The U.S.S.C. Oligarchy may have just cut off it's entire leg.
1 posted on
06/27/2005 6:48:05 AM PDT by
Happy2BMe
To: Happy2BMe
Powerful! Thanks for posting.
2 posted on
06/27/2005 6:51:04 AM PDT by
poobear
(Imagine a world of liberal silence.)
To: A. Pole; MeekOneGOP; devolve; potlatch; JohnHuang2; HiJinx; SJackson; dennisw; Diogenesis; Salem; ..
3 posted on
06/27/2005 6:52:19 AM PDT by
Happy2BMe
("Viva La Migra" - LONG LIVE THE BORDER PATROL!)
To: Happy2BMe
Forgive me for using such an overused term, but doesn't "authoritarian free enterprise" mean the same thing as "corporatist fascism"?
4 posted on
06/27/2005 6:53:11 AM PDT by
thoughtomator
(The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government)
To: Happy2BMe
Free enterprise has nothing to do with it. Sure, there are corrupt businessmen ready to profit, but few people would venture to claim that Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kennedy are spokesmen for free enterprise.
It's an alliance of corrupt politicians and corrupt businessmen. It's more in the line of Stalin or Hitler than Adam Smith.
6 posted on
06/27/2005 6:57:07 AM PDT by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Happy2BMe
It is my hope that this ruling will FINALLY cause the Democratic moderates and conservatives to wake up to the tyranny of the men and women in black.
7 posted on
06/27/2005 6:58:27 AM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: Happy2BMe
Lawyers see this AS THE HARD TIME discussed in the article!! This is an elites for elietes decision.
The time the public would accept this the author suggests is ALREADY HERE in the eyes of the left wingers who dominate the legal profession.
I just came from a Bar Conference and the vast majority of laywers and lawyers who are judges are very very very ANGRY that republicans are in charge.
To: Happy2BMe
12 posted on
06/27/2005 7:01:40 AM PDT by
firewalk
To: Happy2BMe
Great article and post!
This decision is a watershed in American politics. It is one of those defining moments whereby people reveal their true allegiances and motivations....the masks (and gloves) will come off.
IMO, it falls into a special class of political issues which are coming to the forefront of awareness. Illegal immigration is such an issue, as is Christian religious expression. They are unique in that they cut across traditional political lines. Many folks over at DU were just as upset at this ruling as we were.
I don't have general catchall names to describe these new categories. On one side...you have a populist, traditional, individual oriented American culture...on the other a corporatist, elitist, progressive culture...but its a bit more complicated than that in my view.
It is both a cultural as well as a psychological distinction.
15 posted on
06/27/2005 7:09:38 AM PDT by
Dat Mon
(will work for clever tagline)
To: Happy2BMe
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
16 posted on
06/27/2005 7:09:51 AM PDT by
Gritty
("The moment you give up your principles your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci)
To: Happy2BMe
Socialism allied with Big Business. Isn't that the definition of Fascism, per Mussolini, who invented it?
18 posted on
06/27/2005 7:26:55 AM PDT by
expatpat
To: Happy2BMe
FORGET ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT ALREADY! They weren't being "oligarchical" by upholding a law that elected representatives enacted.
The blame for these laws lies with the politicians themselves. WE elected them, we can unelect them. If even a quarter of the anger that's been uselessly directed at the courts had instead been directed at the politicians, there would be heads rolling in city and town halls all across the country. But instead, everyone wastes their energy on SCOTUS, the branch of government that we have precisely the least influence on, and which didn't initiate the problem here. In the meantime, the slimy politicians get let off the hook. Can anyone give a rational reason for this?
29 posted on
06/27/2005 7:59:28 AM PDT by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: Happy2BMe
Suggested future SCOTUS nominee guidelines:
NO more Souters
NO more Kennedys
and for God's sake, NO MORE GINSBURGS! (ACLU spawn)
32 posted on
06/27/2005 8:47:32 AM PDT by
TheGrimReaper
(It's time to bring back public flogging.)
To: Happy2BMe; poobear
Free Enterprise? Since when are government siezures free enterprise? I'm getting sick of "moderates" confusing free enterprise and fascism. Free enterprise means people have the right to conduct business as they see fit, without government interference. In free enterprise, government serves merely to preserve the freedom by preventing lawlessness, invasion, and the restriction of markets. New London represents fascism here, the ability of the government to co-erce its subjects into business dealings they do not wish to engage in.
35 posted on
06/27/2005 10:16:08 AM PDT by
dangus
To: Happy2BMe
If this continues, the Rule of Five may finally meet Rule 308.
43 posted on
06/27/2005 2:20:05 PM PDT by
Travis McGee
(----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson