Cadillac Owners Forum banner

21 - 25 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
A boat
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
*looks up* I do believe there needs to be some post conolidation heh.

Ralph said:
Of course our freedom of speech is protected just like every other Liberal democracy in the world. It is in our constitution just like it is in the American one.
I'll first give you a little pain killer before I let you walk into the trap in which I set... even the US in which we have free speech, there is stuff that isn't protected which I believe should be (everything). Such as screaming "fire" in a theatre and what not. It should be up to the business owner, not the government to set the rules regarding that. Then there is the whole obscenity thing (a supreme court ****up I might add), and jackasses like Asscroft and Alberto Gonzales trying to make porn illegal for consenting adults. Homie don't play that. Unfortunately, alot of the time porn doesn't meet the conditions for obsenity as defined by the Miller Test. There of course is other bullshit as well.

However, as bad as it is that we have "hate crime" laws, we at least don't have "hate speech" laws. If we didn't, I wouldn't be surprised if some ******* reported this thread, and all of our asses get taken to court because of something we said - not did - might be "harmful" to another demographic.

Ralph said:
Then explain why Canada and all the other European countries have so many troops in Afghanistan where the real terrorist threat is. It could also be argued that Canada and the European democracy combat rogue states and terrorism by subtler and more effective means like diplomatic engagement and economic incentive which do not attract the wrath of others.

But the issue here is there is just as much if not more freedom for Canadians and Western Europeans than Americans.
Did you give your lunch money to the bully in elementary school as well?

Ralph said:
Can you post that exact link from that site? I couldn't find that specific page.

Some brief examples of erroding freedoms in the U.S from an international perspective.....

age of consent continually rising due to extreme pressure from Christian fundamentalist groups. See California and many others on this one.

The U.S. Federal system gives individual states more control to set laws and in some cases this leads to curtailing of citizen rights. Utah-(from what I understand) you have to get a type of club membership for drinking. Availability of citizens consuming alcohol restricted.

In Holland and to a lesser degree, Canada, you can smoke as much grass as you want, but NOT under U.S. Federal Law.

How about FCC Restrictions in the U.S. The Federal restrictions for what can be seen on tv, on the U.S. main broadcast channels (ABC, NBC, etc.) there are severe restrictions on sex and language, not so in Europe and Canada. And just wait until you see the full results from Bush's "War on pornography" really take effect. Soon groups will be complaining so much, you won't be allowed to see a chick in a bikini on American television because people claim to be "offended."

these are just off the top of my head....
Here's the link to the PDF. Page 89.

As for the other things, the supreme court is clearly not doing it's job. From the US constitution

9th Amendment said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and

10th Amendment said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Then of course there are the other cases of the constitution gettin thrashed. However, if/when the time comes during my lifetime, I can point out exactly why I'm putting some sorry son of a bitch down for thieving my rights.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but hollowpoints expand on impact..

Ralph said:
And the money I make is for my private use too, so what? That's not what we are talking about. That is not being argued...
Actually, free trade, money, and economics in general was the original topic of debate on this thread. The train just got derailed.

Ralph said:
Did you vote for him?
Oh hellz no!
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
Sinister Angel said:
even the US in which we have free speech, there is stuff that isn't protected which I believe should be (everything). Such as screaming "fire" in a theatre and what not. It should be up to the business owner, not the government to set the rules regarding that. Then there is the whole obscenity thing (a supreme court ****up I might add), and jackasses like Asscroft and Alberto Gonzales trying to make porn illegal for consenting adults. Homie don't play that. Unfortunately, alot of the time porn doesn't meet the conditions for obsenity as defined by the Miller Test. There of course is other bullshit as well.
However, as bad as it is that we have "hate crime" laws, we at least don't have "hate speech" laws. If we didn't, I wouldn't be surprised if some ******* reported

Did you give your lunch money to the bully in elementary school as well?

As for the other things, the supreme court is clearly not doing it's job. From the US constitution and
Then of course there are the other cases of the constitution gettin thrashed.

It might indeed seem that your Supreme Court is not doing its job. However, the Supreme Courts in other (i.e., socialist Western European) countries, evidently have been to their citizens' satisfaction. So I would still maintain that a place like Holland, whose citizens pay more taxes, have more freedom, because their courts and police won't, for example, bust them for smoking a joint or visiting a whorehouse.

It's true that many liberal democracies have "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws, and to a small extent they do limit speech, but these countries (including both of ours) also have laws against uttering threats. Should it be legal to make death threats? Against a group of people? The problem with allowing businesses and private individuals to regulate what can or cannot be said, is that it would make public life unliveable, and more trouble and aggravation would arise out of that than were there one basic civil law. (Look at the old days when each county had their own movie censorship laws. It was a mess until 1967 when the MPAA came out with a national ratings system. Not mandatory, but the idea is the point).

And in elementary school, I didn't give my lunch money to the bullies, just like Spanish, Canadian, and Austrian troops have been fighting the Taliban bullies since that conflict started. On the other hand, I didn't go around picking fights with other kids who never bullied me in the first place. So I guess those kids (who may have been jerks in their own homes) never threatened me at school or in my own yard. That's one reason why Canada and socialist Austria are considered to have better living conditions than the US: they fight the real bullies when it counts, but leave the other ones alone. And still have their lunch money to spend on lunch, instead of hollow points.
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
Sinister Angel said:
Ok, let's try to clarify some things. Are you saying that government's should be able to control who companies trade with due to the fact that free trade by that company would kill the economy of that country, or are you saying that free trade between other countries would kill that countries economy.
Governments have always had control over who their (locally registered) corporations do international business.

What I'm saying is that if a country's economy is going to be hurt by free trade with another country, then it is probably not in its economic interest to sign that deal. It's better for them to protect their inefficient industries until they're strong enough to be in the world market. Of course, the catch is that without international competition it takes those industries much longer to become competitive. But then it's probably still better for the workers if they're insulated.
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
Just got an interesting pm from another member here at our forum, and here it is........(is it true??) If true, seems like quite a "blow."

"in S.F. they just passed a law that all hand gun owners must turn in their guns. They are now illegal. This is dumb, all the innocent people that just have a gun for protection are gonna turn them in, and then the criminals are going to still have their guns LOL"
 
21 - 25 of 25 Posts
Top