CONgress Passes Bill To Revoke Americans' Passports Without Due Process

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Michael, Aug 1, 2015.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Reason TV: Congress Passes Bill In 15 Minutes To Revoke Americans' Passports Without Due Process

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Ahh.... the smell of Police State in the morning.

    The nice thing about Progressive Democratic Socialism, is it's exactly the same as National Socialism. Make sure you carry your papers. Wouldn't want the BlueKluxKlan to put a bullet in your head, you know, because you use the roads and for the good of society. I see Bernie The Progressive Sanders is 'tough on illegals' - hey, maybe The Donald can run as his VP? Get prepared. Iron your best. It's time to pull the magic lever for Hitlary. Then, back in the stall you go.

    Home of the Fleeced
    Land of the Slave
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Open borders? No! That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” Sanders said. “That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States.” “It would make everybody in America poorer — you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that,” Sanders said. “If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or (the United Kingdom) or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people.”

    LOL

    Heil Sanders!
    Heil Hitlary!

    You know what I love about Bernie "I care for the poor" Sanders? It's his ability to both blame the Chinese for 'stealing' Yir Gawd Given Jerb AND, at the same time, painting them as Slaves *GAAASP* imprisoned in evil factories with suicide nets, guard-Dawgs and barbed wire fences hemming them in. Of course, given the average American reads at 6th grade level (thank you Government Schools) and has the mental maturity of a 14 year old, well, it's only to be expected.

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Michael must think the US House of Representatives is run by Progressive Democratic Socialists. He then goes on to rant against Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton, both Senators and only one even slightly Progressive or Socialist.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Democratic Socialism isn't the same as Democratic Party. Both Democrats and Republicans are Socialists and I'm sure if you ask either, they'll tell you their views are Progressives - and more importantly, the both support the Progressive Central Bank, Progressive IRS and Progressive Income Tax.

    As for Bernie, he's leaning more towards National Socialist, right on cue.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    And the crazy takes over completely.

    I'm interested, though, in one thing: since I know you aren't the source of any of that, what is? Where would I go to hear a media source label the Republicans in the House "Progressive" and "Socialist"?
     
  9. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    Can someone please explain to me why the forum rules don't apply to micheal?
     
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  10. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Which rule?
     
  11. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    well for starters the one about not alter names to insult either of posters or people in general. in fact i'm pretty sure at least on of the mods talk to him about it because in the past he was pretty flagrant in his use of word thats was actually used as the example in the forum rules.
     
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology,economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition.

    Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.

    Progressive can mean ANYTHING to ANYONE. So, in a sense, it is meaningless.
    Socialism, while next to meaningless, this IS our economic financial system.

    That said, the Progressive movement gave us the Progressive Central Bank and Progressive Income Tax and the IRS. BOTH democrats AND republicans overwhelmingly support our having a Progressive Central Bank/Income Tax and IRS. Given these are over a century old, I suppose we could refer to them as Traditional Institutions. What is "Progressive" one day is "Tradition" the next.

    Do Republicans market themselves as "Progressive Socialists"? No, of course not. That's just a marketing ploy. There's little to no real difference between the two wings of the Political Party members Democrat/Republican. What little teeny tiny difference there is, is there just to bamboozle the ignorant masses who need to think there's a difference so they know which flag to wave at which convention they happen to attend. Incidentally, there's a strong statistical correlation with the left amygdaloid body as to which convention various tax chattel will will find themselves attending.



    Funnily enough, you'll see the EXACT same people who waved our stupid flag and cried tears of joy for The Oblahma, now, from the same mouth hole, say he's NOT a Progressive Socialist! Ha! Hahahaha..... LOL.



    Anyway, now that the Police State is in place, the public overwhelming cowed and used to being spied on, the next stop is National Socialism.
    Not yet though.
    We still need a long 10-15 year severe Depression and maybe another WWar. So, in the meantime, pull the magic lever for Bernie Scamers or Hitlary and let's watch as the 1 in 5 becomes 1 in 4. I give it another 30 - 40 years. By that time 1 in 4 will be 1 in 3, which is fine, computers will probably do most of the thinking by then anyway leaving Citizens plenty of time to impulse flinch at various simple emotions.


    BOTH Republicans and Democrats voted for this Bill. Now, I personally think Passports should be illegal. But, I can see their use - particularly for ensuring Tax Chattel stay in their various Tax Pens.... Ooooh, and Terrorists and stuff. AAAaaahahahaha "Terrorists".... LOL.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2015
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    What you have here on this forum is a whole bunch of people who have been pointing out to you that Obama is not a leftwing politician, not a socialist of any kind, for as long as you have been posting here and as long as Obama has been in the news. You have learned nothing from their patience and courtesy.
     
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    What is, in your opinion, the main point which distinguishes the actual state of the US from National Socialism?

    The economic system is essentially the same - corporatism. The big players design the regulations via their lobbies, all they want is done.

    The police state is established too. Hitler has not had greater formal powers than Obama. All one needs is available. The right to incarcerate as long as one likes without trial, the right to kill with drones, with collateral damage being allowed, the right to torture, the total surveillance. Some of this formally restricted to foreigners, but this is de facto irrelevant, test cases for precedence have been made.

    The ideological support for openly fascist movements is tested in the Ukraine, and nobody cares in the US that the US supports openly fascist movements. This support is also bipartisan, and will be even stronger, with Hitlary as well as whatever republican (ok, a possible exception may be Rand Paul, who has anyway no chance).

    Formally a national socialist US will remain a democracy. First, because this does not matter, even the democratic Weimar constitution remained formally in force all the 12 years of Hitler's rule, and the extraordinary powers for Hitler have been extended regularly every year for yet another year by the parlament. Second, because (different from Hitler's party, which was openly anti-democratic) "democracy" plays a central role in the official ideology.
     
  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Yes, Obama IS most certainly a Socialist. So was Bush II, Clinton before him and etcetera.

    Forbes: Is President Obama Truly A Socialist?
    By Paul Roderick Gregory, Professor of economics at the University of Houston and research fellow at the Hoover Institute.
    (PhD in economics was from Harvard University).

    As someone who has professionally studied and written about comparative economics, capitalism, and socialism for almost fifty years, the reticence to probe the core beliefs of a political leader seems odd. The question is perfectly legitimate in both an academic and political context as long as we define terms and place the discussion in proper context. By “socialist,” I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party?

    By this criterion, yes, Obama is a socialist.

    The socialist parties of Europe trace their origins to reform Marxism. After Marx’s death in 1883, Europe’s Marxists rejected the Bolsheviks’ call for socialist revolution and worked within the political system for Marxist goals. Marxists, such as Karl Leibknecht, August Bebel, Paul Lafargue, Leon Blum, and others, formed the socialist parties that we know today. Most emerged from the trade-union movement, and they retain close ties with organized labor today, as does Obama’s Democrat Party.

    Whereas, the eighteenth century liberalism of John Locke and Adam Smith gave us our constitution and limited government, Marxism provided the intellectual foundations of the European welfare state. The European socialists have their welfare state. Even their conservative opponents no longer question the “social state,” despite rising concern about its affordability. In the United States, we are fighting the battle of the welfare state, and we do not know what the outcome will be.

    The European welfare state takes one half of national output to provide state health care, pensions, extended unemployment benefits, income grants, and free higher education. Failed nationalizations taught European socialists to leave enterprise in private hands and coerce it through taxation and regulation to contribute to what the state deems the “social welfare.”

    The November 2011 Declaration of Principles of the Party of European Socialists (PES) summarizes the European socialist agenda. I condense its main points and compare them with Obama’s statements and legislative initiatives:

    [1]
    PES: The welfare state and state-provided universal access to education and health care are society’s great achievements.
    Obama: Favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.

    [2]
    PES: A strong and just society must ensure that the wealth generated by all is shared fairly as determined by the state.
    Obama: Favors progressive taxes on the rich to redistribute income and wealth from winners to losers and to ensure that all pay their fair share. (As he has said: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”)

    [3]
    PES: Collective responsibility makes society stronger when people work together, and all people are enabled to live a dignified life, free of poverty and protected from social risks in life.
    Obama: Favors collective responsibility (as defined by the federal government) to protect all from social risks through food stamps, welfare programs, extended unemployment benefits, guaranteed health care, the bailing out of big companies, forcing renegotiation of mortgages, class action law suits, and other measures. (Instead of opportunity and incentive to succeed, no one is allowed to fail).

    [4]
    PES: The state must insure that economic growth is environmentally “sustainable.”
    Obama: Favors carbon taxes, higher energy prices, restricted drilling and refining, and subsidies of green technology for the “common good,” even at the expenses of higher conventional growth and jobs.

    [5]
    PES: If unfettered by state control, market forces, driven by and greed and shift power to the privileged few, deepen economic, geographic and social inequalities, and create economic crises.
    Obama: Shows a distrust of market forces and advocates selective regulation, subsidies, and taxation to persuade or coerce business to promote the general welfare as he defines it. Industries not part of his collective endeavor (oil and gas and coal) are penalized. Industries that serve his conception of “general welfare” (green technology) are to be promoted even if the market rejects them.

    [6]
    PES: Ensuring long lasting prosperity, stability and above all, peace requires effective coordination in the international realm based on democracy, mutual respect, and human rights.
    Obama: Places reliance on international institutions, international consensus, and mutual respect in the conduct of foreign policy. (The United States must coordinate its foreign policy with international organizations and treat even rogue nations with respect in the hope that they will voluntarily improve their behavior).

    [7]
    PES: A strong state must preserve the public good, guarantee the common interest, promote justice and solidarity and allow people to lead lives rich beyond material wealth, so that each individual’s fulfillment is also part of a collective endeavor.
    Obama: Advocates a strong state that offers the “positive right” of political and economic justice to its citizens. He complains that the U.S. Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties,” that dictates what government “can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

    If the Party of European Socialists were to rate Obama, he would get a near perfect score. The political views and programs that Obama is prepared to reveal to the public are consistent with those of European socialists. He is clearly a socialist in the European sense of the term.
     
  16. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    An outright Dictator. Personally, I'm 99% confident we'll see a Dictator running the USA sometime within the next 40 years. Americans yearn for a Dictator. They can't wait to do away with Congress and get to work 'redistributing' from 'the wealthy' (whomever that is) to them.

    I agree.

    National Socialism and Democratic Socialism only differ in the later lacks a particular person who acts as a Dictator.

    Just imagine, in some States of the USA, if you were found selling flowers without a State licence and you refused to stop selling those arranged flowers AND resisted being put in a rape-cage by some BlueKluxKlan / sociopaths wearing State uniforms, why, you could be legally shot in the head. You know, for the "Good of Society". See? Floral Regulations (regulatory-capture) and State Licencing (rent-seeking) keep us safe from ourselves (monopolize markets) and this is truly Progress in our Democratic Socialist paradise.

    In 80 years the Socialists argument for a Dictator and complete Police Surveillance State will be "You use the roads" and if you don't support the Dictator you can go live "free" in Somalia. I fully expect newspeak to be the norm by then. Probably via SMS.
     
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    1883 there was no Bolsheviks' call for whatever, simply because there have been no Bolsheviks. They have appeared only 1903 as the name for a minority fraction of the Russions social-democratic workers party, after they have won some thin majority at the 2. party congress (after a large jewish fraction has left the congress). They became a separate party only 1912.

    Karl Liebknecht formed the Spartakist fraction of the social democracy, which later (after he was murdered) became the German communist (Stalinist) party. Bebel was an important social-democratic leader, but from the center - preventing for long time the split between the fraction which represents modern social-democry and the later communists. The most important book of Bebel (woman and socialism) was part of the reading list of communist orthodoxy.

    So, this guy is not really competent about the history of social democracy. Ok, prof. of economics, not history. This may be, in this case, quite irrelevant, that Obama is a socialist is quite obvious, but, sorry, I don't like this to remain uncommented.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, he's not. He's a rightwing capitalist. So were those other guys.
    The word "socialist" has a meaning, it's not some catchall term that means "bad" or "big" government". It is not a synonym for "authoritarian", it does not interchange with "taxes".
    You aren't capable of doing that. But even your screwed up "condensed" socialism and illiterate "comparison" with your version of Obama's policies doesn't match,

    Take a look at the first one:
    Notice that the key and defining characteristic of socialism - social ownership of the means - is present in the PES original, but absent from Obama's health care plan.

    You have just claimed that a law mandating that private citizens purchase private health insurance from private corporations is "socialist". All that means to an educated reader is that you haven't got a clue what socialism is.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2015
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    LOL
    Obama is a Socialist.

    Note: 'rightwing' is a label and has no bearing on Obama being a Socialist.
    Newsflash, the Government owns assets, being 'capitalist' has nothing to do with the fact that Obama is a Socialist.


    I posted the definition at the top of my post if you are confused as to what the word Socialism means.

    Look, I posted the definitions and that wasn't my writing and I cited the author. So, you're going to have to take your No True Scotsman fallacy somewhere else.

    Obama IS a socialist.

    Has Obama spoken about ending the Progressive Federal Reserve Central Bank of New York? Nope. As a matter of fact, they have his 100% full support and since he has taken office he has helped ensure the Socialist State bailed out industry and financial institutions alike. In the progress he has stood as POTUS while increasing our National Socialist debt by over 70%. Under Obama the State is socializing another $8 trillion in debt and taking our National Socialist debt from $10 trillion to over $18 trillion.
    That's NOT capitalism.
    That's Socialism.
    Obama fully supports expanding the IRS - which is why he fully supports expanding the NSA. That's not LIMITED government - that's Socialism. And of course Obama supports Labor Tax - ALL Socialists do. And he's a tried and true Socialist. The Federal Registry has expanded by millions and millions of lines of new regulations. That's not the free-market, that's Socialism.

    ObamaCare is Socialism. Not free-market medicine, socialism. Not that we've had anything even remotely close to a free-market in medicine, not for close to a century. But particularly not since the Socialistic State gave MD's/DO's a monopoly on Rx (which we see the end result is MD's acting a drug pushers and the Big Pharma the drug lords). All of which is due to SOCIALISM. Not the non-existent free-markets. But hyper-regulated markets / Socialism.

    So, again, take the No True Scotsman fallacy elsewhere - Obama IS a socialist. If you want to paint him with the 'rightwing' label, feel free to. I don't care. He's still a Socialist.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2015
  20. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Evidence of Obama being a (national) socialist:

    1. Obama favors the Progressive Socialist collective responsibility to protect all (citizens) from social risks through State backed: food stamps, welfare programs, extended unemployment benefits, guaranteed health care, bailing large companies (with big Unions), forcing renegotiation of mortgages, class action law suits, and other measures.
    2. Obama advocates for a strong state that offers the “positive right” of political and economic justice to its citizens.
    3. Obama in on record (here) complaining that the U.S. Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties,” that dictates what government “can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
    4. Obama favors higher energy prices, carbon taxes, restrictions on drilling, refining, and subsidies of green technology for the “common good,” which may or may not be at the expenses of higher conventional growth and jobs - that's not the point, the point is we can use private property rights, free markets (free people buying green) to provide for the 'common good'. Instead of resorting to the use of State coercion.

    As a matter of fact, the use of State coercion is 'normal' I doubt most 'free' Americans even understand they're being legally regressed against. Which, in my opinion, undermines the development of sound solutions to social problems WITHOUT the use of State coercion. Which is why we have to wait until the complete collapse of the social institution (see Government schooling) before people actually decide to do something about it (Private/Charter/Democratic/Montessori/Freeplay schools). We don't have a strong foundation in child pedagogy because the State stepped into the market and destroyed it.

    Oh, and the State can now take away your documents. Which, you shouldn't need to begin with.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2015
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    1) is mostly inaccurate as well as not being socialist (bailouts of large private corporations are largely contrary to socialist principles, for example)
    2) is not socialist in particular (other ideologies share the overall goal)
    3) That's just an accurate description of the Constitution. Obama is a Constitutional lawyer.
    4) None of that is socialism.

    You don't know what socialism is. You don't have a clue about it. Why is that?
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Which does help explain why you haven't got a clue about what socialism means - you're getting your information from sources like that. Your entire worldview rests on taking that kind of swill seriously.

    Bailing out large private capitalist corporations is capitalism, not socialism.

    Mandating that private citizens purchase medical insurance from private capitalist corporations is not socialism. Whether or not it involves free-market exchange is beside the point - lots of capitalist setups don't involve any market exchange at all.

    He's a rightwing socialist? He needs a new logo shape, instead of that rainbow arch. How about a square circle?
     
  23. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Ahhh... The sweet smell of smog in the morning again. Let the free market handle it, right? Why ever did we impose government restrictions on pollution? I forget... Oh, yeah:

    Donora, Pennsylvania smog disaster

    The front page has one column headings:"Death of 15 Laid to Smog" and "At Least 50 Ill in Pittsburgh Area". 1st report coverage on the Donora smog disaster near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

    http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/596884

    But hey, China was going strong - except I hear they're going all fascist on us and starting to restrict pollution as well - what's the world coming to?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page