- I'm not 'calling you', but it sure is how many folks in the arab world might put it ...

**Antimatter** · March 25th, 2004, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Might as well try, don't think he really understands what a Nazi is anyway

The Nazi references were made as a historical parallel. Hitler basically found a target the people of Germany didn't like and built his propaganda machine around that. It was based on racial superiority ideals and nationalism that existed in those times. The attack on the Reichstag was never explained as having been from anyone in particular but the propaganda machine allowed the Nazis to use it to their own ends.

The US has the most nationalistic ideals in the world currently, mainly due to the education given to the young...all the president has to do to use it, is to allow extremists to make the odd attack and then blame some country for it...I guess you know the rest.

As I understand it, the nationalistic education in the US began to combat the perceived threat from the USSR. Once the USSR collapsed, the US had a cumbersome system of bureaucracy and a standing army that had nothing to justify its presence.
How could a president disband a system of that size and capability when there is no threat remaining? The problem is that the six fleets, standing army of 1.3 million and supporting bureacracy couldn't be supported without a real threat... but these people in positions of power will instantly be opposed to a president who reduces the existing system.
To be effective in the current world, the US needs to play its part in the international scene, support the UN... and restructure to be effective economically.
The US is currently dependant on war to expand its boundaries...and personally I don't think it's a viable option.

Look at what happened to the Nazis.

**techs** · March 25th, 2004, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by silencio

I always thought the nazi's stood for socialism, racial supremacy, the rejection of materialism, and, of course, murdering Jews. ...sounds quite the opposite of the US to me.

Actually the socialism part is not the socialism you are thinking of. In fact the Nazis were very much capitalistic. Racial superiorty, yes. Rejection of materialism, no. Murdering Jews, yes. Pretty much murdering anyone who wasn't aryan in fact.
George Bush seems to be more of a Fascist (which in its "pure" form doesn't go in for racial superiorty, just the overwhelming superiorty of the interests of the State over those of the indvidual (in this they are like Communists). The Fascists believe in the rule of a leader with almost unlimited power when it comes to the interests of the State. Fascism rejects the rule of law over the rule of the leader. This is why I cringe every time I hear that the President should have the right to detain(imprison) anyone he deems a danger to the state (e.g. terrorists). Another fascist idea would be that law enforcement has the right to violate the law in the interests of the State. An example would be if you had a law saying you needed to show probable cause to a judge to wiretap an individual but if the law enforcement agency decides on its own that it is in the interest of the state to wiretap they can go ahead. Oh wait....isn't that what Bush is now doing? Even though Bush got a law allowing this it is still Fascist in that it puts the right of the state over the constitution. In fact you can have a Constitutional Fascist state. the constitution just says that State can violate it. Or you can have a Fascist state that violates the constitution by just passing laws that are opposite of the constitution and using the power of the state to enforce its policies. Or lastly you can have what we seem to be headed for. A state with a constitution protecting the rights of the individuals except in matters when you can get a legislative majority and a friendly judiciary.

**Antimatter** · March 25th, 2004, 08:56 AM

Damn...where's your paragraphs.
Nice read anyway.

Edit: You boys and ladies should be loading up the guns you're still allowed to carry in case you should ever need to act against an unconstitutional ruler.

**paraflyer** · March 25th, 2004, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Antimatter

Damn...where's your paragraphs.
Nice read anyway.

Edit: You boys and ladies should be loading up the guns you're still allowed to carry in case you should ever need to act against an unconstitutional ruler.

Already there, dude.

**Antimatter** · March 25th, 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by techs

A state with a constitution protecting the rights of the individuals except in matters when you can get a legislative majority and a friendly judiciary.

Doesn't the president nominate the high court judiciary in the US?

**jaeger** · March 25th, 2004, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Antimatter

Doesn't the president nominate the high court judiciary in the US?

Congress must approve of those nominations and can later impeach the judge.

**Antimatter** · March 25th, 2004, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by jaeger

Congress must approve of those nominations and can later impeach the judge.

Who nominates the replacement judges for those who are impeached?

**jaeger** · March 25th, 2004, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by confus-ed

So time for a bit of Yank 'baiting' then ..

Some 'mixing-up-stirring-type' folks might put it maybe like this ..

Mmmm lets see you have rampant capitalism without any social responsibility (so welfare, free medicare, old age pensions etc always come high on your priority lists don't they ? Let the strong get stronger & the weak ? .. hell they are just weak !), you have the KKK & still have a severe racial discrimination problem in many areas, you absolutely love materialism - give us more stuff & the bigger & shinier the better & if we screw up the planet with all this who cares? & you like killing Arabs - I mean Terrorists - well you aim at Terrorists, but mostly you hit innocent folks, & enrage the rest of them making some more Terrorists to shoot at ...

So what where those differences again ? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones !

- I'm not 'calling you', but it sure is how many folks in the arab world might put it ...

And again with this. Social responsibility. Pffff. You'd be hard pressed to find someone that advocates completely removing welfare. Its recognized as a system that can help people when they've had a crappy run of luck. What most people want is for the program to be transparent, so they know their tax dollars are not being spent frivilously. I'm not entirely opposed to a tax-supported medicare either, but the last people I want in charge of it is my government. Those asshats cannot be trusted with my health. Old age pensions; isn't that what, I dunno, personal responsibility is all about? I'm 20 and have been funding a retirement account for the past three years.

Don't act like racism is unique to the US. Every society has its utter numbnuts. It isn't indicative of the larger population.

And the vast majority of people in this country do not have a hard-on for military conflict. I wish the world was at the point where we could withdraw every single soldier and sailor to our own territory. Hell, I'll take that one step farther and say I wish we could disband the military. But I won't let wishful thinking interfere with a realistic outlook. The world sucks, certain people don't mind murdering large numbers of innocents, and trained men with weapons will be needed to protect the majority.

Now, Confuse-ed, how about retiring the trolling? You admit to it being your purpose. Why do you want to try to piss Yanks off?

**jaeger** · March 25th, 2004, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Antimatter

Who nominates the replacement judges for those who are impeached?

I'd imagine the President does. Even so, the President can't really stack the deck as Congress still needs to approve any replacement.

**Antimatter** · March 25th, 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by jaeger

I'd imagine the President does. Even so, the President can't really stack the deck as Congress still needs to approve any replacement.

But if the majority of congress are from the same party as the president, wouln't that make the whole system one sided, even if 60% of the people are against what's happening?
It doesn't sound very democratic to me... and judges should be ouside the political system...shouldn't they?