Why we should really worry about our civil rights.

{LINK} (http://www.theprogressive.org/webex/mcwatch.html)

jesus. that's fucking disgusting. how on earth can a government stand upon a pedestal of 'liberty' when its citizens aren't even allowed freedoms of expression and thought?

My guess is that it's Doublethink. I imagine that it's also somewhat intentional.

how do you mean?

The government attempting to take away more of our civil rights and using the fear of terrorism as an excuse.
It amazes me that so many people are such jingoist though.

they'll use whatever they can get their hands on. people don't matter, power does.

Checking out that website, the Leftists are firmly on the side of the muslims in this clash of civilizations.

They scream "McCarthyism" when the recently declassified Venona project has pretty much shown that he was right all along about people like Alger Hiss.

Since 911 the liberals have fell in love with the muslims, and they hate George W. Bush for making war on Al Qaida and the terrorist states in the middle east.

Well keep it up Osama lovers, there is an election coming up and your hug a mu-slime campaign will help us to drive the CommieCrats out of office.

Perhaps I should just add this quote to my signature?

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
-Socrates

What's wrong with hugging Muslims? I'd rather hug most Muslims than Joe McCarthy (who would probably stink a bit by now as well). I think you're equating Muslims with terrorists, which is dangerously ignorant. Not even people like Rumsfeld do that.

McCarthy being right about Alger Hiss kind of misses the point. The thing is that lots of people had their lives screwed up on a whim, who had little to do with leftish politics, and that so what if people do want to hold leftish political views. You or I might not agree with them, but they're still allowed to have them. It's called freedom of speech, which I'm assuming you're in favour of?

That sight does go a little OTT - it's obviously very selective and comes from a certain viewpoint - but the general vilification that some in the USA get for holding certain views is ridiculous in a country that likes to think it's the most free and upright in the world. It's an admiral aspiration, but you're not there yet.

Originally posted by Denalay
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
-Socrates

That's so true in this case

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Then its a duck!

...glad to see you finally saw the light, Six :)

Liberals doth protest too much.

Demonizing Joe McCarthy when communist spies like Alger Hiss were chief advisors to the US president. Liberals also demonize Joe McCarthy when communist spies like the Rosenbergs were giving our Atomic bomb secrets to the Soviet Union.

Looking at Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs, I must say that Joe McCarthy was just scratching the surface of how much the Reds had infiltrated our system.

Liberals doth protest too much.

Demonizing Joe McCarthy when communist spies like Alger Hiss were chief advisors to the US president. Liberals also demonize Joe McCarthy when communist spies like the Rosenbergs were giving our Atomic bomb secrets to the Soviet Union.

Looking at Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs, I must say that Joe McCarthy was just scratching the surface of how much the Reds had infiltrated our system.

Right, but by doing all it could to defend democracy from external threat, McCarthyism actually went contrary to democratic principles of liberty. In Hollywood for example, people were blacklisted from a single accusation, and the hearings were a joke. A lot of innocent lives were screwed up. McCarthyism was as damaging to democracy as anything else because the right to a fair trial was more or less suspended for many people, and the crimes that they were accused of committing would usually be allowed because of freedom of speech and of thought. Freedom of speech was denied.

The Reds were infiltrating Hollywood because they wanted some control over the film industry to spread their propaganda. To some extent they have succeeded.

What McCarthy did was to expose them to the public spotlight. People did not want the Reds around, and thus the blacklists. It was very democratic as its what the people wanted.
Democracy = majority rule.

Free Speech? Sure, get on a street corner and rant all you want. Of course you may not have an audience. That you have free speech does not mean everyone has to listen to you.

Democracy? You know very little about democracy. If you did know what you were talking about then you would already know that we are Republic, not a democracy.

Democracy? You know very little about democracy. If you did know what you were talking about then you would already know that we are Republic, not a democracy.

I really can't belive that you just said that the US was not a democracy. :rofl:

A democracy is where the people vote for who they want to lead them. That's what you do. You are also, as you correctly pointed out, a republic. That's where the people are sovereign as opposed to, say, a monarchy, where the monarch is sovereign. You are therefore both a republic and a democracy. See?

Sixgun: If you really believe what you just stated and you're not just trolling, then you need some serious mental help.

You fellows are just ignorant.

The founding fathers wanted a Republic, not a democracy.

A democracy is where two wolves and a sheep are voting on what to have for dinner. A republic is where that sheep has some rights and stays off the menu.

You fellows are just ignorant.

The founding fathers wanted a Republic, not a democracy.

A democracy is where two wolves and a sheep are voting on what to have for dinner. A republic is where that sheep has some rights and stays off the menu.

Utter, utter bollox. The two terms are not mutually exclusive tems for different types of government. They describe specific and separate aspects of government. Republic comes from the Latin 'res publica,' meaning 'rule of the people.' It means that the people have ultimate control of the country, and are the highest authority. It means nothing whatsoever about the rights of minorities.

Democracy simply means that the people vote in elections to elect the people to be in charge. Again, there are no implications about the rights of minorities.

As far as I know all republics are democratic to some degree, and most are fully democratic. Not all democracies are Republics, the UK being the obvious example, but I imagine most are.

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.


Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.


More... (http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm)