answer: no

quote:

Originally posted by chach Topic One: Obama calls for Preventive Detention Centers for terrorist suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried. Two unnamed sources in a meeting with Obama said this is very stunning and that this policy would be for those captured in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan. If the Department of Homeland Security can define conservatives and Christians as “extremists” how far of a stretch is it to label us as potential terrorist suspects that are a threat to national security and throw us in a Preventative Detention Center?

If a person warrants the declaration then yea... I don't care if they are Christian or Muslim, as we have seen this week there are times when both regilions warrant the label and should be delt with.

quote:

Originally posted by chach Topic Two: Obama’s Justice Department appointees tell career JD lawyers to drop charges against Black Panthers that blocked the doors to the voting booth in Pennsylvania, hurled racial insults at whites, wielded night sticks, and were dressed in military uniforms. Why would charges be dropped? Because this is the model for the Obama “red shirt”, civilian military force that Obama called for during the campaign. Expect more of this now that the national volunteerism bill has become law and will spend billions of dollars and train millions of young radicals over the next five years. Remember Saul Alinsky called for community organizers to agitate to the point of conflict. As police forces are being downsized, and in some cities eliminated as towns become unincorporated, watch and see if Obama’s civilian military force will be called upon to fill-in the void.

No. You could re-word the same statement as a liberal attack on Bush's JD and attempts to fund religious organizations that provided care for the needy. Both statements would be totally false. What are you scared of is the question? Empowering people to make changes, even if they are radical, as long as they are broad based and have support of the majority of the populace, is a fundamental part of how our country was formed and is even expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

If it is the will of the majority then it is their fundamental right to alter the powers that bind them. This is not a totalitarian state and never will be. If it ever comes to that I would expect every US Citizen to take up arms to defend the rights that are granted to them by not only our fore-fathers but the basic natural rights of all humankind.

quote:

Originally posted by chach Topic Three: Speaking of the U.S. Constitution, Obama says “I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws.” So guess what? Obama trashes the Fifth Amendment by taking the property of American businessmen without due process. Obama has stolen and given away, for free, the car dealerships of families that have spent millions of dollars to build them and maintain them. The U.S. Constitution and contract law mean nothing in America any longer.

No. To be blunt this would have happened eitherway. GM would have collapsed catastrophically and the damage would have been "worse."

I don't agree with the government take over of GM, but to claim that the dealer network and that all the workers are worse off because of it is bat-shit crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby I don't agree with the government take over of GM, but to claim that the dealer network and that all the workers are worse off because of it is bat-shit crazy.

Just a side note- isn't the closing of 14 factories, 4000+ dealerships, and 3 parts centers (which translates into 18,000-20,000 overall workers) kind of an indication that they are about to be worse off?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Just a side note- isn't the closing of 14 factories, 4000+ dealerships, and 3 parts centers (which translates into 18,000-20,000 overall workers) kind of an indication that they are about to be worse off?

Did you read his post? He said the causality is that GM is failing, not that the government got involved.

Are you now making the claim that Obama's intervention has directly led to the firing of these workers? Because that's one I haven't seen.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Just a side note- isn't the closing of 14 factories, 4000+ dealerships, and 3 parts centers (which translates into 18,000-20,000 overall workers) kind of an indication that they are about to be worse off?

I said all the workers. Sorry, capitalism means some people get screwed... If it hadn't been for the massive amounts of funding and the eventual take over that GM got it would have been a total loss and we would have all of the dealerships closed, all the factories closed, and all the subsidiary companies affected much worse as well.

yeah, my bad. I was asking for clarification for real.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Sorry, capitalism means some people get screwed...

Your use of the word "some" is one hell of an understatement. Multiple generations of a society living beyond its means at the expense of millions in the third world and now it has potential to come full circle and we're scared and insecure. Nothing our society will experience will rival the conditions people survive in all over the world, made infinitely worse by our own foreign escapades over the last several decades. We have no one to thank but ourselves.

True.

Socialism and nationalization does not work.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT True. Socialism and nationalization does not work.

It's working in Europe. And nationalization has its place when the situation is serious enough to warrant it. Which should be rare and far in between. Minimal nationalization may be necessary in certain cases which must be viewed for their individual circumstances. Like GM. Do you honestly think the government started off wanting to take over GM? No. GM is a huge liability to the government already in record deficit territory. The government has said it is not in the business of running car company and that meant they want out as quickly as possible. If they can get their investment back, they can use that to pay off the other debts.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton It's working in Europe. And nationalization has its place when the situation is serious enough to warrant it. Which should be rare and far in between. Minimal nationalization may be necessary in certain cases which must be viewed for their individual circumstances. Like GM. Do you honestly think the government started off wanting to take over GM? No. GM is a huge liability to the government already in record deficit territory. The government has said it is not in the business of running car company and that meant they want out as quickly as possible. If they can get their investment back, they can use that to pay off the other debts.

Ok but this has nothing to do with my answer to the question this topic is based from.

Just thought I'd comment on your comment.