That's where you made a mistake, using Michael Moore as an authority. I agree it seems like the US is turning fascist but I wouldn't use what Michael Moore says.
I would argue that the viewpoint presented on the middle school's web page may be somewhat simplified.
That middle school, is it one I didn't notice, isn't the first tyme I read that Federalists didn't approve of the Bill of Rights. It was just the first result I found it in when I googled.
Also, a pamphlet I have of the U.S. Constitution printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office notes that 11 of the 13 states ratified the Bill of Rights.
I don't see what the number of states ratifying the Bill of Rights as to do with Federalists not wanting one. Well actually I do, because the Federalists wanted a strong federal government the states wanted something that guaranteed states rights. I'm not saying that that's why but the states that did ratify the Bill of Rights may have done it because of the Federalists. They may have feared the federalists would prevail in establishing a strong federal government. And unfortunately now we have one. The Supreme Court even had to use a bunch of mumble jumbo about the interstate commerce clause to justify denying California voters the right to approve of medical marijuana.
End result is unfortunately either a bloody coup and/or civil war.
Thomas Jefferson once said there should be a revolution every 20 years or so. He said it in his quote about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed periodically with the blood of patriots and tyrants:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty....
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
opposition to the Bill of Rights was not to instead institute a large central government, but rather, fear that a Bill of Rights would limit the rights given to the citizen.
"Two groups opposed each other, the Federalists who wanted a strong government and no bill of rights, and the Anti-Federalists who wanted more power for the states and a bill of rights. To reach an agreement, James Madison promised to add a bill of rights to the Constitution."
You mean "quick formating" doesn't erase all data. So-called "full formating" does, though there are still ways of recovering the data in a lab.
I once reformatted a disk then reinstalled Windows. I told Windows to reformat again. Once Windows was reinstalled I tried to install Perl, unfortunately install said it was already installed and failed in the install. So I did a compleat format again then reinstalled Windows again. The same thing happened though. After doing some research I decided to partition the drive. Once I partitioned it I formatted each partition, then deleted those partitions. When I reinstalled Windows again I got the same message from the Perl installation. I ended up partitioning a bunch of partitions, formatting them, then deleting them then repartitioning and deleting those. When doing it I made each partition a different size and in different orders. Finally I was able to install Perl. It took me more than 2 days to do.
Aren't those in the military trained to follow orders from the government no matter what?
I'd ask my nephew, but he's a Marine stationed in Iraq, however when I was in the army we were taught not to follow orders we thought were illegal or violated human rights. When sworn in, yes people are sworn in when they go into the military, people pledge to uphold the Constitution of the USA though.
Surely those who would refuse to raise arms against those they were ordered to kill would be few and far inbetween
I take it you've never been in the military but when I was in there were plenty of people who'd disobey any such order. Viet Nam had a number of examples of fragging where unpopular officers had fragmentation grenades, where the name comes from, tossed at them by those under their command.
We've got van mounted miniguns that can shoot thousands of bullets per minute and are completely mobile.
And those manning the miniguns may shoot at anyone giving orders to shoot on civilians or citizens. Ever hear of fragging? During the Viet Nam War soldiers would frag officers and others for giving bad orders. During the Tiananmen Square protests the authorities were concerned that the Chinese army would split into factions that would fight each other.
The founders really didn't want an all powerful central government
While some of the USA's Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, wanted a small and weak federal government others did want a strong central government. The Constitution of the USA was a compromise between them, with the Bill of Rights solidifying small government. Those who wanted a strong central government wouldn't approve of the rights later passed as the Bill of Rights.
They may not look innocent to someone from a big city but they look fine to others. Growing up many people I knew owned firearms. My dad, who retired from the US Air Force, gave me a.22 long rifle rifle before I was 10. Between him and my best friend's dad we were taken out for target practice a bunch of tymes. And I knew others who did the same. Actually at least several tymes a year we'd have barbecues with 20 to 50 people where we'd cook gator tail, seafood, frog legs, venison, and wild boar or hog. Hunting, and fishing, was big with these people. And saying they only use rifles and not guns, handguns, shows you don't know much if anything about hog hunting. A handgun is needed for this, even after being shot a hog can attack you and hunters know this so they also carry a gun. The same applies to alligators.
Formatting your hard drive doesn't erase or make the data unreadable. There are a nmuber of programs that can unformat a disk and recover the data. Googling unformat recovery results in more than half a million results. The first result, Deleted NTFS Partition Recovery 1.0, recovers "ntfs data from deleted, formatted and damaged NTFS and NTFS5 file systems of windows operating systems." There are a number of other programs that do the same. Actually I have to use such a program to recover data on a hard disk on my Linux PC. It's motherboard failed and because it was under warranty I took it into the shop where I got it to have it repaired. I specifically told the tech not to erase or format that drive, it was the second hdd in the PC and used to store user data, but when reinstalling Linux he put it on automatic which did reformat the drive.
I wished I had an external hdd for backups, because the hdd holding the user files was 750GB and had more than 500GB on it using DVDs it would have taken more than 90 disks. Now I have a 500GB and a 750GB external hdd. I use the 500GB drive but haven't used the 750GB drive yet.
Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes.
Tell that to the Chinese. At the Tiananmen Square protests the 38th Army, responsible for security in Beijing, and other local units refused to fire on demonstrators. So the People's Army had to send in the 27th Army, based outside of Beijing. Chinese officials were afraid the army would split into warring factions because of this. It would be even worse in the US military. I don't know about you but I served in the US Army and just as happened in Viet Nam when soldiers fragged officers and others when they gave bad orders, plenty of people in the US military would do the same if they were ordered to fire on people in the US.
Trademarks can't be revoked because of prior art? That's bad not good. If I create a brand but don't trademark the label then someone else can come long and trademark it denying me the use of what I created. That's bad not good.
I don't think you can be arrested for living with 4 women
Actually cohabitation, which is what this is, is illegal in some states. Even one male and one female is illegal, without a marriage license or as relatives that is.
I'm sure there are local laws that might prevent this arrangement in some places, but I haven't heard of them being enforced.
According to TFA I linked to above North Carolina was enforcing their law. In 2004 a woman who had moved from New York to North Carolina was arrested for "lewd and lascivious association" because she lived with her boyfriend, who was the father of her 2-year-old daughter.
if you think that I'm even talking about polyamory in the liberal West. Nothing I've said thus far is even any sort of criticism of that lifestyle. I'm talking about polygamous cultures, not a niche subculture that has at best tiny effects on the broader monogamous culture in which it's embedded.
No, you're being obtuse. Some people use polyamory instead of polygamy because the dominate culture has basterized the meaning of polygamy. I bet most people, when asked what polygamy means, will say it's what the FLDS and other sects of Mormons as well as Muslims do, one man having more than one wife but not the opposite.
And a man having more than one wife, as has been pointed out before (I think to you), is both polygyny and polygamy.
Yes it was pointed out, to me, but that does not make it true. In polygyny the man can have more than one wife but it says nothing about women having more than one husband. I would not be surprised at all if a wife in the FLDS would be stoned if she were caught with another man. And last year Iran was going to stone to death a woman who had sex with someone she was not married to. Years ago the Taliban stoned a married lady, even though her husband and both families pardoned her and asked the Taliban to let her live. However polygamy specifically states both men and women can have more than one spouse.
I just mean to say that they're both in the category of simultaneous-multi-partner relationships that don't involve marriage.
Polygamy doesn't involve marriage because it's illegal. Polyamorous people do take steps to write up legal papers though, for instance does one person have the authority to authorize medical treatment for a child who is not theirs. Here is the Polyamory Society's Legal Devision.
Personally I look at it like this; if marriage is religious government shouldn't be involved. And if it's civil then government shouldn't say one group can marry but another can't. Either way, in other words, government should not have anything to do with marriages other than enforcing legal agreements and contracts.
You have posted 24 comments to this article (most of which are to inform people about polygyny/polygamy).
When I get upset about something I speak up. As for how many tymes I've said it, the mass media has stated the wrong stuff so many tymes I could spend my life pointing them out and not get anywhere. And polygamy/polygyny isn't the only, or the first. I also point out the same when someone says a programmer who's a criminal is a hacker. If they don't follow the hacker ethic they aren't a hacker. I can get passionate about both.
What I can't figure. Some of the ancient kings who had a hundred, two hundred wives all living in the same palace. With the dorm effect, could you imagine that?
And what if the wives felt they wanted to bring in an extra husband? i'd have less trouble with polygamy if it worked both ways.
Polygamy does work both ways, both men and women can have more than one spouse. It's polygyny, where a man can have more than one wife, and polyandry, where a woman can have more than one spouse, that might not go both ways. Polygamy itself, despite what the mass media keeps saying about the FDLS, allows both men and women to have multiple spouses.
why bother with marriage at all?
Because some want the piece of paper and or the ceremony.
Just live with whomever, breed with whomever and keep rituals and paperwork out of it.
Somedo. However if you go through the first website you'll see they still do some. For instance what can be done about children, who has authority over them or who can take them to a doctor. Children are a big factor legally so paper work needs to be done for them. Actually it takes more work to get polygamy/polyamory relationships working smoothly than it does 1 man and 1 woman marriages.
Still, there is the matter of what do the unmarried men in such cultures do?
They can get married, polygamy allows women to have more than one spouse.
Slashdot Mirror
3. Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least.
I thought that "MTV Raps" was a recruiting show for this caste. Seriously though, I think the growing gang phenomenon would qualify here.
You don't need MTV, we have Blackwater and other private military contractors as the thug caste.
Falcon
That's where you made a mistake, using Michael Moore as an authority. I agree it seems like the US is turning fascist but I wouldn't use what Michael Moore says.
Falcon
I would argue that the viewpoint presented on the middle school's web page may be somewhat simplified.
That middle school, is it one I didn't notice, isn't the first tyme I read that Federalists didn't approve of the Bill of Rights. It was just the first result I found it in when I googled.
Also, a pamphlet I have of the U.S. Constitution printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office notes that 11 of the 13 states ratified the Bill of Rights.
I don't see what the number of states ratifying the Bill of Rights as to do with Federalists not wanting one. Well actually I do, because the Federalists wanted a strong federal government the states wanted something that guaranteed states rights. I'm not saying that that's why but the states that did ratify the Bill of Rights may have done it because of the Federalists. They may have feared the federalists would prevail in establishing a strong federal government. And unfortunately now we have one. The Supreme Court even had to use a bunch of mumble jumbo about the interstate commerce clause to justify denying California voters the right to approve of medical marijuana.
Falcon
End result is unfortunately either a bloody coup and/or civil war.
Thomas Jefferson once said there should be a revolution every 20 years or so. He said it in his quote about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed periodically with the blood of patriots and tyrants: ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
Falcon
opposition to the Bill of Rights was not to instead institute a large central government, but rather, fear that a Bill of Rights would limit the rights given to the citizen.
"Two groups opposed each other, the Federalists who wanted a strong government and no bill of rights, and the Anti-Federalists who wanted more power for the states and a bill of rights. To reach an agreement, James Madison promised to add a bill of rights to the Constitution."
Falcon
You mean "quick formating" doesn't erase all data. So-called "full formating" does, though there are still ways of recovering the data in a lab.
I once reformatted a disk then reinstalled Windows. I told Windows to reformat again. Once Windows was reinstalled I tried to install Perl, unfortunately install said it was already installed and failed in the install. So I did a compleat format again then reinstalled Windows again. The same thing happened though. After doing some research I decided to partition the drive. Once I partitioned it I formatted each partition, then deleted those partitions. When I reinstalled Windows again I got the same message from the Perl installation. I ended up partitioning a bunch of partitions, formatting them, then deleting them then repartitioning and deleting those. When doing it I made each partition a different size and in different orders. Finally I was able to install Perl. It took me more than 2 days to do.
Falcon
Aren't those in the military trained to follow orders from the government no matter what?
I'd ask my nephew, but he's a Marine stationed in Iraq, however when I was in the army we were taught not to follow orders we thought were illegal or violated human rights. When sworn in, yes people are sworn in when they go into the military, people pledge to uphold the Constitution of the USA though.
Surely those who would refuse to raise arms against those they were ordered to kill would be few and far inbetween
I take it you've never been in the military but when I was in there were plenty of people who'd disobey any such order. Viet Nam had a number of examples of fragging where unpopular officers had fragmentation grenades, where the name comes from, tossed at them by those under their command.
Falcon
We've got van mounted miniguns that can shoot thousands of bullets per minute and are completely mobile.
And those manning the miniguns may shoot at anyone giving orders to shoot on civilians or citizens. Ever hear of fragging? During the Viet Nam War soldiers would frag officers and others for giving bad orders. During the Tiananmen Square protests the authorities were concerned that the Chinese army would split into factions that would fight each other.
Falcon
That's becuase everyone I talk to thinks "I don't do anything illegal, why should I care."
Which, as anyone here will tell you, is a terrible argument.
For a good argument, to stop stuff like this, direct those people who say "I have nothing to hide" to Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom.
Falcon
The founders really didn't want an all powerful central government
While some of the USA's Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, wanted a small and weak federal government others did want a strong central government. The Constitution of the USA was a compromise between them, with the Bill of Rights solidifying small government. Those who wanted a strong central government wouldn't approve of the rights later passed as the Bill of Rights.
Falcon
People carying guns don't look innocent
They may not look innocent to someone from a big city but they look fine to others. Growing up many people I knew owned firearms. My dad, who retired from the US Air Force, gave me a .22 long rifle rifle before I was 10. Between him and my best friend's dad we were taken out for target practice a bunch of tymes. And I knew others who did the same. Actually at least several tymes a year we'd have barbecues with 20 to 50 people where we'd cook gator tail, seafood, frog legs, venison, and wild boar or hog. Hunting, and fishing, was big with these people. And saying they only use rifles and not guns, handguns, shows you don't know much if anything about hog hunting. A handgun is needed for this, even after being shot a hog can attack you and hunters know this so they also carry a gun. The same applies to alligators.
Falcon
Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom.
Falcon
Formatting your hard drive doesn't erase or make the data unreadable. There are a nmuber of programs that can unformat a disk and recover the data. Googling unformat recovery results in more than half a million results. The first result, Deleted NTFS Partition Recovery 1.0, recovers "ntfs data from deleted, formatted and damaged NTFS and NTFS5 file systems of windows operating systems." There are a number of other programs that do the same. Actually I have to use such a program to recover data on a hard disk on my Linux PC. It's motherboard failed and because it was under warranty I took it into the shop where I got it to have it repaired. I specifically told the tech not to erase or format that drive, it was the second hdd in the PC and used to store user data, but when reinstalling Linux he put it on automatic which did reformat the drive.
I wished I had an external hdd for backups, because the hdd holding the user files was 750GB and had more than 500GB on it using DVDs it would have taken more than 90 disks. Now I have a 500GB and a 750GB external hdd. I use the 500GB drive but haven't used the 750GB drive yet.
Falcon
Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes.
Tell that to the Chinese. At the Tiananmen Square protests the 38th Army, responsible for security in Beijing, and other local units refused to fire on demonstrators. So the People's Army had to send in the 27th Army, based outside of Beijing. Chinese officials were afraid the army would split into warring factions because of this. It would be even worse in the US military. I don't know about you but I served in the US Army and just as happened in Viet Nam when soldiers fragged officers and others when they gave bad orders, plenty of people in the US military would do the same if they were ordered to fire on people in the US.
Falcon
Trademarks can't be revoked because of prior art? That's bad not good. If I create a brand but don't trademark the label then someone else can come long and trademark it denying me the use of what I created. That's bad not good.
Falcon
I don't think you can be arrested for living with 4 women
Actually cohabitation, which is what this is, is illegal in some states. Even one male and one female is illegal, without a marriage license or as relatives that is.
I'm sure there are local laws that might prevent this arrangement in some places, but I haven't heard of them being enforced.
According to TFA I linked to above North Carolina was enforcing their law. In 2004 a woman who had moved from New York to North Carolina was arrested for "lewd and lascivious association" because she lived with her boyfriend, who was the father of her 2-year-old daughter.
Falcon
if you think that I'm even talking about polyamory in the liberal West. Nothing I've said thus far is even any sort of criticism of that lifestyle. I'm talking about polygamous cultures, not a niche subculture that has at best tiny effects on the broader monogamous culture in which it's embedded.
No, you're being obtuse. Some people use polyamory instead of polygamy because the dominate culture has basterized the meaning of polygamy. I bet most people, when asked what polygamy means, will say it's what the FLDS and other sects of Mormons as well as Muslims do, one man having more than one wife but not the opposite.
Falcon
If polygyny AND polyandry are in place, every male can have a wife. I've never heard of such a society though
Try the Polyamory Society.
And a man having more than one wife, as has been pointed out before (I think to you), is both polygyny and polygamy.
Yes it was pointed out, to me, but that does not make it true. In polygyny the man can have more than one wife but it says nothing about women having more than one husband. I would not be surprised at all if a wife in the FLDS would be stoned if she were caught with another man. And last year Iran was going to stone to death a woman who had sex with someone she was not married to. Years ago the Taliban stoned a married lady, even though her husband and both families pardoned her and asked the Taliban to let her live. However polygamy specifically states both men and women can have more than one spouse.
Falcon
Okay.
I just mean to say that they're both in the category of simultaneous-multi-partner relationships that don't involve marriage.
Polygamy doesn't involve marriage because it's illegal. Polyamorous people do take steps to write up legal papers though, for instance does one person have the authority to authorize medical treatment for a child who is not theirs. Here is the Polyamory Society's Legal Devision.
Personally I look at it like this; if marriage is religious government shouldn't be involved. And if it's civil then government shouldn't say one group can marry but another can't. Either way, in other words, government should not have anything to do with marriages other than enforcing legal agreements and contracts.
Falcon
You have posted 24 comments to this article (most of which are to inform people about polygyny/polygamy).
When I get upset about something I speak up. As for how many tymes I've said it, the mass media has stated the wrong stuff so many tymes I could spend my life pointing them out and not get anywhere. And polygamy/polygyny isn't the only, or the first. I also point out the same when someone says a programmer who's a criminal is a hacker. If they don't follow the hacker ethic they aren't a hacker. I can get passionate about both.
Falcon
Fascinating, but polyamory in San Francisco isn't exactly a representative sample of polygamy worldwide.
That was just one example. There are plenty of others, in the US at least. Try these:
And those are just from my bookmarks. About.com, which is also in my bookmarks, has more.
Falcon
What I can't figure. Some of the ancient kings who had a hundred, two hundred wives all living in the same palace. With the dorm effect, could you imagine that?
The Dorm effect, or McClintock effect has never been proven.
Falcon
I'm not sure nagging is much of a concern. Many (most?) of the cultures which allow polygamy also tend to turn a blind eye to domestic abuse.
Name one culture which allows polygamy and turns a blind eye to domestic abuse. Remember, polygamy not polygyny.
Falcon
So making corrections is pedantry? And all those people who believe in polygamy, of which I am one, have nothing to fear when the word is used wrong?
Falcon
And what if the wives felt they wanted to bring in an extra husband? i'd have less trouble with polygamy if it worked both ways.
Polygamy does work both ways, both men and women can have more than one spouse. It's polygyny, where a man can have more than one wife, and polyandry, where a woman can have more than one spouse, that might not go both ways. Polygamy itself, despite what the mass media keeps saying about the FDLS, allows both men and women to have multiple spouses.
why bother with marriage at all?
Because some want the piece of paper and or the ceremony.
Just live with whomever, breed with whomever and keep rituals and paperwork out of it.
Some do. However if you go through the first website you'll see they still do some. For instance what can be done about children, who has authority over them or who can take them to a doctor. Children are a big factor legally so paper work needs to be done for them. Actually it takes more work to get polygamy/polyamory relationships working smoothly than it does 1 man and 1 woman marriages.
Still, there is the matter of what do the unmarried men in such cultures do?
They can get married, polygamy allows women to have more than one spouse.
Falcon