Airman1270 0 #1 October 14, 2004 In another thread, someone made a reference to the "nazis" in the Congress & White House. It has become popular for a segment of society to refer to Republicans/conservatives as "nazis", the implication being that they want to force you to do things you may not want to do. My question: Where is the evidence to back this up? Some people cite the Patriot Act. While I have a problem with some of its provisions, I can't help noticing that the people complaining are the same people who would accuse the president of "not caring" if he had NOT approved any new laws in response to the 9/11 attacks. When I look at the exhaustive list of things we were free to do 30 years ago, but are illegal today, I see a bunch of laws pushed by Democrats/liberals. It's not the "extreme right wing" that has imposed seat belt laws, bicycle helmet laws, HOV lanes, or has redefined "drunk driving" to criminalize people who never used to pose a threat to public safety. It's not the right that drives up the cost of housing by restricting new construction, drives up the cost of fuel by imposing ridiculous restrictions under the guise of "environmental;" concerns, drives up the cost of skydiving by requiring AAD's, and drives up the cost of everything else by imposing high tax rates and coddling the litigation lobby. It's not the right that interferes with private property rights by imposing smoking restrictions on businesses, or interferes with the economy by forcing businesses to pay entry-level employees more than they're worth. Etc., etc. Republicans are not blameless; they are frequently bullied into supporting legislation so as to avoid being smeared as "not caring" about (fill in the blank: "women", "the children", "the environment", "minorities", etc.) However, the fact remains that if Democrats do not want these laws passed they don't get passed. Every time the left gets what they want, we lose more money and more freedom. Meanwhile, the right is portrayed as an enemy of civil liberties! The nazis were known for imposing numerous restrictions on citizens, dealing brutally with dissent, and a secular philosophy based upon a foundation of contempt for the Church. Today's Democratic party has much more in common with these principles than does anyone in high-profile positions within the G.O.P. A conservative cannot offer an opinion, or make a suggestion, without being accused of "forcing" something on us. Meanwhile, the left demands laws making it a crime not to do what they say. The difference between Pat Robertson and Hillary Clinton is that Robertson won't drag you into court just because you choose not to follow his advice. Any thoughts? Cheers, Jon (I hope this is not necessarily "soapbox" material; I was responding to something posted in this thread. Please move it if it does not belong here, thanks.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2 October 14, 2004 Quote Any thoughts? Your vision is selective. Not sure why you're defending drunk drivers either. 15-20k dead each year suggests there's still a problem. That's 5 Twin Tower bombings a year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #3 October 14, 2004 Even though you mentioned AADs briefly, I think you missed which forum to put this post in. This should have been posted in Speakers Corner.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feuergnom 29 #4 October 14, 2004 same player shoot again in different forum (s.c. most likely)The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #5 October 14, 2004 QuoteQuote Any thoughts? Your vision is selective. Not sure why you're defending drunk drivers either. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I'm not. My point is: If a blood alcohol level of "X" used to be legal and never used to cause any problems, why has it been redefined as a crime? Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #6 October 14, 2004 QuoteEven though you mentioned AADs briefly, I think you missed which forum to put this post in. This should have been posted in Speakers Corner. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Good point. I was responding to something said here, but you're right. How do I move this thing? Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LouDiamond 1 #7 October 14, 2004 QuoteHow do I move this thing? No worries, it will be moved shortly to the appropriate location."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,596 #8 October 14, 2004 QuoteI'm not. My point is: If a blood alcohol level of "X" used to be legal and never used to cause any problems, why has it been redefined as a crime? Just because a certain alcohol level used to be legal doesn't mean it 'never used to cause problems'. Go back far enough and you'll probably find a time that there were no drink drive laws. Does that mean it was safe to get shitfaced and drive back then?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #9 October 14, 2004 QuoteDoes that mean it was safe to get shitfaced and drive back then? Nope, it was even worst when you gave your horse something to drink too...so many poor lives lost. You could see them, weaving back and forth down dusty old main street, nearly running into the three buildings in the town. Man, it was really a sad sad time. --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,596 #10 October 14, 2004 Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #11 October 14, 2004 Personally, I'd prefer to ask this question: "If members of Congress and the White House are 'Nazis,' what does that make Goering, Hitler, Mengele, etc.?" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #12 October 14, 2004 Eva Braun?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zep 0 #13 October 14, 2004 Tetra-meglomainiacs Eva Braun was in it for the ball Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tf15 0 #14 October 14, 2004 QuoteSome people cite the Patriot Act. While I have a problem with some of its provisions, I can't help noticing that the people complaining are the same people who would accuse the president of "not caring" if he had NOT approved any new laws in response to the 9/11 attacks. How do you know what they would do, have you polled them? Do you know who is in control of both houses of Congress and the White House right now? Republicans. Why haven't they rolled back all these "Democratic" intrusions while they still have the opportunity? Why have the Republicans produced an enormous increase in the size of government since 2000? More government = more governance. Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #15 October 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteI'm not. My point is: If a blood alcohol Just because a certain alcohol level used to be legal doesn't mean it 'never used to cause problems'... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Back in the late '70's or so, when Mothers Against Drunk Driving began to organize, they were responding to situations in which people drank way beyond the legal limit and hurt others. At the time the legal blood alcohol level was .10%. MADD's sole purpose was to persuade people to obey the existing law. The .10% limit was reasonable; it allowed people to enjoy those few drinks, in moderation, without posing a threat to public safety. At the same time, they didn't have to worry about being hassled by the cops. One mistake people make is that they expect the law to prevent problems. The law can only establish a standard and define a punishment for violations. It cannot control behavior. As MADD gained political clout, they changed their mission: Rather than attempt to persuade people to obey the law, they claimed the law "wasn't working" and demanded the legal limit be changed. This was nothing more than an emotional respose to tragedies caused by people who violated the existing law. A guy drinks a 12-pack, then runs a red light and kills a kid, something which was illegal 30 years ago; MADD's response was to criminalize the guy who drank three beers in two hours. Meanwhile, the guy who drank three beers is not causing problems and would not even be noticed, except for the use of police roadblocks. Smell the breath, arrest the driver. Even though he'll likely be acquitted, or have the charges later dismissed, he still gets hassled and pays money. This, despite the fact that he didn't do anything wrong and posed no threat to public safety. The easiest way to get locked up in America today is to obey all laws which were in effect 30 years ago. Cheers (hic), Jon DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #16 October 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteSome people cite the Patriot Act. While I have a problem with some of its provisions, I can't help noticing that the people complaining are the same people who would accuse the president of "not caring" if he had NOT approved any new laws in response to the 9/11 attacks. How do you know what they would do, have you polled them? Do you know who is in control of both houses of Congress and the White House right now? Republicans. Why haven't they rolled back all these "Democratic" intrusions while they still have the opportunity? Why have the Republicans produced an enormous increase in the size of government since 2000? More government = more governance. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Part of the problem is that, While Republicans do have a slight majority in Congress, the place is still dominated by liberals in both parties. There is little passion among some, and full-bore opposition among others, to reducing or eliminating certain programs, departments, etc. Furthermore, anyone who tries to take on this task will be attacked with both barrells by the media, etc., and portrayed as an evil sonofabitch who hates you. It's an uphill struggle. Your question is sort of like rebuking the allied armies on the coast of Normandy on June 10th, asking why they haven't taken Berlin yet. The purpose of this threat was to challenge the description of right-leaning folks as "nazis." I provided a short list of things we were free to do 30 years ago which are illegal today. The higher costs & restrictions imposed on us are predominantly the result of legislation pushed by liberals. If by "nazis" we mean those who restrict our civil liberties, I was hoping someone might provide some examples of how they can no longer do things they used to do due to laws pushed by conservatives. Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #17 October 15, 2004 People joke about how on earth did those of us who were kids in the 50's and 60's manage to survive. Of course, when I look at some of the toys that my dad played with, and the cars that he drove, they were less safe than the ones that I drove when I first started. So maybe it's not just the evil liberals. Calling conservatives (or liberals) "nazis" is stupid -- it shows you've run out of intelligent ways to describe, and are resorting to the adult version of name calling. But, well -- .08 to .10 BAC has, in most people, a quite detectable difference in degree of impairment. More than any other, that one is for the protection of others, and not the self. Especially because at that level, a lot of people can look and act pretty sober, but when shit starts to go down they take longer to react. The smoking laws, too, are for the protection of others. I do think that businesses should be able to pay an additional charge and get a smoking license, just as they can pay an additional charge and get a liquor license. A lot of the other laws are self-protection laws. People have differing opinions on them; generally those opinions change when one is impacted by the lack of one ("my God, my house just blew down!!! Why did they let that asshole builder use cheese straws in the foundation!"). Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #18 October 15, 2004 yeah. well in any argument, the easy, cheap shot is to compare your opponents with Hitler, Nazis, the KKK, whatever. It doesn't mean shit. It's just an easy argumentative tool for people too lazy to come up with an intelligent argument. It's at about the same level as when adolescents call each other a "fag". Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #19 October 18, 2004 ...The smoking laws, too, are for the protection of others. I do think that businesses should be able to pay an additional charge and get a smoking license, just as they can pay an additional charge and get a liquor license... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sure, there's always some lofty, altruistic jusitification for these laws. The war on tobacco is not about health. There is nothing inherently harmful about occasional exposure to tobacco smoke. It's annoying, that's all. The free market will take care of the matter, as people who don't want to deal with smoking will avoid places where it is permitted. Most restaurant owners, for example, will limit smoking because it's a wise business decision. But they should not have to answer to the courts if they choose not to comply. The suggestion that they pay an extra fee for a license permitting them to do something which has always, until recently, been legal only compunds the ridiculousness of the situation. I've never smoked tobacco, but am tempted to start just to stick it in the faces of the anti-smoking nazis. Again, the people calling for more laws, criminalizing something that used to be okay, are the same people who accuse their political opponents of interfering with their civil liberties. "Freedom" is rapidly being redefined as those few things the government still allows us to do. If you still believe the quaint myth that we are a "free country" try taking a walk on a public beach at night. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #20 October 18, 2004 Quote If you still believe the quaint myth that we are a "free country" try taking a walk on a public beach at night. I frequently run on the shore by moonlight. But I'll acknowledge that at some beaches you would have to park your vehicle outside of the beach lots past a given hour. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #21 October 18, 2004 ...I frequently run on the shore by moonlight. But I'll acknowledge that at some beaches you would have to park your vehicle outside of the beach lots past a given hour. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It's good to know that this can still happen. Don't get me wrong - We still offer more freedom than you'll find anywhere else, but we're going in the wrong direction. Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #22 October 18, 2004 Nazis? No. Fascists? Maybe. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #23 October 18, 2004 ...Fascists? Maybe. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This word is thrown around a lot in political discussions. How is it defined? Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #24 October 18, 2004 Quote It's good to know that this can still happen. Don't get me wrong - We still offer more freedom than you'll find anywhere else, but we're going in the wrong direction. Most offensive to me were some of the defensive changes made post 9/11. All parking near government buildings of any type was red zoned. I don't think the Coasties of Monterey really had to worry. A real pain for the tourists. For a while diving and fishing was shut down for San Clemente Island off LA. This is a military island 60 miles off the coast. It is a bomb range. Real juicy terrorist target. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Airman1270 0 #6 October 14, 2004 QuoteEven though you mentioned AADs briefly, I think you missed which forum to put this post in. This should have been posted in Speakers Corner. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Good point. I was responding to something said here, but you're right. How do I move this thing? Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #7 October 14, 2004 QuoteHow do I move this thing? No worries, it will be moved shortly to the appropriate location."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #8 October 14, 2004 QuoteI'm not. My point is: If a blood alcohol level of "X" used to be legal and never used to cause any problems, why has it been redefined as a crime? Just because a certain alcohol level used to be legal doesn't mean it 'never used to cause problems'. Go back far enough and you'll probably find a time that there were no drink drive laws. Does that mean it was safe to get shitfaced and drive back then?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #9 October 14, 2004 QuoteDoes that mean it was safe to get shitfaced and drive back then? Nope, it was even worst when you gave your horse something to drink too...so many poor lives lost. You could see them, weaving back and forth down dusty old main street, nearly running into the three buildings in the town. Man, it was really a sad sad time. --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #10 October 14, 2004 Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 October 14, 2004 Personally, I'd prefer to ask this question: "If members of Congress and the White House are 'Nazis,' what does that make Goering, Hitler, Mengele, etc.?" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #12 October 14, 2004 Eva Braun?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #13 October 14, 2004 Tetra-meglomainiacs Eva Braun was in it for the ball Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tf15 0 #14 October 14, 2004 QuoteSome people cite the Patriot Act. While I have a problem with some of its provisions, I can't help noticing that the people complaining are the same people who would accuse the president of "not caring" if he had NOT approved any new laws in response to the 9/11 attacks. How do you know what they would do, have you polled them? Do you know who is in control of both houses of Congress and the White House right now? Republicans. Why haven't they rolled back all these "Democratic" intrusions while they still have the opportunity? Why have the Republicans produced an enormous increase in the size of government since 2000? More government = more governance. Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #15 October 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteI'm not. My point is: If a blood alcohol Just because a certain alcohol level used to be legal doesn't mean it 'never used to cause problems'... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Back in the late '70's or so, when Mothers Against Drunk Driving began to organize, they were responding to situations in which people drank way beyond the legal limit and hurt others. At the time the legal blood alcohol level was .10%. MADD's sole purpose was to persuade people to obey the existing law. The .10% limit was reasonable; it allowed people to enjoy those few drinks, in moderation, without posing a threat to public safety. At the same time, they didn't have to worry about being hassled by the cops. One mistake people make is that they expect the law to prevent problems. The law can only establish a standard and define a punishment for violations. It cannot control behavior. As MADD gained political clout, they changed their mission: Rather than attempt to persuade people to obey the law, they claimed the law "wasn't working" and demanded the legal limit be changed. This was nothing more than an emotional respose to tragedies caused by people who violated the existing law. A guy drinks a 12-pack, then runs a red light and kills a kid, something which was illegal 30 years ago; MADD's response was to criminalize the guy who drank three beers in two hours. Meanwhile, the guy who drank three beers is not causing problems and would not even be noticed, except for the use of police roadblocks. Smell the breath, arrest the driver. Even though he'll likely be acquitted, or have the charges later dismissed, he still gets hassled and pays money. This, despite the fact that he didn't do anything wrong and posed no threat to public safety. The easiest way to get locked up in America today is to obey all laws which were in effect 30 years ago. Cheers (hic), Jon DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #16 October 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteSome people cite the Patriot Act. While I have a problem with some of its provisions, I can't help noticing that the people complaining are the same people who would accuse the president of "not caring" if he had NOT approved any new laws in response to the 9/11 attacks. How do you know what they would do, have you polled them? Do you know who is in control of both houses of Congress and the White House right now? Republicans. Why haven't they rolled back all these "Democratic" intrusions while they still have the opportunity? Why have the Republicans produced an enormous increase in the size of government since 2000? More government = more governance. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Part of the problem is that, While Republicans do have a slight majority in Congress, the place is still dominated by liberals in both parties. There is little passion among some, and full-bore opposition among others, to reducing or eliminating certain programs, departments, etc. Furthermore, anyone who tries to take on this task will be attacked with both barrells by the media, etc., and portrayed as an evil sonofabitch who hates you. It's an uphill struggle. Your question is sort of like rebuking the allied armies on the coast of Normandy on June 10th, asking why they haven't taken Berlin yet. The purpose of this threat was to challenge the description of right-leaning folks as "nazis." I provided a short list of things we were free to do 30 years ago which are illegal today. The higher costs & restrictions imposed on us are predominantly the result of legislation pushed by liberals. If by "nazis" we mean those who restrict our civil liberties, I was hoping someone might provide some examples of how they can no longer do things they used to do due to laws pushed by conservatives. Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #17 October 15, 2004 People joke about how on earth did those of us who were kids in the 50's and 60's manage to survive. Of course, when I look at some of the toys that my dad played with, and the cars that he drove, they were less safe than the ones that I drove when I first started. So maybe it's not just the evil liberals. Calling conservatives (or liberals) "nazis" is stupid -- it shows you've run out of intelligent ways to describe, and are resorting to the adult version of name calling. But, well -- .08 to .10 BAC has, in most people, a quite detectable difference in degree of impairment. More than any other, that one is for the protection of others, and not the self. Especially because at that level, a lot of people can look and act pretty sober, but when shit starts to go down they take longer to react. The smoking laws, too, are for the protection of others. I do think that businesses should be able to pay an additional charge and get a smoking license, just as they can pay an additional charge and get a liquor license. A lot of the other laws are self-protection laws. People have differing opinions on them; generally those opinions change when one is impacted by the lack of one ("my God, my house just blew down!!! Why did they let that asshole builder use cheese straws in the foundation!"). Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #18 October 15, 2004 yeah. well in any argument, the easy, cheap shot is to compare your opponents with Hitler, Nazis, the KKK, whatever. It doesn't mean shit. It's just an easy argumentative tool for people too lazy to come up with an intelligent argument. It's at about the same level as when adolescents call each other a "fag". Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #19 October 18, 2004 ...The smoking laws, too, are for the protection of others. I do think that businesses should be able to pay an additional charge and get a smoking license, just as they can pay an additional charge and get a liquor license... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sure, there's always some lofty, altruistic jusitification for these laws. The war on tobacco is not about health. There is nothing inherently harmful about occasional exposure to tobacco smoke. It's annoying, that's all. The free market will take care of the matter, as people who don't want to deal with smoking will avoid places where it is permitted. Most restaurant owners, for example, will limit smoking because it's a wise business decision. But they should not have to answer to the courts if they choose not to comply. The suggestion that they pay an extra fee for a license permitting them to do something which has always, until recently, been legal only compunds the ridiculousness of the situation. I've never smoked tobacco, but am tempted to start just to stick it in the faces of the anti-smoking nazis. Again, the people calling for more laws, criminalizing something that used to be okay, are the same people who accuse their political opponents of interfering with their civil liberties. "Freedom" is rapidly being redefined as those few things the government still allows us to do. If you still believe the quaint myth that we are a "free country" try taking a walk on a public beach at night. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #20 October 18, 2004 Quote If you still believe the quaint myth that we are a "free country" try taking a walk on a public beach at night. I frequently run on the shore by moonlight. But I'll acknowledge that at some beaches you would have to park your vehicle outside of the beach lots past a given hour. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #21 October 18, 2004 ...I frequently run on the shore by moonlight. But I'll acknowledge that at some beaches you would have to park your vehicle outside of the beach lots past a given hour. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It's good to know that this can still happen. Don't get me wrong - We still offer more freedom than you'll find anywhere else, but we're going in the wrong direction. Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #22 October 18, 2004 Nazis? No. Fascists? Maybe. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #23 October 18, 2004 ...Fascists? Maybe. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This word is thrown around a lot in political discussions. How is it defined? Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #16 October 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteSome people cite the Patriot Act. While I have a problem with some of its provisions, I can't help noticing that the people complaining are the same people who would accuse the president of "not caring" if he had NOT approved any new laws in response to the 9/11 attacks. How do you know what they would do, have you polled them? Do you know who is in control of both houses of Congress and the White House right now? Republicans. Why haven't they rolled back all these "Democratic" intrusions while they still have the opportunity? Why have the Republicans produced an enormous increase in the size of government since 2000? More government = more governance. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Part of the problem is that, While Republicans do have a slight majority in Congress, the place is still dominated by liberals in both parties. There is little passion among some, and full-bore opposition among others, to reducing or eliminating certain programs, departments, etc. Furthermore, anyone who tries to take on this task will be attacked with both barrells by the media, etc., and portrayed as an evil sonofabitch who hates you. It's an uphill struggle. Your question is sort of like rebuking the allied armies on the coast of Normandy on June 10th, asking why they haven't taken Berlin yet. The purpose of this threat was to challenge the description of right-leaning folks as "nazis." I provided a short list of things we were free to do 30 years ago which are illegal today. The higher costs & restrictions imposed on us are predominantly the result of legislation pushed by liberals. If by "nazis" we mean those who restrict our civil liberties, I was hoping someone might provide some examples of how they can no longer do things they used to do due to laws pushed by conservatives. Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #17 October 15, 2004 People joke about how on earth did those of us who were kids in the 50's and 60's manage to survive. Of course, when I look at some of the toys that my dad played with, and the cars that he drove, they were less safe than the ones that I drove when I first started. So maybe it's not just the evil liberals. Calling conservatives (or liberals) "nazis" is stupid -- it shows you've run out of intelligent ways to describe, and are resorting to the adult version of name calling. But, well -- .08 to .10 BAC has, in most people, a quite detectable difference in degree of impairment. More than any other, that one is for the protection of others, and not the self. Especially because at that level, a lot of people can look and act pretty sober, but when shit starts to go down they take longer to react. The smoking laws, too, are for the protection of others. I do think that businesses should be able to pay an additional charge and get a smoking license, just as they can pay an additional charge and get a liquor license. A lot of the other laws are self-protection laws. People have differing opinions on them; generally those opinions change when one is impacted by the lack of one ("my God, my house just blew down!!! Why did they let that asshole builder use cheese straws in the foundation!"). Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #18 October 15, 2004 yeah. well in any argument, the easy, cheap shot is to compare your opponents with Hitler, Nazis, the KKK, whatever. It doesn't mean shit. It's just an easy argumentative tool for people too lazy to come up with an intelligent argument. It's at about the same level as when adolescents call each other a "fag". Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #19 October 18, 2004 ...The smoking laws, too, are for the protection of others. I do think that businesses should be able to pay an additional charge and get a smoking license, just as they can pay an additional charge and get a liquor license... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sure, there's always some lofty, altruistic jusitification for these laws. The war on tobacco is not about health. There is nothing inherently harmful about occasional exposure to tobacco smoke. It's annoying, that's all. The free market will take care of the matter, as people who don't want to deal with smoking will avoid places where it is permitted. Most restaurant owners, for example, will limit smoking because it's a wise business decision. But they should not have to answer to the courts if they choose not to comply. The suggestion that they pay an extra fee for a license permitting them to do something which has always, until recently, been legal only compunds the ridiculousness of the situation. I've never smoked tobacco, but am tempted to start just to stick it in the faces of the anti-smoking nazis. Again, the people calling for more laws, criminalizing something that used to be okay, are the same people who accuse their political opponents of interfering with their civil liberties. "Freedom" is rapidly being redefined as those few things the government still allows us to do. If you still believe the quaint myth that we are a "free country" try taking a walk on a public beach at night. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 October 18, 2004 Quote If you still believe the quaint myth that we are a "free country" try taking a walk on a public beach at night. I frequently run on the shore by moonlight. But I'll acknowledge that at some beaches you would have to park your vehicle outside of the beach lots past a given hour. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #21 October 18, 2004 ...I frequently run on the shore by moonlight. But I'll acknowledge that at some beaches you would have to park your vehicle outside of the beach lots past a given hour. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It's good to know that this can still happen. Don't get me wrong - We still offer more freedom than you'll find anywhere else, but we're going in the wrong direction. Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #22 October 18, 2004 Nazis? No. Fascists? Maybe. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #23 October 18, 2004 ...Fascists? Maybe. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This word is thrown around a lot in political discussions. How is it defined? Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #24 October 18, 2004 Quote It's good to know that this can still happen. Don't get me wrong - We still offer more freedom than you'll find anywhere else, but we're going in the wrong direction. Most offensive to me were some of the defensive changes made post 9/11. All parking near government buildings of any type was red zoned. I don't think the Coasties of Monterey really had to worry. A real pain for the tourists. For a while diving and fishing was shut down for San Clemente Island off LA. This is a military island 60 miles off the coast. It is a bomb range. Real juicy terrorist target. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
