Free speech in the USA

[PRC-UTE]

Arrest, Death Threat, for Farmer with Upside Down Flag
By Matthew Rothschild
July 19, 2006

Dale Klyn raises beef cows in Corydon, Iowa.

For the past six years, he has been flying an American flag on his property.

But since May 21, that flag has been upside down.

He gives two reasons.

First, he’s angry at a judge for allowing a debtor of his to declare bankruptcy. The debtor, who had bought a business from Klyn on a contract and still owed him $282,000, now only has to “pay me six cents on the dollar,” says Klyn. “The judge approved that on the 18th of May. I was pretty upset about that.”

Second, he wants to show solidarity for Terri Jones.

She’s the Iowa mom who has been flying her flag upside down after her son returned from the Iraq War and committed suicide. (Klyn had never met her before.)

“When I got the Des Moines Register and read the article about Terri Jones and how her son didn’t get the medical attention he needed, I decided I’m going to support her and oppose what the judge had done and fly my flag upside down,” he says.

It got a reaction.

“I went to the local Case equipment dealer and bought some parts, and the salesman come out and he asked me why I was flying the flag upside down,” Klyn says. “So I explained it to him.”

But the salesman wasn’t sold, telling Klyn, “I’ve lost all respect for you. I’ll buy you a one-way ticket anywhere you want to go out of the country,” Klyn recalls.

Klyn says his postal worker also remarked on it.

“The mail carrier left me a personal note,” he says.

A local TV news reporter then came out and did a story on him.

“The next thing I knew I’d been charged with disorderly conduct,” he says. “I was surprised. I have the right and the freedom to do that.”

On July 6, Klyn, represented by the Iowa ACLU, met with a magistrate.

“I pled not guilty,” Klyn says. “No trial date has been set.” Terri Jones, by the way, went to court that day to support him.

“She came to my hearing," he says. “It was very kind of her.”

Alan Wilson, the county attorney who is prosecuting the case, did not return three phone messages for comment.

But Klyn’s troubles go beyond this court case.

He faces death threats from a forum on a Marine vets’ website, http://www.leatherneck.com, which calls itself the “Marine Corps Community for USMC Veterans.”

That forum contained the following remarks from four different Marines:

“Any scout snipers live in Corydon, Iowa???”

“Corn hole ’m.”

“Fly him under it upside down.”

“If the flag is flying upside down, it means he is in trouble, right? I think we Marines should show up and get him ‘out’ of trouble.”

Says Klyn: “I view it as a threat.”

*Source: http://progressive.org/mag_mc071906

[razboz]

Poeple being arrested for using their right to free speech? Death threats from elite groups of the Army? Excessive and needlesss wars?

Sounds like fascism to me...

[Dyst]

I'm sorry but this is nothing new.

Free speech and freedom are empty words.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Nazis can deny the holocaust and say they want to exterminate all jews and homosexuals, the KKK can proclaim its hatred and disgust of "niggers" (sic), but you cannot fly your flag upside down...
Awesome country <_<

[MrDoom]

Free speech and free press have never existed in America.

[namepending]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:42 AM
Free speech and free press have never existed in America.
That should be broadcast on a loudspeaker down every street in America

[black magick hustla]

Free speech doesn&#39;t exists anywhere where there is a ruling class.

We can discuss happily hypothetical shit here because we are not deemed dangerous yet.

But when the ruling class becomes endangered, be sure there won&#39;t be any free speech.

[TheGreatOne]

Do you think that in a communist society, capitalism supporters will have their right to free speech protected? Don&#39;t pretend the problem is a ruling class.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:45 PM
Free speech doesn&#39;t exists anywhere where there is a ruling class.

We can discuss happily hypothetical shit here because we are not deemed dangerous yet.

But when the ruling class becomes endangered, be sure there won&#39;t be any free speech.
Basically absolutely free speech never existed and probably it will never exist; I guess that even the majority of the people in this forum do not believe in free speech

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:47 PM
Do you think that in a communist society, capitalism supporters will have their right to free speech protected? Don&#39;t pretend the problem is a ruling class.
:lol: Who&#39;s going to stop them? The state that we abolished? The inexisting police force? The army that ceased to exist?

[MrDoom]

They wouldn&#39;t be a potent force under communism, anyhow. I can see it now...

Cappie: Let me have this factory, and if you work in it I&#39;ll give you a little of the wealth you produced and keep the rest&#33;

Everyone Else: [flatly] No.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:44 PM
They wouldn&#39;t be a potent force under communism, anyhow. I can see it now...

Cappie: Let me have this factory, and if you work in it I&#39;ll give you a little of the wealth you produced and keep the rest&#33;

Everyone Else: [flatly] No.
Exactly :P

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:50 PM
Poeple being arrested for using their right to free speech? Death threats from elite groups of the Army? Excessive and needlesss wars?

Sounds like fascism to me...
1) the guy hasn&#39;t been jailed, fact is his charges are either going ot be unrelated to the flag or thrown out.

2)the marines are part of the navy, and while they are a great fighting force they are not what the military considers an "elite" force. thats delta, seals, and rangers among others


They wouldn&#39;t be a potent force under communism, anyhow. I can see it now...

Cappie: Let me have this factory, and if you work in it I&#39;ll give you a little of the wealth you produced and keep the rest&#33;

Everyone Else: [flatly] No.

actually it would go like "i have a factory and steal, would you like me ot pay you currency to form it into tihngs i can sell?" and people saying "yes i dont like living like a subsitannce farmer"

[red team]

actually it would go like "i have a factory and steal, would you like me ot pay you currency to form it into tihngs i can sell?" and people saying "yes i dont like living like a subsitannce farmer"

The reason why Communism is not possible at that point is the same reason why there&#39;s subsistence farmers in the first place.

[theraven]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 28 2006, 01:26 AM

actually it would go like "i have a factory and steal, would you like me ot pay you currency to form it into tihngs i can sell?" and people saying "yes i dont like living like a subsitannce farmer"

The reason why Communism is not possible at that point is the same reason why there&#39;s subsistence farmers in the first place.
under the communist economic system thats what people would be reduced to. unless you have some big central committee distrubuting resources or are a believer in a technocracy...

[TheGreatOne]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 27 2006, 09:58 PM--> (s3rna @ Aug 27 2006, 09:58 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 10:47 PM
Do you think that in a communist society, capitalism supporters will have their right to free speech protected? Don&#39;t pretend the problem is a ruling class.
:lol: Who&#39;s going to stop them? The state that we abolished? The inexisting police force? The army that ceased to exist? [/b]
The people who benefit from the hard work of others will use force to silence him and there will be no way to protect his free speech.

[lithium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:11 PM
Nazis can deny the holocaust and say they want to exterminate all jews and homosexuals, the KKK can proclaim its hatred and disgust of "niggers" (sic), but you cannot fly your flag upside down...
Awesome country <_<
But what if you see your flag as a representation of something you are expressely against? If I, as a Socialist, saw my country&#39;s flag as a representation of fascism, capitalism, and racism, why should I be forced to fly the flag properly?

I propose a national "Upside-Down Flag Day". Fuckit, international.

EDIT: ok I get the sarcasm now. /me gets jokes. Really :P

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:54 PM

They wouldn&#39;t be a potent force under communism, anyhow. I can see it now...

Cappie: Let me have this factory, and if you work in it I&#39;ll give you a little of the wealth you produced and keep the rest&#33;

Everyone Else: [flatly] No.

actually it would go like "i have a factory and steal, would you like me ot pay you currency to form it into tihngs i can sell?" and people saying "yes i dont like living like a subsitannce farmer"
How would this person have aquired a private factory and private source of steel in the first place?

And why would people under a communist system willingly work for wages, which are inherently less than the full value of their labor? And where did the currency come from? At this point all money would have been recycled.

[theraven]

Originally posted by MrDoom+Aug 28 2006, 02:33 AM--> (MrDoom @ Aug 28 2006, 02:33 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 11:54 PM

They wouldn&#39;t be a potent force under communism, anyhow. I can see it now...

Cappie: Let me have this factory, and if you work in it I&#39;ll give you a little of the wealth you produced and keep the rest&#33;

Everyone Else: [flatly] No.

actually it would go like "i have a factory and steal, would you like me ot pay you currency to form it into tihngs i can sell?" and people saying "yes i dont like living like a subsitannce farmer"
How would this person have aquired a private factory and private source of steel in the first place?

And why would people under a communist system willingly work for wages, which are inherently less than the full value of their labor? [/b]
perhaps he and his co-owners built and mined it.

and they would work for it becuase their labor is worthless without materials.

[lithium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:47 PM
Do you think that in a communist society, capitalism supporters will have their right to free speech protected? Don&#39;t pretend the problem is a ruling class.
They could have free speech if they wanted. But consider the fact that a Communist society would only be brought about by mass public support. If the majority of the people support Communism, then why should we worry about a couple of eejits who want a system that is already known not to work?

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:35 AM
perhaps he and his co-owners built and mined it.

and they would work for it becuase their labor is worthless without materials.
That&#39;s laughable. No one would want to return to your outdated, archaic system.

"Yeah, now that we&#39;re free, let&#39;s enslave ourselves to private owners and work for wages&#33;"

[theraven]

Originally posted by lithium+Aug 28 2006, 02:37 AM--> (lithium @ Aug 28 2006, 02:37 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 09:47 PM
Do you think that in a communist society, capitalism supporters will have their right to free speech protected? Don&#39;t pretend the problem is a ruling class.
They could have free speech if they wanted. But consider the fact that a Communist society would only be brought about by mass public support. If the majority of the people support Communism, then why should we worry about a couple of eejits who want a system that is already known not to work? [/b]
in response



They could have free speech if they wanted. But consider the fact that a Capitlist society would only be brought about by mass public support. If the majority of the people support Capitilism, then why should we worry about a couple of eejits who want a system that is already known not to work?

[theraven]

Originally posted by MrDoom+Aug 28 2006, 02:43 AM--> (MrDoom @ Aug 28 2006, 02:43 AM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 02:35 AM
perhaps he and his co-owners built and mined it.

and they would work for it becuase their labor is worthless without materials.
That&#39;s laughable. No one would want to return to your outdated, archaic system.

"Yeah, now that we&#39;re free, let&#39;s enslave ourselves to private owners and work for wages&#33;" [/b]
what are they free of? quality goods and services? or how about all that damned food. i bet they&#39;d really hate that. :rolleyes: believe me after 10 years when they are sustiance farming people will be begging for capitlism back

unless again we are talking a technocracy.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:46 AM
what are they free of? quality goods and services? or how about all that damned food. i bet they&#39;d really hate that. :rolleyes: believe me after 10 years when they are sustiance farming people will be begging for capitlism back

unless again we are talking a technocracy.
They would be free from exploitation and the state.

If people are still "sustiance farming", then they aren&#39;t out of the socialist transition (the revolutionary, democratic dictatorship of the proletariat).

[red team]

under the communist economic system thats what people would be reduced to. unless you have some big central committee distrubuting resources or are a believer in a technocracy...

Widespread computerization and computer networks makes a technocracy-like system possible. With computers at every node of production sending feedback on demand for products and cost of production and performing calculations 24 hours a day 7 days a week a very precise self-regulating economy is possible which doesn&#39;t need to rely on debt trading and profits at all. With the emerging technology of robotics constantly developed by people now working in alienating, dead-end jobs the need for psychological debts for labour can be further diminished essentially making most of the economy a labourless machine which supplies consumers as long as energy is fed in.

[lithium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:44 AM
in response



They could have free speech if they wanted. But consider the fact that a Capitlist society would only be brought about by mass public support. If the majority of the people support Capitilism, then why should we worry about a couple of eejits who want a system that is already known not to work?
Because capitalism has already been shown not to work, Socialism is the next step in natural economic development, and a huge number of people (possibly a majority) support leftist politics and/or economics, whether it be Socialism, Communism or whatever.

You just have to accept that the phase of capitalism has been and gone. Not because we say so, but because that evolution of society is a fact.

[theraven]

Originally posted by lithium+Aug 28 2006, 02:54 AM--> (lithium @ Aug 28 2006, 02:54 AM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 02:44 AM
in response



They could have free speech if they wanted. But consider the fact that a Capitlist society would only be brought about by mass public support. If the majority of the people support Capitilism, then why should we worry about a couple of eejits who want a system that is already known not to work?
Because capitalism has already been shown not to work, Socialism is the next step in natural economic development, and a huge number of people (possibly a majority) support leftist politics and/or economics, whether it be Socialism, Communism or whatever.

You just have to accept that the phase of capitalism has been and gone. Not because we say so, but because that evolution of society is a fact. [/b]
capitlsim doesnt owrk on what basis? on the basis of your say so?

many people support socialim/leftist policies because they are poor and have nothing to lose. however as a rule capilsit polices will better the vast majority of any countires citizesn lives

[which doctor]

theraven (who seems to be drinking),


capitlsim doesnt owrk on what basis? on the basis of your say so?
On the basis that we can see it&#39;s foundations crumbling as we speak.


many people support socialim/leftist policies because they are poor and have nothing to lose.
So what?


however as a rule capilsit polices will better the vast majority of any countires citizesn lives
What is this "rule"? Sure capitalism has been progressive and helped improve the [double] standards of living in some countries, but it&#39;s time has come and gone.

[theraven]

On the basis that we can see it&#39;s foundations crumbling as we speak.


and where do we see that...



So what?

so that means they can&#39;t do anything mroe then overthrow the govnermetn and replaceit



What is this "rule"? Sure capitalism has been progressive and helped improve the [double] standards of living in some countries, but it&#39;s time has come and gone.

if well applied caplsitm has raised the standard of livin vastly in any country it has een tried. its time has far from passed.

[Janus]

and where do we see that...
Living standards are falling in many capitalist countries.


if well applied caplsitm has raised the standard of livin vastly in any country it has een tried. its time has far from passed.
They haven&#39;t helped out in Russia very much. And ifit does increase the standard of living it also expands the wealth gap.

[theraven]

Living standards are falling in many capitalist countries.


compared to preiovus capilisits experince yes,but not compared to non-capitlsit coutnires




They haven&#39;t helped out in Russia very much. And ifit does increase the standard of living it also expands the wealth gap.

the USSR&#39;s problems ahve a lot mroe to do with systematic issues thne capitlism.

[Janus]

compared to preiovus capilisits experince yes,but not compared to non-capitlsit coutnires
Much of the wealth in captialist nations depends on the exploitation of third world nations.


the USSR&#39;s problems ahve a lot mroe to do with systematic issues thne capitlism.
Back in the USSR, you were at least guranteed a job and a roof over your head.

[theraven]

Much of the wealth in captialist nations depends on the exploitation of third world nations.


not really, in fact those natiosn owuld be better off withou those cheap labourers.



Back in the USSR, you were at least guranteed a job and a roof over your head.

sure, even if the job was a mine in siberia and the roof over your head was a shack

[Janus]

not really, in fact those natiosn owuld be better off withou those cheap labourers.
Then why would foreign companies establish businesses there and invest in those countries if it weren&#39;t for that?


sure, even if the job was a mine in siberia and the roof over your head was a shack
:lol: It was generally better than that but even that would be better than what some face today.

[Janus]

Here are some links concerning this.

Living standards in the USSR (http://www.econ.ubc.ca/dp9718.pdf#search=%22Soviet%20Union%20living%20sta ndards%22)

Current standards of living (http://english.pravda.ru/russia/history/25-08-2005/8813-belarus-0)

[lithium]

Originally posted by FoB+Aug 28 2006, 03:09 AM--> (FoB @ Aug 28 2006, 03:09 AM)
theraven
capitlsim doesnt owrk on what basis? on the basis of your say so?
On the basis that we can see it&#39;s foundations crumbling as we speak. [/b]
Exactly. Capitalists are taking so much resources that these resources are beginning to run out. When they finally do run out the capitalists have nothing.

Take oil, for example. Much of the wealth of the USA is dependent on oil. Yet this fossil fuel is running out. So what does the US do? It takes oil from more countries, and tries to keep its stock up. Once the US has lots of oil, it can sell it back to the rest of the world and make big profits. But that oil will still run out. And when that happens the capitalist countries will fall apart.

Let&#39;s also take foodstuffs such as coffee as an example. First World countries - such as the US - captured land in Third World countries and are using it to grow coffee. However, in order to keep the coffee stockpile (and, hence, profits) up, the capitalists use the land far too intensively. As a result, the land is becoming void of nutrients needed to grow proper crops, and the soil is basically turning into sand. What does the US do? It takes more land. But like the oil, the land will run out. And when that happens the capitalist countries will fall apart.

[theraven]

Then why would foreign companies establish businesses there and invest in those countries if it weren&#39;t for that?

well the coutnry a s a whole does benfiit, however if your being purely selfish the countiy would keep its industy at home.



laugh.gif It was generally better than that but even that would be better than what some face today.

it was also generaly worse then what a lot have today


Exactly. Capitalists are taking so much resources that these resources are beginning to run out. When they finally do run out the capitalists have nothing.


yes resoruces are finite and they will be under communism too.


Take oil, for example. Much of the wealth of the USA is dependent on oil. Yet this fossil fuel is running out. So what does the US do? It takes oil from more countries, and tries to keep its stock up. Once the US has lots of oil, it can sell it back to the rest of the world and make big profits. But that oil will still run out. And when that happens the capitalist countries will fall apart.

no they wont, they&#39;ll use other fuels.


Let&#39;s also take foodstuffs such as coffee as an example. First World countries - such as the US - captured land in Third World countries and are using it to grow coffee. However, in order to keep the coffee stockpile (and, hence, profits) up, the capitalists use the land far too intensively. As a result, the land is becoming void of nutrients needed to grow proper crops, and the soil is basically turning into sand. What does the US do? It takes more land. But like the oil, the land will run out. And when that happens the capitalist countries will fall apart.

or they&#39;ll use nutrizing crops (like peanuts) to put it back in. or let aniamls graze on it.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:15 AM



if well applied caplsitm has raised the standard of livin vastly in any country it has een tried. its time has far from passed.
They haven&#39;t helped out in Russia very much. And ifit does increase the standard of living it also expands the wealth gap.
[QUOTE]

So why is it a problem when all people are growing wealthier, that some are able to grow wealthier still?
Is it it better that all remain poor, than some be wealthier than others? It doesn&#39;t strike me as very "socialist."

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:15 PM

Let&#39;s also take foodstuffs such as coffee as an example. First World countries - such as the US - captured land in Third World countries and are using it to grow coffee. However, in order to keep the coffee stockpile (and, hence, profits) up, the capitalists use the land far too intensively. As a result, the land is becoming void of nutrients needed to grow proper crops, and the soil is basically turning into sand. What does the US do? It takes more land. But like the oil, the land will run out. And when that happens the capitalist countries will fall apart.
[QUOTE]

The theory is nice. But we have seen this sort of environmental degradation occur. Unfortunately for the theory, it occurred in the old socialist communities such as the USSR and Poland. The reason has to do with the reality of socialist economics.

[colonelguppy]

isolated incident = no more free speech?

reply quickly, they&#39;re about to censor this&#33;

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by theraven+Aug 28 2006, 03:03 AM--> (theraven &#064; Aug 28 2006, 03:03 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:54 AM

[email protected] 28 2006, 02:44 AM
in response



They could have free speech if they wanted. But consider the fact that a Capitlist society would only be brought about by mass public support. If the majority of the people support Capitilism, then why should we worry about a couple of eejits who want a system that is already known not to work?
Because capitalism has already been shown not to work, Socialism is the next step in natural economic development, and a huge number of people (possibly a majority) support leftist politics and/or economics, whether it be Socialism, Communism or whatever.

You just have to accept that the phase of capitalism has been and gone. Not because we say so, but because that evolution of society is a fact.
capitlsim doesnt owrk on what basis? on the basis of your say so?

many people support socialim/leftist policies because they are poor and have nothing to lose. however as a rule capilsit polices will better the vast majority of any countires citizesn lives [/b]
Capitalism doesn&#39;t work for the majority on this planet.

Aside from the rich and middle class who are numerically insignificant, it only works for some sections of the working class in some first world countries, and then only because the ruling class can super-exploit the third world.
________

Anyway, no one seriously responded to (let alone attempted to refute) the fact that a very minor protester is persecuted. :rolleyes:

[Tungsten]

lithium

Because capitalism has already been shown not to work, Socialism is the next step in natural economic development,
Which has also been shown not to work.

and a huge number of people (possibly a majority) support leftist politics and/or economics, whether it be Socialism, Communism or whatever.
The majority obviously don&#39;t, otherwise it would have been implemented democratically by now. In fact, it hasn&#39;t even come close to gaining a majority.

You just have to accept that the phase of capitalism has been and gone.
For what purpose? To inflate your ego? No thanks.

Not because we say so, but because that evolution of society is a fact.
It&#39;s not a fact, it&#39;s a conjecture which has been refuted.

Take oil, for example. Much of the wealth of the USA is dependent on oil. Yet this fossil fuel is running out. So what does the US do? It takes oil from more countries, and tries to keep its stock up.
They might be securing access to it (or so they think), but they&#39;re not taking it.

Once the US has lots of oil, it can sell it back to the rest of the world and make big profits.
The oil industry isn&#39;t nationalised.

But that oil will still run out. And when that happens the capitalist countries will fall apart.
What will cars in socialist countries (assuming there are any left) run on? Why will they not collapse.

Let&#39;s also take foodstuffs such as coffee as an example. First World countries - such as the US - captured land in Third World countries and are using it to grow coffee.
Are you sure the coffee wasn&#39;t there already? Are you sure they didn&#39;t just invest in that countrie&#39;s coffee industry? There&#39;s a Honda plant not too far away from me, but I don&#39;t recall my country ever being captured by the Japanese.

However, in order to keep the coffee stockpile (and, hence, profits) up, the capitalists use the land far too intensively. As a result, the land is becoming void of nutrients needed to grow proper crops, and the soil is basically turning into sand.
It&#39;s 2006, not 1926. Chemicals allow you to hammer the soil as much as you like.

What does the US do?
The coffee industry isn&#39;t nationalised, either.

It takes more land.
Takes it how?

But like the oil, the land will run out. And when that happens the capitalist countries will fall apart.
Aren&#39;t capitalist countries made of land?
FoB

On the basis that we can see it&#39;s foundations crumbling as we speak.
It&#39;s not capitalism&#39;s foundations that are crumbling. I&#39;m referring to the upcoming social security crisis.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by theraven+Aug 27 2006, 11:54 PM--> (theraven @ Aug 27 2006, 11:54 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 01:50 PM
Poeple being arrested for using their right to free speech? Death threats from elite groups of the Army? Excessive and needlesss wars?

Sounds like fascism to me...
1) the guy hasn&#39;t been jailed, fact is his charges are either going ot be unrelated to the flag or thrown out.

2)the marines are part of the navy, and while they are a great fighting force they are not what the military considers an "elite" force. thats delta, seals, and rangers among others [/b]
That still doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not fundamentaly fascism.



They wouldn&#39;t be a potent force under communism, anyhow. I can see it now...

Cappie: Let me have this factory, and if you work in it I&#39;ll give you a little of the wealth you produced and keep the rest&#33;

Everyone Else: [flatly] No.

actually it would go like "i have a factory and steal, would you like me ot pay you currency to form it into tihngs i can sell?" and people saying "yes i dont like living like a subsitannce farmer"

You know very well that&#39;s not how it works.

[EvilSeal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:15 AM

and where do we see that...
Living standards are falling in many capitalist countries
living standards have been steadily declining in the united states ever since major socialist programs were started. as capitalism is chipped away at, living standards decline.

[colonelguppy]

That still doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not fundamentaly fascism.

it also doesn&#39;t mean that it is. we&#39;re not even close to fascism.



actually it would go like "i have a factory and steal, would you like me ot pay you currency to form it into tihngs i can sell?" and people saying "yes i dont like living like a subsitannce farmer"

You know very well that&#39;s not how it works.

pray tell, how does it work?

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:20 AM


actually it would go like "i have a factory and steal, would you like me ot pay you currency to form it into tihngs i can sell?" and people saying "yes i dont like living like a subsitannce farmer"

You know very well that&#39;s not how it works.

pray tell, how does it work?
Well for one, communism is not going to turn us all into a bunch of subsistence farmers, far from it. theraven&#39;s bullshit theory about communism instantly transforming every human present into a subsistence farmer has so far, not shown true. It would be near impossible for a person to build a factory individidually. All the materials belong to the people, so what would they build it with? And what labor would he use to construct his plant?

So lets be unrealistic, and say this guy was able to cook his iron ore over a stove for metal parts, and make all his own machines, and construct his own buildings, all without the help of any other person. Then he goes out and tries to hire people. People who are already guaranteed a job and a house and food. Then the people are going to realize he was building it with communal resources he took from the communal land, so they are going to take it from him, run it with a workers council, give him a job, and tell him thanks, or if hes a jackass about it, tell him to go to hell. Forever amen.

[theraven]

Originally posted by RedSouth+Sep 1 2006, 10:11 PM--> (RedSouth @ Sep 1 2006, 10:11 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 11:20 AM


actually it would go like "i have a factory and steal, would you like me ot pay you currency to form it into tihngs i can sell?" and people saying "yes i dont like living like a subsitannce farmer"

You know very well that&#39;s not how it works.

pray tell, how does it work?
Well for one, communism is not going to turn us all into a bunch of subsistence farmers, far from it. theraven&#39;s bullshit theory about communism instantly transforming every human present into a subsistence farmer has so far, not shown true. It would be near impossible for a person to build a factory individidually. All the materials belong to the people, so what would they build it with? And what labor would he use to construct his plant?

So lets be unrealistic, and say this guy was able to cook his iron ore over a stove for metal parts, and make all his own machines, and construct his own buildings, all without the help of any other person. Then he goes out and tries to hire people. People who are already guaranteed a job and a house and food. Then the people are going to realize he was building it with communal resources he took from the communal land, so they are going to take it from him, run it with a workers council, give him a job, and tell him thanks, or if hes a jackass about it, tell him to go to hell. Forever amen. [/b]
1) what has shown my theory of substiance farmers untrue? since you guys dont think anywhere has even attempted communusm then you cant very well rpoveme wrong

2) I am assauming a man and his friends did all the labor thesmelves, thus they were using things they worked for which is the basic principal of communsim.

3) who garutnees those people a house and a job and food? not the governmetn i know..

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 06:47 PM
1) what has shown my theory of substiance farmers untrue? since you guys dont think anywhere has even attempted communusm then you cant very well rpoveme wrong

2) I am assauming a man and his friends did all the labor thesmelves, thus they were using things they worked for which is the basic principal of communsim.

3) who garutnees those people a house and a job and food? not the governmetn i know..
1. When have you ever seen anyone who is unrestricted advocate sending people back into the trend of subsistence farming? Almost everyone here wants to liberate people from that lifestyle.

2. Yes, but the community would not allow them to build something for personal use.

3. The commune. Social lateral support. Everyone is equal. How long have you been on this board, and yet you do not understand the basic premise of communism.

[theraven]

1. When have you ever seen anyone who is unrestricted advocate sending people back into the trend of subsistence farming? Almost everyone here wants to liberate people from that lifestyle.

i talked about realism not your fantasies



2. Yes, but the community would not allow them to build something for personal use.

and tsociety would dissolve into subsitnce farming based economy



3. The commune. Social lateral support. Everyone is equal. How long have you been on this board, and yet you do not understand the basic premise of communism.

oh i undretand it, but I also know how totally unrealistic such a society would be

[Orion999]

Anyone who lives in America knows that they would have absolutly nothing to fear from the government if they decided to put their flag upside down. Arrested for disorderly conduct? First of all, this charge entails is basically meaningless even if you are convicted of it. Whoever authorized this arrest would immediately be fired, because it is known by everyone in the U.S. knows that it is not illeagal to put your flag upside down.

How does free speech not exsist? Free speech does not mean you have the right to riot and attempt to overthrow the government, which is what I imagine you mean as "threatening the elites". When has the American govt. ever arrested or suppressed millions of peaople(this is what it would take to be considered a threat) for their ideaology. How many people have been arrested for accusing the bush administration of murder and war crimes. (this is a very large group that wold have to be considerded threat)

If you are not arrested or suppressed for making daily claims that the govt is being led by a genocidal maniac, then what sort of speach is it that is not allowed?

Before you make a rediculous claim like their is no free speech how about coming with better proof than one "supposed" farmer being arrested on a completely meaningless misdemeanor. I&#39;d love to hear examples of the American govt. arresting someone (by this I mean actully holding them in jail for a long period) for speech.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I was arrested in the US for disorderly conduct because I used the word "fuck" in public.

The point is that free speech doesn&#39;t exist anywhere. Free speech means that one is allowed to say what s/he wants without being reprimanded. As is characteristic of all societies, I am barred legally and practically for threatening said society. e.g. I&#39;m not allowed to say that I&#39;m plotting to kill George Bush or that I&#39;m gonna fly a plane into the US capital.

This isn&#39;t our complaint, though. Every society, like I said, has the duty and the right to protect itself from eminent threats like plots against said society. It just so happens that in the US, the threats they&#39;re protecting themselves from are the repercussions of their wanton attacks on freedom.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:51 PM
I was arrested in the US for disorderly conduct because I used the word "fuck" in public.

The point is that free speech doesn&#39;t exist anywhere. Free speech means that one is allowed to say what s/he wants without being reprimanded. As is characteristic of all societies, I am barred legally and practically for threatening said society. e.g. I&#39;m not allowed to say that I&#39;m plotting to kill George Bush or that I&#39;m gonna fly a plane into the US capital.

This isn&#39;t our complaint, though. Every society, like I said, has the duty and the right to protect itself from eminent threats like plots against said society. It just so happens that in the US, the threats they&#39;re protecting themselves from are the repercussions of their wanton attacks on freedom.
i imagien theres more to you using the word fuck in public....

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I yelled it in traffic to the driver in front of me in the following context:
"fuck you"

Regardless of whether the policeman&#39;s actions were justified, my point stands.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 12:37 AM
I yelled it in traffic to the driver in front of me in the following context:
"fuck you"

Regardless of whether the policeman&#39;s actions were justified, my point stands.
did you follow this up by cutting off the dirver..and was the driver a cop?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The cop was at the nearby Waffle House
and no, I didn&#39;t cut off anyone.

[Orion999]

The point is that free speech doesn&#39;t exist anywhere. Free speech means that one is allowed to say what s/he wants without being reprimanded. As is characteristic of all societies, I am barred legally and practically for threatening said society. e.g. I&#39;m not allowed to say that I&#39;m plotting to kill George Bush or that I&#39;m gonna fly a plane into the US capital.

First, this was not the point being made by whoever started this thread. Yes "Technically" 100% complete free speech does not exsist. What Americans treasure about free speech, Is there freedom to criticize the Govt. without being thrown in jail like they do in communist and facist states.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Same thing. Different things threaten different governments. The US is relatvely secure, but a country like the USSR was a lot more succeptible to reaction due to its nature.

What we&#39;re out to combat is the threat of bourgeois reaction... a very real threat in socialist societies. In Cuba, for example, dissent exists and is tolerated. What isn&#39;t tolerated, and shouldn&#39;t be, are bourgeois attempts against socialism and democracy. People who hold power democratically don&#39;t allow enemies of democracy to threaten their freedom by promoting ideas which are inherently undemocratic like capitalism.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:27 AM
Same thing. Different things threaten different governments. The US is relatvely secure, but a country like the USSR was a lot more succeptible to reaction due to its nature.

What we&#39;re out to combat is the threat of bourgeois reaction... a very real threat in socialist societies. In Cuba, for example, dissent exists and is tolerated. What isn&#39;t tolerated, and shouldn&#39;t be, are bourgeois attempts against socialism and democracy. People who hold power democratically don&#39;t allow enemies of democracy to threaten their freedom by promoting ideas which are inherently undemocratic like capitalism.
so your idea of democracy is to make your poltical ideogloy the only acceptbale one...wow that sounds democracitc..

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No society on earth has ever allowed threats to its basic principles. i.e. I couldn&#39;t freely threaten capitalism in the United States. So following your logic, the US commits tyranny by not allowing dissent. It&#39;s true. The US doesn&#39;t allow dissent against its basic founding principles. But the US also exists under the premise that these basic founding principles are democratic... and there&#39;s nothing wrong with protecting the will of the people (democracy) from the will of tyrants (those who contradict democarcy)... in fact, it&#39;s necessary for any organized society to exist.

For example, murder. It has been decided in most countries that murder defies a person&#39;s rights. Does this mean that most countries are committing tyranny by banning murder? No, they&#39;re protecting rights.

Our beef is that the basic principles of the US aren&#39;t democratic.

[Huelguista]

I read in the paper that a kid a few years back at a nearby school got in trouble for wearing a shirt that opposed bush...but he only got in trouble because the shirt also had a martini and cocaine on it. He went to court over it and won it recently stating that it was his right to his political opinions.

So I suppose free speech in the US does exist..but to an extent before the government gets involved, even though people should have that right.

[Orion999]

No society on earth has ever allowed threats to its basic principles. i.e. I couldn&#39;t freely threaten capitalism in the United States. So following your logic, the US commits tyranny by not allowing dissent. It&#39;s true. The US doesn&#39;t allow dissent against its basic founding principles. But the US also exists under the premise that these basic founding principles are democratic... and there&#39;s nothing wrong with protecting the will of the people (democracy) from the will of tyrants (those who contradict democarcy)... in fact, it&#39;s necessary for any organized society to exist.


The U.S. is a democracy. If Ralph Nader, a known communist, were to win the presidential election he would become president and could use all power in that office to promote communism. This does not mean you can riot in the streets, but you can peacefully express any view that you wish and if people vote you into office you will be given the power of that office regardless of your ideaology. What you communists do not understand is that it is not the American system keeping you down, its just that you have almost no support among the American people because were too smart to fall for your utopian propaganda.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Ralph Nader is not a communist.

The scrapping of the current constitution and the adoption of a new one is a by definition a revolution.

[Orion999]

your only hope of accomplishing this "scraping of the system and installing a new one" is through democratic means. I don&#39;t think many of you have realized how impossible revolution has become. In ages past a common man could get his hands on the same weapons the military would use such as a sword or a rifle. How do you plan to take on the tanks and planes of the U.S. military during your revolution. I would stick to democratic methods of reform before you attempt this revolution and all get slaughtered.