How close is the US to becoming a totalitarian state?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

DinoDoc, you're pathetic. You talk bull.****s like Fez. Get more informations about what happened before you dare talk of that to me.

Anyone besides me see the problem with this? (bolding mine)

Woohoo! Let's hear it for people who complain about the outcome of the 2000 election without even glancing at the U.S. Constitution!

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
(Also see Asher's recent threat about being afraid to post here anymore because of potential future retaliation from the government.)

Check the user name again.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

DinoDoc, you're pathetic. You talk bull.****s like Fez. Get more informations about what happened before you dare talk of that to me.

Well, you started bullsh1tting first. He only responded to your ridiculous nonsense in the same way.

[Lord Merciless]

I agree that corporations have more influence on the politics today than during 1960s, but they are no where near the power they enjoyed between the latter quarter of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th century.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Woohoo! Let's hear it for people who complain about the outcome of the 2000 election without even glancing at the U.S. Constitution!

Amen.

[Alinestra Covelia]

What was it that they say about civilization?

"Mankind is only three meals away from anarchy".

Everything's relative. In America, you live in the knowledge that your rights protect you from being gunned down in the streets, but you also live knowing that the legal system can be every bit as arbitrary and crushing as a despot - a mere word or action or example of professional incompetence can get your sorry butt sued, screwed, and tattooed.

In China, you live knowing that the media are state controlled, that the cities are the best places to earn money, and that (in all probability) your relatives don't live there, so you are economically bound to send back money to them while you make it. You probably care far less about highfalutin politics than you do about the state of your paychecks and company.

And in Britain you don't care about anything except football and beer, but any infringement on those is cause for a fight.

[Shi Huangdi]

It's not a totaltarian state. If it were, we wouldn't be free to choose our leaders. But we can and do let all sorts of people campaign for office, and if we had wanted too in 2000 we could have elected Nader.

WRT to claiming Bush stole the 2000 election, even if Gore had gotten the recount he wanted Bush still would have won.

[Bereta_Eder]

It's totalitarian.

[CapitanGarlic]

originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Yea I know. We shouldn't have the right to get rid of our freedoms like that. I want to move to a country where people aren't allowed to choose whether they can turn their freedoms over in exchange for safety.

Wait, isn't the right to give up freedoms a freedom in and of itself?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by CapitanGarlic

originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Yea I know. We shouldn't have the right to get rid of our freedoms like that. I want to move to a country where people aren't allowed to choose whether they can turn their freedoms over in exchange for safety.

Wait, isn't the right to give up freedoms a freedom in and of itself?

That was one of the points made in my post.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, the right of habeas Corpus, and a fair and free trial for American citizens is threatened by the new law that states that the Government can, without any judicial oversight ability, classify an American citizen as an ilegal combatant thus denying them not only constitutional guarantees but also Geneva convention guarantees.

I see this often, but a writ of Habeous corpus applies AFTER you have been imprisoned:
" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. "

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm

Where exactly has this been threatened?
I hear you say it's being done, but where, and to whom?

Then there was that issue brought up by Che of denying some peole the right to move about freely because of political statements they had made. Then there is the fact that as part fo the patriot act, the burden of proof authorities had to meet to get searches approved by the copurts has been lowered.

Isn't this covered under the sedition act of 1798?

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/sedact.html

That is nothing new, nor is it attributed to the Bush administration.

So, thats the 1st, 4th, and 6th ammendments that are under some form of 'threat'.

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No proposal given yet contridicts this, so it can't be the first amendment, let's try the forth:
Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You will notice the word in bold, unreasonable, which the federal government determines, so it can't be article 4, let's look at #6:
Article [VI.]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Again, no conflict, as the crime comitted is against the federal government, so they are the "district" mentioned, nor are military tribunals inconsistant with this amendment, only the rules of evidence are different, and nowhere is that mentioned in the amendment, so we see that your examples are not validated by the laws of the United States.
Here are the amendments, if anyone would care to look at them:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

I'm affraid your argument is not accurate, so I'll ask again, what "civil liberties" are threatened?

[DinoDoc]

Can I have a link? I don't remember that thread.

Originally posted by Zkribbler
(Also see Asher's recent threat about being afraid to post here anymore because of potential future retaliation from the government.)

[Sava]

Jesus Christ Chris, you really are pathetic...

Habeas Corpus is all but dead; children have God forced upon them in school; Bush is probably going to get some voucher program for private schools passed (which is a backdoor for subsidizing religious schools)...

A perfect example for the lack of Habeas Corpus is the recent protests in Chicago. People were detained by police during the protests for 72 hours and then released. They were not charged with any crime. They were not arrested. So go stop with your quoting of the constitution; wake the f**k up... American big business controls this country; Republicans and Democrats alike are their puppets.


But then again, when you are an ignorant WASP, you probably don't see how our civil liberties are all but non-existent.

[DinoDoc]

This is the better venue to troll Chris in Sava: http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumd...?s=&forumid=18

[Sava]

Any specific thread?

I would, but I'm actually going out right now to buy Civ:Play The World. I sure hope it doesn't suck. Unfortunately, I will have to download a patch before I even play it