These repubs have the gall to talk about God as they are hacking away at our social compact. Faux outrage, hypocrites

Turboguy wrote: BAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! You actually believe that? Oh my God.

Yep. Well, that and I wanted to yank your chain with both hands, TG. And mission accomplished
You forget that I'm your complete opposite, so don't be surprised when sometimes I don't agree with the world according to Turboguy, even at the risk of invoking extreme use of the quotation function and capitalized laughter. Once in a great while I'll be on the same page maybe, but definitely not always. You should know me better than that after all these years and all the times we've debated stuff like this. In order for there to be balance in the universe I'm the liberal counterpart to, well, you. Yin and yang. You wake up hating everyone, and I'm far more selective and require a reason. See how it works?
And dude - gratz on completing a post without insulting the entire population of the random sovereign nation you decided you don't like today. Must have taken some self control, especially with me being a huge fan of (here it comes)...Britain's National Heath Service!!! Actually, that one was a freebie, so have at it. Don't forget to start the next post with something like "BAAWAAAWAAA", "HAAAHAAAHAA" or "BAAAHAAAHAAA". Or whatever.
I'd happily blame Bush for everything if I had time, so give me a point back. And I don't think the GOP is racist - look at John Boehner. They elected him as the house speaker and he's clearly a person of color. Orange, but it's a color.
Jeez, why is it that conservatives claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views? No, wait - I can't steal that one because they're really not interested in other people's views


PS. Jacksdad's Doohickeys (TM) are made in China and are, quite frankly, of questionable quality (we've had problems with the handles) and possibly contaminated with heavy metals judging by the nausea and the weird stains they leave on your hands. Selling them under threat of physical violence is the only way I can stay in business. It's free enterprise and my Sicilian business partners are in complete agreement. Returns require a receipt and the understanding that Big Sal will be "taking care of it" personally, so business has actually been pretty good.

It's disturbing how many things and people are now labelled "un-American". Haven't seen this much anger and paranoia since 9/11 and the way Bush (ding - another point) and his little gang of bullies railroaded everything through by throwing that one out whenever someone voiced dissent. We roll out the cavalry and drop a few billion every time we think foreign nationals are being mistreated by their government, but God forbid we should help our own. That's just un-American. Go figure

Pixie wrote: Sounds familiar?       2. neo-feudalism The phenomenon of corporations taking control of cultures and indiviuals through money, policies, practices, and gatekeeping in general to the point that they control many aspects of everyday private life. Because of neo-feudalism, I now work 60 hours a week just to keep my job, so I have no life outside of work. I had to stop smoking/go on a diet/get my tats removed/buy phone service from company X as a condition of employment. Neo-feudalism is killing me. Under neo-feudalism, those with money and power tell those without "We own your ass."

Wait, did you say 0bamaphone? I gotta gets me one of dem shets.

You think 0bamacare ISN'T corporations taking control of cultures and individuals?

Illuminating.

For extra credit think about who will benefit most from 0bamacare. Hint: It's not the people.

My question is, Are they going to let everything crash while we are still armed?

Sedition

A revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority, usually in the form of Treason or Defamation against government.

Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

The crime of seditious conspiracy is committed when two or more persons in any state or U.S. territory conspire to levy war against the U.S. government. A person commits the crime of advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government when she willfully advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government by force, publishes material that advocates the overthrow of the government by force, or organizes persons to overthrow the government by force. A person found guilty of seditious conspiracy or advocating the overthrow of the government may be fined and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison. States also maintain laws that punish similar advocacy and conspiracy against the state government.

Governments have made sedition illegal since time immemorial. The precise acts that constitute sedition have varied. In the United States, Congress in the late eighteenth century believed that government should be protected from "false, scandalous and malicious" criticisms. Toward this end, Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, which authorized the criminal prosecution of persons who wrote or spoke falsehoods about the government, Congress, the president, or the vice president. The act was to expire with the term of President John Adams.

The Sedition Act failed miserably. Thomas Jefferson opposed the act, and after he was narrowly elected president in 1800, public opposition to the act grew. The act expired in 1801, but not before it was used by President Adams to prosecute numerous public supporters of Jefferson, his challenger in the presidential election of 1800. One writer, Matthew Lyon, a congressman from Vermont, was found guilty of seditious libel for stating, in part, that he would not be the "humble advocate" of the Adams administration when he saw "every consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice" (Lyon's Case, 15 F. Cas. 1183 [D. Vermont 1798] [No. 8646]). Vermont voters reelected Lyon while he was in jail. Jefferson, after winning the election and assuming office, pardoned all persons convicted under the act.

In the 1820s and 1830s, as the movement to abolish Slavery grew in size and force in the South, Southern states began to enact seditious libel laws. Most of these laws were used to prosecute persons critical of slavery, and they were abolished after the Civil War. The federal government was no less defensive; Congress enacted seditious conspiracy laws before the Civil War aimed at persons advocating secession from the United States. These laws were the precursors to the present-day federal seditious conspiracy statutes.

In the late nineteenth century, Congress and the states began to enact new limits on speech, most notably statutes prohibitingObscenity. At the outset of World War I, Congress passed legislation designed to suppress antiwar speech. The Espionage Act of 1917 (ch. 30, tit. 1, § 3, 40 Stat. 219), as amended by ch. 75, § 1, 40 Stat 553, put a number of pacifists into prison. Socialist leader eugene v. debs was convicted for making an antiwar speech in Canton, Ohio (Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211, 39 S. Ct. 252, 63 L. Ed. 566 [1919]). Charles T. Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were convicted for circulating to military recruits a leaflet that advocated opposition to the draft and suggested that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on Involuntary Servitude (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

The U.S. Supreme Court did little to protect the right to criticize the government until after 1927. That year, Justice louis d. brandeis wrote an influential concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 47 S. Ct. 641, 71 L. Ed. 1095 (1927), that was to guide First Amendment Jurisprudence for years to come. In Whitney the High Court upheld the convictions of political activists for violation of federal anti-syndicalism laws, or laws that prohibit the teaching of crime. In his concurring opinion, Brandeis maintained that even if a person advocates violation of the law, "it is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on." Beginning in the 1930s, the Court became more protective of political free speech rights.

The High Court has protected the speech of racial supremacists and separatists, labor organizers, advocates of racialIntegration, and opponents of the draft for the Vietnam War. However, it has refused to declare unconstitutional all sedition statutes and prosecutions. In 1940, to silence radicals and quell Nazi or communist subversion during the burgeoning Second World War, Congress enacted the Smith Act (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2385, 2387), which outlawed sedition and seditious conspiracy. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the act in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951).

Sedition prosecutions are extremely rare, but they do occur. Shortly after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, the federal government prosecuted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric living in New Jersey, and nine codefendants on charges of seditious conspiracy. Rahman and the other defendants were convicted of violating the seditious conspiracy statute by engaging in an extensive plot to wage a war of Terrorism against the United States. With the exception of Rahman, they all were arrested while mixing explosives in a garage in Queens, New York, on June 24, 1993.

The defendants committed no overt acts of war, but all were found to have taken substantial steps toward carrying out a plot to levy war against the United States. The government did not have sufficient evidence that Rahman par ticipated in the actual plotting against the government or any other activities to prepare for terrorism. He was instead prosecuted for pro viding religious encouragement to his cocon spirators. Rahman argued that he only performed the function of a cleric and advised followers about the rules of Islam. He and the others were convicted, and on January 17, 1996, Rahman was sentenced to life imprisonment by Judge Michael Mukasey.

Following the September 11th Attacks of 2001, the federal government feared that terrorist networks were very real threats, and that if left unchecked, would lead to further insurrection. As a result, Congress enacted the Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272. Among other things, the act increases the president's authority to seize the property of individuals and organizations that the president determines have planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in hostilities or attacks against the United States.

The events of September 11 also led to the conviction of at least one American. In 2001, U.S. officials captured John Philip Walker Lindh, a U.S. citizen who had trained with terrorist organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Lindh, who became known as the "American Taliban," was indicted on ten counts, including conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals. In October 2002, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison

You truly believe what John Boehner and the house repubs  are doing is not revolting against authority?  Bullets flying  and violence ???   That is not what I was implying. 

Economic Collapse and the Debt Ceiling: The 4th Turning is Here

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Economic_Collapse_and_the_Debt_Ceiling%3A_The_4th_Turning_is_Here/29400/0/0/0/Y/M.html

"There are two distinct sectors of society emerging. One is buzzing with passion and new insights in the nature of our society and government. They are proactively using this knowledge to better the world (and themselves) in any way they can. Revolution is whispering in the wind. The other is passively reacting to things that are happening to them. They are becoming increasingly compliant with an overbearing, tyrannical government. Without a foundation, they go whichever way the wind blows.

History has shown us a societal situation like this before. During what are called “4th turnings” groups entrench themselves in the power structure and in support of it, and others organize to resist it. Famous Fourth Turnings of the past include: The Wars of the Roses (1459-1487), The American Revolution (1773-1794), The Civil War (1860-1865), and the Great Depression and World War II (1929-1946)

History is made up of highs and lows. During a high, government and institutions are built up while values are established and commonly held. Another generation is born and these institutions are questioned and undermined. Then, an “unraveling” era unfolds.

Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe document these patterns in their 1997 book The Fourth Turning. The book reminds us that the old adage “There is nothing new under the sun” is truly rooted in fact. The issues that we are facing today – with new faces and slightly different angles – are the same realities that our ancestors dealt with during their times of crisis.

“History is seasonal,” write Strauss and Howe, “…and winter is coming.” “Like nature’s winter, the saecular winter can come early or late. A Fourth Turning can be long and difficult, brief but severe, or (perhaps) mild. But, like winter, it cannot be averted. It must come in its turn.”

As a society we are sensing the coming winter and (hopefully) preparing accordingly, just as past generations did at their time of crisis. Government is certainly preparing for massive upheaval just in time for the arrival of the Fourth Turning. As Strauss and Howe point out, the outcome of this season of radical change and potential destruction is up to us.

The authors accurately predict in 1996 that one of the indicators of modern America’s Fourth Turning will be:

“An impasse over the federal budget reaches a stalemate. The president and Congress both refuse to back down, triggering a near-total government shutdown. The president declares emergency powers. Congress rescinds his authority. Dollar and bond prices plummet. The president threatens to stop Social Security checks. Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling. Default looms. Wall Street panics.”

All of the indicators are in front of us. The new generation has forgotten the lessons of the past. An entrenched elite is refusing to back down. The global economy is teetering on the brink of collapse. The human capacity for intuiting danger is raising red flags across the board. Resistance is growing. The cycle is repeating."

THE FOURTH TURNING 

READ it !

Nobody is more resentful than a childish president who continually refuses to sit down and have a discussion witth republicans!

John Boner = "The Weeping Carrot"

Now what happens??

Maybe about time for me to go out and buy that brand new Dodge truck that I've been wanting a couple of years now??? I think not.

Don't forget the sauce