Re: Making money from Java
- From: "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:41:34 -0500
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:br1kf.47148$6y4.28202@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Mr McClendon, with all due respect, I see a lot of
> > the subjective and little of the objective in your words;
> > that is, it is *your* belief that assigns *enemy* and
> > without any stated objective criteria. Tell me, by what
> > objective criteria does speech by members of the
> > Communist Party cause harm? And for contrast, by
> > what objective criteria does speech by members of
> > the Republican and Democratic Parties not cause the
> > same harm? (Hint: The harm comes from the emotional
> > stress of having to listen to all that tripe (slang: something
> > spoken or written that is false or worthless). In other
> > words, what you seem to define as 'criminal', I see in
> > both the Republican and Democratic Parties!)
>
> Those things are supposed to be determined by the courts, of course. My
> point was simply to show that, assuming the Communist Party could be shown
> to be an enemy of the US (proving they were trying to start a revolution
> here would be a good start :), then there is Constitutional Law that could
> make joining and supporting the Communist Party an act of treason. And
> that's true. :-)
The Democratic Party started a revolution in government
under President Franklin Roosevelt. (One assessment I
recall seeing is that 11 of 12 'planks' of the Socialist
Workers Party platform (1932?) were eventually
implemented by Democrats.)
The Republican Party started a revolution in government
under President Reagan. (Pass out all manner of tax
breaks to promote economic growth and, earlier, President
Nixon announced an end to President Lyndon Johnson's
"Great Society," another revolution, shortly before
Johnson's death.)
The Reform Party started a revolution in government
by trying to stop both the Democratic and Republican
Parties from promoting their revolutions.
What parties are not trying to start or continue a
revolution to suit their ends?
I think by definition, "Constitutional Law" is a field
of study and its application, though I might guess that
you intended lower case "c" and "l".
Article VI, clause 2, "This Constitution, and the laws
of the United States which shall be made in pursuance
thereof, ... shall be the supreme law of the land ...",
suggests that, if Congress could, in pursuance of 'this
Constitution' and without contradicting the First
Amendment, make a law effectively "abridging the
freedom of speech" of any political party, then, I
suppose ... well ... h'm ... sorry, I keep thinking we
need another revolution to throw the bums out.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: Making money from Java
- References:
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Peter Lacey
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: Making money from Java
- From:
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Oliver Wong
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: James J. Gavan
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Donald Tees
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Donald Tees
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Rick Smith
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Rick Smith
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: Making money from Java
- Prev by Date: Re: Making money from Java
- Next by Date: Re: Making money from Java
- Previous by thread: Re: Making money from Java
- Next by thread: Re: Making money from Java
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|