anyone worried about US borders wrt ebooks?

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by joblack

I disagree.

I haven't made fun of thoughts, brain power, and worth.

I have made fun of the behaviour. And there is a statistically significant difference in how the genders behave in different situations.

Obviously there is still a victim thinking for some women ('poor me') ...

RickyMaveety is as polar opposite of a victim as anyone on this planet can possibly be. She is brave and resilient where other people would give up. She is a fighter for all of us, regardless of gender. I hope you will apologize personally to her for that comment.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by joblack

So we don´t have to talk about if some new law is legal - the point is if it takes away our freedom it´s not a good law and should be removed.

The question is how that gets done. Just out of curiosity, how often do laws get repealed in your country?

And Mr. RickyMaveety, Hitler came legally to power - don´t forget that (and please don´t nitpick with your detailed boring 'knowledge').

First, Ricky is she, not he.

Second, knowledge is never boring. It's either relevant to the discussion or not.

Yes, Hitler came to power legally. You can blame him on stupidity by the Allies, who insisted on imposing terms after WWI intended to not merely end the war, but to humiliate and impose a crushing burden on Germany. Hitler told Germans what they wanted to hear: that they were a great people brought low by the sins and treachery of others, and that he could lead them to glory. (I've wondered on occasion how things might have been had the Allies been less concerned with revenge, and more involved with assisting Germany to become a stable and prosperous democratic state that wouldn't be interested in trying to conquer their neighbors.)

How enthusiastic many of his supporters might have been had they fully understood where he was coming from and planned to go was another matter.

But you can't really draw parallels comparing Hitler and Bush, because the surrounding circumstances are too different. Hitler came to power in a unique set of circumstances. His country had been defeated in a major war, and the sort of checks and balances that might have prevented it were largely absent. Also, Germany was a far more homogeneous society, with a population mostly ethnic Germans, who saw themselves as an oppressed group.

Bush came to power in his second term in a disputed election. He's a "Lame Duck" president, due to be replaced in the next election. I'd call it even money at the moment whether Obama or McCain will be the next President, but it doesn't matter. It won't be Bush.

If he wanted to subvert the democratic process and make himself dictator, he should have already tried to do so.

I'll be one of those cheering when he leaves office, and pushing hard to get some of his more wit-wanted attempts at "security" reversed. But I was never terribly worried the US would become a police state. There are too many checks and balances built in to our political system intended to prevent that. The people who founded the country and wrote the Constitution were well aware of the dangers, as many of the original immigrants came here to escape repression.

There has been a political pendulum in the US for many years. It swings one way, and then another. In the '60s, it swung toward liberalism. More recently, it's been swinging to the conservative end. But it is a pendulum, and continues to swing.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

2. Do you agree that in the digital age, contraband can be in a digital form and kept on computers?? Yes or No.

Yes. It can be. The question is what should be done about it.

The Internet makes it unnecessary to actually keep digital contraband on a computer while traveling. It's entirely too easy to stash it on a server you have network access to, possibly in encrypted form, and download it from the server when you are across the border in your destination.

So while you can access random laptops at the border in a customs check, looking for contraband, the question is whether you should, and whether the results are worth the bother. (And what, precisely, are you looking for, and how will you know it if you find it? For that matter, who defines "contraband"?)

Offhand, I doubt it. You may snag some contraband. You will annoy large numbers of perfectly innocent people for questionable reason.
______
Dennis

[DixieGal]

It's entirely too easy to stash it on a server you have network access to, possibly in encrypted form, and download it from the server when you are across the border in your destination.
][/QUOTE]


Dennis, Ricky, Joblack, Milarepa: I have to butt in and say my piece right here... it's not that easy. Have you ever used a Spanish language keyboard? Lots of extra crazy keys on there, and what's with the upside down question mark at the beginning? And who knows what you are supposed to put into the internet machine ... dollars, euros, pesos, or barter a chicken for online time? Goodness gracious!

Now back to your regularly scheduled political debate...

[Ramen]

This is a bit of pet theme/hate, so please bear with me.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Yes, Hitler came to power legally. You can blame him on stupidity by the Allies, who insisted on imposing terms after WWI intended to not merely end the war, but to humiliate and impose a crushing burden on Germany. Hitler told Germans what they wanted to hear: that they were a great people brought low by the sins and treachery of others, and that he could lead them to glory. (I've wondered on occasion how things might have been had the Allies been less concerned with revenge, and more involved with assisting Germany to become a stable and prosperous democratic state that wouldn't be interested in trying to conquer their neighbors.)

There's three things at work here.

• Oppression and humiliation (reparations + Ruhrgebiet)
• Racism and anti-semitism
• Military tech

A WWI Marshall Plan may have prevented point 1 (see Germany and Japan - two very militaristic countries) but point two was bound to blow up at some point. It wasn't just Germany, all of Europe hated the Jews. Why are we so aware of racism today? Because of the holocaust. Slavery was already known but we didn't seem to mind much.

But the most important thing is weapons tech. Sometimes I think WWII was our last chance to try it out without blowing up the entire world. Nobody envisioned the carnage that ensued and it has "educated" Europe quite thoroughly. If you look at the US that hasn't had a war on it's soil for such a long time, you can clearly see who tries to avoid war and who doesn't care (no general conscription, disproportionate social represenation in the armed forces, etc). Europe is just about in it's most peaceful era ever and this is a direct result of WWII.

But you can't really draw parallels comparing Hitler and Bush, because the surrounding circumstances are too different. Hitler came to power in a unique set of circumstances. His country had been defeated in a major war, and the sort of checks and balances that might have prevented it were largely absent. Also, Germany was a far more homogeneous society, with a population mostly ethnic Germans, who saw themselves as an oppressed group.

Actually, the situation is very similar. Both cases have an evil enemy that has struck at their very core. The opposition failed miserably in both cases. The population supported the leader in both cases. The leader was charismatic/suited the mood in both cases (for Bush this means strong leader and moral). The population wanted revenge/satisfaction/whatever. The population was fed what they wanted to hear and set for war.

I'll be one of those cheering when he leaves office, and pushing hard to get some of his more wit-wanted attempts at "security" reversed. But I was never terribly worried the US would become a police state. There are too many checks and balances built in to our political system intended to prevent that. The people who founded the country and wrote the Constitution were well aware of the dangers, as many of the original immigrants came here to escape repression.

• warrant-less wiretapping with retro-active legitimation (un-constitutional)
• guantanamo bay
• national biometric DB
• misusing international bank correspondance
• mixing of police, military and secret services
• generally more police powers, etc

Sure, the US is not a police-state at the moment but the population simply doesn't care and the checks were all circumvented via un-patriotic and opponent of a safe America.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

RickyMaveety is as polar opposite of a victim as anyone on this planet can possibly be. She is brave and resilient where other people would give up. She is a fighter for all of us, regardless of gender. I hope you will apologize personally to her for that comment.

You are brave if you protect the innocent and do something that shows high character.

You're not brave if you're behaving like an arrogant a.. and bashing everybody with a different oppinion as 'foreigner' or 'not smart enough' (like happened some postings before).

I don't see any reason to apologize.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by Ramen

This is a bit of pet theme/hate, so please bear with me.

Actually, the situation is very similar. Both cases have an evil enemy that has struck at their very core. The opposition failed miserably in both cases. The population supported the leader in both cases. The leader was charismatic/suited the mood in both cases (for Bush this means strong leader and moral). The population wanted revenge/satisfaction/whatever. The population was fed what they wanted to hear and set for war.
[/i].

Hitler came to power after the effects of the Black Thursday and the Great Depression. There was a high unemployment and a lot of reparation payments to the allied forces.

Hitler used a paragraph in the Weimarer constitution to call for a 'state of emergency' (computer geeks wood say it was an exploit ;o). After that he ruled absolutely within this state.

Let me see what G.W.Bush did ... after 9/11 introduced the Patriot Act (ever wondered why it was so fast finished?), was going to war with two countries and opened prisoner camps.

AFAIK the USA still has a 'state of war'.

He is a lame duck at the moment, but wait for the next terror attack. Bush said some years ago the 'constitution is just a peace of paper'.

In a possible chaotic situation after an terror attack it should be easy to suspend the constitution.

Or what do you think what for all the new build concentration camps in the US are?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman: American Concentration Camps "On The Books"
Texas Representative urges repeal of neo-fascist laws in America before it is too late

http://www.infowars.net/articles/nov...106RonPaul.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Ramen

This is a bit of pet theme/hate, so please bear with me.

Sure.

There's three things at work here.

• Opperssion and humiliation (reparations + Ruhrgebiet)
• Racism and anti-semitism
• Military tech

A WWI Marshall Plan may have prevented point 1 (see Germany and Japan - two very militaristic countries) but point two was bound to blow up at some point. It wasn't just Germany, all of Europe hated the Jews. Why are we so aware racism today? Because of the holocaust. Slavery was already known but we didn't seem to mind much.

Hitler made the Jews the villain of the piece. By while anti-semitism was a pervasive problem, I don't think it alone would have been a causative factor. It might have blown up, but would the blow up have taken the form of a world war? A Germany assisted in becoming a democratic state, and allowed to become prosperous instead of having a burden of reparations intended to keep it poverty stricken would have had far less reason to demonize the Jews and attempt a genocidal solution to the perceived problem.

But the most important thing is weapons tech. Sometimes I think WWII was our last chance to try it out without blowing up the entire world. Nobody envisioned the carnage that ensued and it has "educated" Europe quite thoroughly. If you look at the US that hasn't had a war on it's soil for such a long time, you can clearly see who tries to avoid war and who doesn't care (no general conscription, disproportionate social represenation in the armed forces, etc). Europe is just about in it's most peaceful era ever and this is a direct result of WWII.

War always causes development of weapons technology, and nobody ever foresees the effects. (I'm not sure you can, even if you are motivated to try.) Germany's superior military technology was an early help and a later hindrance. The problem with high tech weaponry is that you need trained personnel and spare parts to maintain it. As the war went on, both were in shorter supply for Germany.

US lack of general conscription and disproportionate social representation in the military is actually a symptom of misplaced anti-war sentiments. Abolition of the draft was an outgrowth of the US involvement in Vietnam.

And the military has always been a place offering possibilities for advancement when other avenues were closed, and not just in the US. This can have benefits as well as costs. Racial barriers in the US started unraveling in a major way in WWII. It's easy to hold stereotypes about other ethnic groups when you're here, they're over there, and you don't mix. It's harder to hold preconceived stereotypes about "them" when you are at war, and "they" are serving alongside you, and one of "them" might just be the guy who saved your butt in combat...

Actually, the situation is very similar. Both cases have an evil enemy that has struck at their very core. The opposition failed miserably in both cases. The population supported the leader in both cases. The leader was charismatic/suited the mood in both cases (for Bush this means strong leader and moral). The population wanted revenge/satisfaction/whatever. The population was fed what they wanted to hear and set for war.

There's a fundamental difference you overlook. Germany was a homogeneous society. For practical purposes, they were all Germans, sharing a common identity as Germans.

America is far more multicultural and diverse. We have substantial black, Hispanic, and Asian minorities, and far less agreement on just what it means to be an American and how the US should respond to threats.

That disagreement, particularly in regards to actions taken post 9/11, has been prolonged and vociferous.

• warrant-less wiretapping with retro-active legitimation (un-constitutional)
• guantanamo bay
• national biometric DB
• misusing international bank correspondance
• mixing of police, military and secret services
• generally more police powers, etc

Sure, the US is not a police-state at the moment but the population simply doesn't care and the checks were all circumvented via un-patriotic and opponent of a safe America.

America won't become a police state, because the underlying conditions that would support and sustain one are absent. It would require general support of the population, and that doesn't exist here.

Please note that Bush is leaving office at the end of his term, to be replaced by a new democratically elected administration. If we were as close to a police state as you envision, he would have already taken steps to abrogate the Constitution, suspend the elections, and install himself as dictator.

And I frankly doubt he could have gotten away with it if he tried. Imposing that sort of rule by force requires the cooperation of the military. US military personnel take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not the particular guy in the Oval Office. They would be legally and morally bound to refuse to obey the sort of orders setting up a police state would require. I think most of them would.
______
Dennis

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by joblack

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

---
So we don´t have to talk about if some new law is legal - the point is if it takes away our freedom it´s not a good law and should be removed.

It´s a discussion of the direction of the society and the losing of freedom and basic human rights.

And Mr. RickyMaveety, Hitler came legally to power - don´t forget that (and please don´t nitpick with your detailed boring 'knowledge').

Anyway - your arrogant behavior (=narcissism) should actually be rewarded by just ignoring further comments - but the information is for the rest of the (interested) forum group.

Any law .... pick one .... any law takes away some "freedom." A law that prevents murder makes you less free to kill someone. A law that makes it illegal to abuse a child makes you less free to do so. That's what laws do ... they restrict freedom.

However, they generally do it in a manner that is agreed upon by a majority of the people in that society.

How is the fact that Hitler came to power legally in Germany supposed to be relevant to this discussion?? Do you think the Republicans are going to burn down the Houses of Congress and blame it on Jewish Democrats?? It's a bizarre idea, but then, you seem to be full of rather bizarre ideas.

As mentioned before .... I really and honestly don't care if you think I am arrogant. I really just don't. You have my permission to call me that all you want. As I said before, and I will say it again, in order for that to bother me, I would have to have at least some modicum of respect for you. Since I have none, and you have never said anything (at all) that would give me any respect for you ... well, what can I say ... it's pretty much impossible for you to insult me. Ignore me ... or don't. It matters not one whit to me.

Originally Posted by Ramen

Sorry for just cherry-picking but there is a fundamental property you are missing. The goal of customs is to prevent import of contraband. For physical stuff, ports (airports, sea ports, border stations, etc) are natural chokepoints and thus searching there is common sense. This excludes proportionality and the like.

Digital contraband, on the other hand, does not need to use those chokepoints. Whatever you want. you can download it once you are inside the country. But even if you should choose to import your data in that way:

• Flash memory and the like is tiny enough to allow you hide the chips just about anywhere. Secret data doesn't have to be huge. You could hide stuff inside a fake (large) coin, kept in your wallet. Or inside your watch. Or inside your calculator. It doesn't even have to be made out of metal or some other material the detectors are sensitive to. Customs will probably never detect such things.
• A properly enrypted and hidden memory region on your laptop will also probably never be found. The whole point of cryptography is to make the data seem random. Good luck differentiating random data in unused parts of the HD from enrypted data. Customs will probably never find this even if they know what they are looking for.

I say probably because you cannot say with 100% certainty and there are always idiot passengers or just lucky customs.

But again, this is security theater, not real security. And it is state-sponsored corporate espionage (Boing <> Airbus scandal from a few years ago). Much like with DRM, only regular types suffer while the pros just shrug it off.

I understand what you mean about the search probably being more annoying to people than actually doing anything productive (like really putting a stop to digital contraband), however, the people making the policies and laws are not of the digital generation. I mean that, even knowing that there are a lot of people (like myself) here who are of that age and are technosavvy.

However, the point is that the Fourth Amendment does not prevent Customs from making digital searches a policy. And, the Courts (again, people who don't necessarily understand the finer points about the internet) are very likely going to uphold it. Especially in cases such as the one that was recently before the Ninth Circuit. Having a slimeball pedophile in front of the court arguing that he should be free to bring in photos of him raping children ... it's just not the best case to use to argue against a digital search.

Originally Posted by joblack

LOL - ok. That explains it even more ...

That explains what even more oh, "job lack"?? I have a number of people drop me notes asking me if your last name is "Black" or if you are unemployed. Given you inability to complete a logical thought, I am leaning towards the latter.

Originally Posted by Milarepa

"Objection, your Honor, the question is argumentative."

Question 1 makes some wild assumptions of fact first and foremost "That authority is vitally important for our national security and public safety" that is a matter of opinion and can neither be proved nor disproved in any real way. I do not believe that that authority is VITALY important to national security or public safety.

Well, question number one came straight from that article that Mr. Job Lack posted so proudly. It was the one point out of the article that I happened to agree with ... but it was from that article. It is also pretty much black letter law. I understand that you folks don't like it when I discuss the actual law ... but, it is a very basic rule of Federal law, like it or not.

Originally Posted by Milarepa

The answer to question #2 of course is yes, but seeing as how the question to number #1 is a matter of opinion it invalidates question #2, so that question becomes irrelevant.

Except that, in this case, the "opinion" is the opinion of many many Federal Courts, including the United States Supreme Court. And, as such, it has the authority of law in this country. It is not my opinion ... it is the opinion of the justices in cases going back to the very beginning of this country.

Originally Posted by Milarepa

As I have continually stated, I simply believe that the government has overstepped its bounds, and they have done this by passing laws that enable them to do this. Are they within their legal right to "search" whatever they would like at the border? The answer appears to be yes. Are we comfortable that they are within their legal right to do this? I for one am not! I would prefer that the government get out of people's lives, I would prefer that the federal government were not centralizing greater and greater authority and that states rights would become, once again, a respected tradition. This government is on a dangerous course, and it is past time that we stand up and say, stop! Stop supporting places like Guantanamo Bay, stop passing laws that trample on civil rights, stop passing laws that ignore basic principles of privacy, stop ignoring all of these things by claiming that it is in the interest of national security. Some people will claim that all of these laws only affect the bad guys, so it shouldn't matter to us, we should be happy that the government is protecting us. My fear is how the government classifies who the bad guys are, I don't trust them to do this fairly, and in fact fear that that is an ever widening circle of innocents.

OK .... now you are saying something that I understand. You disagree with the policy ... and probably with a lot of the policies of the current administration. That's ok. So do I, as a matter of fact. However, whether or not I disagree with them doesn't make them unconstitutional. They may be really really stupid laws ... but they are not about to be overturned by the Courts simply because they do not violate the Constitution, in particular, in this one case, the Fourth Amendment.

Now ... if you want to discuss the administration in general?? And their attitude towards Muslim countries, or immigration, or good grief don't even get me started .... you and I could probably sit down over some drinks and rip them all new assholes. It wouldn't change anything, but we could blow off some steam. I am voting for Obama, and I really hope that his administration will mean a change. However, there is a lot of prejudice that is ingrained in the bureaucratic institutions that may make that hard to do.

Originally Posted by Milarepa

You have just ruined any possible chance of anybody listening to you with regards to human rights, privacy, and dignity if you believe that somehow a women is not just as capable of a man when it comes to thoughts, brain power, and worth. It is not okay to make fun of somebody for this.

Well, Milarepa, I have always that of that one as an idiot. And he just keeps making my point for me.

Originally Posted by joblack

I disagree.

I haven't made fun of thoughts, brain power, and worth.

I have made fun of the behaviour. And there is a statistically significant difference in how the genders behave in different situations.

Obviously there is still a victim thinking for some women ('poor me') ...

Interesting ... never thought of myself as a "victim." I've known a lot of people who have been "victims" ... it's one of the reasons I do volunteer at the Civil Rights Project, to help people who have actually been victimized by the system.

Never thought of myself as a victim in medical school or in law school ... or in flight school for that matter. Maybe that was because I was usually doing to much better than most of the males in the class. (It really bugged the hell out of the guys in flight school .... I can say that with a smile. Women were simply NOT supposed to be better pilots.)

And, just because I'm curious .... in what situations was I supposed to behave "differently" than my male counterparts?? When I was working search and rescue ... was I not supposed to be able to get an injured man off the mountain because I was female?? Should I not be able to pilot a plane? Shoot a gun?? Ride a horse??

Or maybe women just can't do that sort of thing on your planet?? Oh, you are from Earth?? Really?? From what time period ... the early 1600s?? Well, sorry, Charley, in my part of the world, in my society and in this point in time, the fact that I am female does not prevent me from doing anything ... except possibly pissing while standing up. It certainly hasn't stopped me from out thinking you, old thing.

Originally Posted by DixieGal

RickyMaveety is as polar opposite of a victim as anyone on this planet can possibly be. She is brave and resilient where other people would give up. She is a fighter for all of us, regardless of gender. I hope you will apologize personally to her for that comment.

DixieGal ... this guy doesn't respect me anymore than I respect him. Which is nil. He wouldn't know a "victim" if one landed on him from 1000 feet up. Honestly, it's enough for me that the people I do actually respect here on this forum have sent me so many private messages of support. I love you guys lots.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

The question is how that gets done. Just out of curiosity, how often do laws get repealed in your country?


First, Ricky is she, not he.

Second, knowledge is never boring. It's either relevant to the discussion or not.

Yes, Hitler came to power legally. You can blame him on stupidity by the Allies, who insisted on imposing terms after WWI intended to not merely end the war, but to humiliate and impose a crushing burden on Germany. Hitler told Germans what they wanted to hear: that they were a great people brought low by the sins and treachery of others, and that he could lead them to glory. (I've wondered on occasion how things might have been had the Allies been less concerned with revenge, and more involved with assisting Germany to become a stable and prosperous democratic state that wouldn't be interested in trying to conquer their neighbors.)

How enthusiastic many of his supporters might have been had they fully understood where he was coming from and planned to go was another matter.

But you can't really draw parallels comparing Hitler and Bush, because the surrounding circumstances are too different. Hitler came to power in a unique set of circumstances. His country had been defeated in a major war, and the sort of checks and balances that might have prevented it were largely absent. Also, Germany was a far more homogeneous society, with a population mostly ethnic Germans, who saw themselves as an oppressed group.

Bush came to power in his second term in a disputed election. He's a "Lame Duck" president, due to be replaced in the next election. I'd call it even money at the moment whether Obama or McCain will be the next President, but it doesn't matter. It won't be Bush.

If he wanted to subvert the democratic process and make himself dictator, he should have already tried to do so.

I'll be one of those cheering when he leaves office, and pushing hard to get some of his more wit-wanted attempts at "security" reversed. But I was never terribly worried the US would become a police state. There are too many checks and balances built in to our political system intended to prevent that. The people who founded the country and wrote the Constitution were well aware of the dangers, as many of the original immigrants came here to escape repression.

There has been a political pendulum in the US for many years. It swings one way, and then another. In the '60s, it swung toward liberalism. More recently, it's been swinging to the conservative end. But it is a pendulum, and continues to swing.
______
Dennis

Dennis ... you are one of my heroes. Agree with everything you said. And, it also did not help matters that the treaties signed after WWI, which were intended to positively cripple the German economy did precisely that. And Hitler rose to power on the backs of a lot of people who never came to terms with the results of that first war.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Yes. It can be. The question is what should be done about it.

The Internet makes it unnecessary to actually keep digital contraband on a computer while traveling. It's entirely too easy to stash it on a server you have network access to, possibly in encrypted form, and download it from the server when you are across the border in your destination.

So while you can access random laptops at the border in a customs check, looking for contraband, the question is whether you should, and whether the results are worth the bother. (And what, precisely, are you looking for, and how will you know it if you find it? For that matter, who defines "contraband"?)

Offhand, I doubt it. You may snag some contraband. You will annoy large numbers of perfectly innocent people for questionable reason.
______
Dennis

I agree with you, it is probably not the best solution. It may be far from a good solution. But, if the question is ... is it within the limits of the Fourth Amendment as that amendment has been analyzed by past Federal Courts?? Then, I think it is.

And, as the original poster asked, am I worried about it?? No, I am not, because the Feds have a lot more on their plate than worrying about what I've got on my iPod ... and since I don't have NAMBLA scheduling my vacations to hot spots like Thailand ... well, I just can't see them getting their panties in a twist because maybe I stripped the DRM off of something that I actually purchased ... just because I don't happen to like DRM.

Originally Posted by joblack

You are brave if you protect the innocent and do something that shows high character.

You're not brave if you're behaving like an arrogant a.. and bashing everybody with a different oppinion as 'foreigner' or 'not smart enough' (like happened some postings before).

I don't see any reason to apologize.

No reason you should .... you don't respect me, and I don't respect you. There it is ... and I wouldn't change it for all the world. Everyone should have at least one person in the world that they can "see" and say "thank heavens I am NOT that person." For me ... that's you.

Originally Posted by joblack

Hitler came to power after the effects of the Black Thursday and the Great Depression. There was a high unemployment and a lot of reparation payments to the allied forces.

Hitler used a paragraph in the Weimarer constitution to call for a 'state of emergency' (computer geeks wood say it was an exploit ;o). After that he ruled absolutely within this state.

Let me see what G.W.Bush did ... after 9/11 introduced the Patriot Act (ever wondered why it was so fast finished?), was going to war with two countries and opened prisoner camps.

AFAIK the USA still has a 'state of war'.

He is a lame duck at the moment, but wait for the next terror attack. Bush said some years ago the 'constitution is just a peace of paper'.

In a possible chaotic situation after an terror attack it should be easy to suspend the constitution.

Or what do you think what for all the new build concentration camps in the US are?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman: American Concentration Camps "On The Books"
Texas Representative urges repeal of neo-fascist laws in America before it is too late

http://www.infowars.net/articles/nov...106RonPaul.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Sure.


Hitler made the Jews the villain of the piece. By while anti-semitism was a pervasive problem, I don't think it alone would have been a causative factor. It might have blown up, but would the blow up have taken the form of a world war? A Germany assisted in becoming a democratic state, and allowed to become prosperous instead of having a burden of reparations intended to keep it poverty stricken would have had far less reason to demonize the Jews and attempt a genocidal solution to the perceived problem.


War always causes development of weapons technology, and nobody ever foresees the effects. (I'm not sure you can, even if you are motivated to try.) Germany's superior military technology was an early help and a later hindrance. The problem with high tech weaponry is that you need trained personnel and spare parts to maintain it. As the war went on, both were in shorter supply for Germany.

US lack of general conscription and disproportionate social representation in the military is actually a symptom of misplaced anti-war sentiments. Abolition of the draft was an outgrowth of the US involvement in Vietnam.

And the military has always been a place offering possibilities for advancement when other avenues were closed, and not just in the US. This can have benefits as well as costs. Racial barriers in the US started unraveling in a major way in WWII. It's easy to hold stereotypes about other ethnic groups when you're here, they're over there, and you don't mix. It's harder to hold preconceived stereotypes about "them" when you are at war, and "they" are serving alongside you, and one of "them" might just be the guy who saved your butt in combat...


There's a fundamental difference you overlook. Germany was a homogeneous society. For practical purposes, they were all Germans, sharing a common identity as Germans.

America is far more multicultural and diverse. We have substantial black, Hispanic, and Asian minorities, and far less agreement on just what it means to be an American and how the US should respond to threats.

That disagreement, particularly in regards to actions taken post 9/11, has been prolonged and vociferous.


America won't become a police state, because the underlying conditions that would support and sustain one are absent. It would require general support of the population, and that doesn't exist here.

Please note that Bush is leaving office at the end of his term, to be replaced by a new democratically elected administration. If we were as close to a police state as you envision, he would have already taken steps to abrogate the Constitution, suspend the elections, and install himself as dictator.

And I frankly doubt he could have gotten away with it if he tried. Imposing that sort of rule by force requires the cooperation of the military. US military personnel take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not the particular guy in the Oval Office. They would be legally and morally bound to refuse to obey the sort of orders setting up a police state would require. I think most of them would.
______
Dennis

Great analysis, Dennis. I don't so much think Job Lack "overlooks" those sorts of facts. He simply chooses to ignore them because they don't help him make his point. He's not one for "knowledge" or "facts" ... he tends to find them inconvenient.

But, one thing you said that really resonates with me. Way back in elementary school, when they tried to make us say the Pledge of Allegiance, I never would. It bothered me (from the time I was six) that someone would tell me that I had to pledge allegiance to a FLAG. Any bozo can wave a flag. Anyone can buy it at a dime store and dance around the street with it. That does not mean I am going to follow them. So ... when I was very young, I made up my own pledge ... to the Constitution. And, when I was admitted to practice before both the courts of the State of California and the Federal Courts of the United States, I too took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Not the flag ... the Constitution.

Now ... don't laugh anybody (except of course "Job Lack" who can laugh his ass off. I don't give a hoot), but here is the pledge I wrote when I was a little girl:

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States
And to the ideals and the nation for which it stands.
One nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition
That all men and women are created equal.

Hey .... what do you want .... I was only six!!!

[Milarepa]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States
And to the ideals and the nation for which it stands.
One nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition
That all men and women are created equal.

Ricky, I for one think it is beautiful, I actually think we are both more alike than I had previously realized. One of the faults of non-direct communication is the inability to understand tone, and body language. I think that in a lot of ways I was getting caught up in semantics. I apologize if I have said anything to offend.

[joblack]

"I have a number of people drop me notes asking me if your last name is "Black" or if you are unemployed. Given you inability to complete a logical thought, I am leaning towards the latter. "

Now I'm really amused. Some people complained I would argue against 'women', but you are shooting against unemployed people.

I'm not - but this shows your moralistic background.

Ignorance is another part of narcissistic behavior. I'm glad you're not in power, that would be bad for a lot of people ...

[HarryT]

Ladies and gentlemen,

You're welcome to disagree with peoples' OPINIONS, but personal attacks are inappropriate. Please let's all take a deep breath and calm down.

Thank you,

[Moderator]

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Milarepa

Ricky, I for one think it is beautiful, I actually think we are both more alike than I had previously realized. One of the faults of non-direct communication is the inability to understand tone, and body language. I think that in a lot of ways I was getting caught up in semantics. I apologize if I have said anything to offend.

Nah .... you never did. Now joblack went and ended up on my ignore list, simply because I don't feel like wasting anymore time with him. However, a good argument ... about anything .... is always fun. You would be surprised how many wars are probably started over semantics. Such is life.

And, for being such a nice person and posting an apology that you really didn't have to make in the first place ... the karma fairy is about to visit you and plunk you with her magic wand.

Me .... I'm going to the closest Wendy's and getting myself a chocolate shake big enough to take a bath in. I helped power wash the furniture on both front and back porches today ... and it was hotter than all hell out there. I simply must bring my body temp back to a respectable level before I find myself reporting to the emergency room.

Looking forward to getting to know and understand you better.