PDA

View Full Version : USA Name Change?



john l
01-22-2010, 06:56 PM
In light of yesterdays Supreme Court Ruling, there may be rational to consider
a name change. United States of America is starting to become outdated and
ill fitting. Perhaps the new name should be: UNITED STATES AND CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA or maybe simply UNITED CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA.

john l
01-22-2010, 07:00 PM
you're quick. i just got on line and posted.

Phil Heffernan
01-23-2010, 01:01 AM
Why do I feel like Blade Runner? Thanks, Supreme Court, for the leg up, corporate wise....

seafox
01-23-2010, 02:07 AM
principle any law should be judged aginst does it increase or decreese the goverments power

if it increaces the goverments power and lessens the peoples freedom then it should be gotten rid of mecain finegold was bad law and just shows out last presidental election was between a leftest and a friggen closet comunist who won

way to go supream court

seafox
01-23-2010, 02:11 AM
Fascism; a form of goverment where property ( the means of making a living) is titled in privet names but through laws the use of property is strictly ruled by the state. example america in 2010 ad

BrianW
01-23-2010, 04:22 AM
The "bean" never forgets. :)

bobbys
01-23-2010, 04:35 AM
In light of yesterdays Supreme Court Ruling, there may be rational to consider
a name change. United States of America is starting to become outdated and
ill fitting. Perhaps the new name should be: UNITED STATES AND CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA or maybe simply UNITED CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA..

As the libs told us about the trials in NY ad nauseam .

Do not be afraid of our system, Its open for the world to see

john l
01-23-2010, 12:00 PM
if you are talking about the terrorism trial in NY, i'm not sure how it connects to your thought process.
btw - i'm not in favor of those trials in ny, but i do believe these folks are entitled to a trial and will be convicted. legally i don't know where they should
take place. maybe they should be moved to NW Oregon Coast.
as for your linking everyone who isn't in lockstep with you as lib in a disparaging manner - you are only revealing a personality or intellectual fault,
because contrary to your "either you're with us or against us" approach you fail to realize there are many shades of grey on every issue. me- i'm a conservative liberal so i don't fit your own preconcieved notions of who your
domestic enemy is.

Nicholas Carey
01-23-2010, 11:13 PM
No, no. They've been at it all along.

I think you have a failure to understand the definition of the word 'Fascism'. Thass prolly coz y'aint never took on ta look it up.

Corporations have been after this 'stuff' since they were old enough to be corruptible.

Umberto Eco enumerated 14 points of ur-fascism in his 1995 essay, "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt" at http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html.

In 2004, Laurence Britt looked at several fascist regimes and came up with his own 14 defining characteristics: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2.

Both map rather tellingly to the American right wing :eek: , but I think Umberto Ecco is, I think, by far the better essayist.

[And I think I'll just lay in a good supply of powder and shot and make sure my firelock is clean and well-greased.]

As Umberto Eco said in the above essay:
Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, "I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares." Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world. Franklin Roosevelt's words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: "If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." Freedom and liberation are an unending task.

McMike
01-24-2010, 09:32 AM
So you're gonna sit there and pretend that the US Justice Department is a 'liberal' organization? You wanna deny those bad, bad terrorists any justice at all, and throw them in the oubliette? Don't you understand that's the way it's done in Fascist states? The same sort of place that US soldiers have been dying to destroy for the past 200 years?

Don't you get it? Every time you and your little neofascist buddies howl that you're being denied the pleasure of simply lynching the bastards, you figuratively take a piss on the graves of every US soldier who has died so that liberty shall not perish from the Earth.

Didja fergit about Jesus, you Christian? He said something along the lines of 'as you do unto these, the least of my brothers, you do also unto me'. When you deny the process of Justice to these, the scum of the Earth, you help clear a path to having some gang of jack-booted thugs show up at your door at three AM, to drag you away, never to be seen or heard again. They'll do it in the name of 'National Security'.


Dude, you stole my line:D.

The funny thing is, a substantial percentage of "Americans" have no idea that giving the freedom to corporations to do as they please will destroy freedom for the masses via rule #1 of human nature "might makes right". They feel pretty cool because they think they are performing some huge civil uprising by "creating" another "Tea Party" when, in fact, they’re blindly, through their own ignorance, ensuring their own poverty and oppression for generations to come. Those are usually the same people who call for the lynching of the terrorists. The way I see it, those people’s ideas are more in line with inner city gangs than that of the US Constitution. "Thugs unite"!!

These are the same loud mouths that will get a bullet behind the ear. They don't see that under the New World Order they're creating that in a machine, the squeaky wheel gets greased.

These are also the same people who cry "every man for them selves" when it comes to healthcare, you know the ones, they yell, "If you can’t afford it then just die and decrease the surplus population". Here’s another line, "I’m not gonna pay for someone who’s too lazy or stupid to get a real job that pays benefits". I wonder if they realize that the new rules under Corporate America would simply let them die because it’s cheaper to replace them than it is to fix them.

I ask the real smart people who think going back to the feudal system would be a good idea, do you really know what it is you’re asking for? Most of you will be servants and not royalty, I think that would be divine justice and would enjoy watching you eat the rotten fruit of your labors, except for the fact that you’d probably bring me down with you.

Like you say Oz, with 78% of America being Christian, there seems to be a lot of people in this country who sleep through the sermon every Sunday morning.

bob winter
01-24-2010, 09:53 AM
At the risk of sounding even dumber than I am, what did the court rule on?

John Smith
01-24-2010, 09:57 AM
if you are talking about the terrorism trial in NY, i'm not sure how it connects to your thought process.
btw - i'm not in favor of those trials in ny, but i do believe these folks are entitled to a trial and will be convicted. legally i don't know where they should
take place. maybe they should be moved to NW Oregon Coast.
as for your linking everyone who isn't in lockstep with you as lib in a disparaging manner - you are only revealing a personality or intellectual fault,
because contrary to your "either you're with us or against us" approach you fail to realize there are many shades of grey on every issue. me- i'm a conservative liberal so i don't fit your own preconcieved notions of who your
domestic enemy is.
I have to confess puzzlement at those concerned with losing our country, when so few of them appear to have read the constitution.

That document CLEARLY says the accused is to be tried in the district where the crime was committed.

I'm further puzzled by those who've been telling me that Bush's efforts have made us safe HERE because fighting them there has depleted their ability to attack us here, are now afraid of an attack here if we try the accused here.

I also believe there's been 4 Supreme Court decisions that Bush has lost regarding the treatment of the detainees.

While I don't agree with the Supreme Court decision on corporate spending, I'm not sure but that we're overreacting. When there were no restrictions, Howard Hughes gave millions to both major campaigns. No matter who won, they owed him.

We have a public that, as a whole, seems to be in an anti coroporation mood. CEO's get fired with huge retirement packages. Some fail, keep their jobs, and get huge bonuses.

We may be entering a time in history where more corporate money given to one's campaign will cost him votes on election day.

This may play very well with the 29% who believe in totally free enterprise, but the rest of us may shy from the candidate who are getting the most corporate donations. This my drive us to the Hughes syndrome, where everyone will have more money.