Top 10 Worst Living Dictators
Published on July 3, 2007 - 217 Comments
This is a list of the most evil currently reigning dictators in the world. It is amazing that these people continue to rule while we busy ourselves fighting in places that are ruled by far less dangerous men.
1. Kim Jong Il, North Korea (in power since 1994)
The amount of debate over the recent nuclear weapons development in North Korea has managed to deflect people from the fact that Kim’s government represses its people more completely than any other living dictator. North Korea has, for the last 31 years, been at the bottom of the Freedom House ranking for political rights and civil liberties. It is also ranks last in the Reporters without Borders ranking of press freedom. The US committee for Human Rights estimates that there are approximately 150,000 Koreans performing forced labour in prison camps for political dissenters and their families.
Contrary to popular belief, Kim Jong Il is actually a very clever and efficient manipulator of his people. He is also the author of the books On the Art of the Cinema, and On the Art of Opera.
2. Than Shwe, Burma (in power since 1992)
General Than Shwe has survived a power struggle to emerge as the sole leader of Burma’s military dictatorship. Because of his hard-line views, he has taken an already bad human rights situation to an even worse level. Burma has more child soldiers than any country in the world and the Burmese regime continues to kidnap citizens to force them to serve as porters for the military in conflicts against non-Burmese ethnic groups.
In 1990 the party of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi won 80% of the vote in an open election. The military cancelled the results. Suu Kyi has spent most of the years since then under house arrest. On May 31, 2003 hired thugs attacked Suu Kyi’s motorcade, killing several of her supporters and arresting dozens of others including Suu Kyi herself.
Shwe is a very private figure, preferring to work behind the scenes. Consequently, even the Burmese people know very little about him.
3. Hu Jintao, China (in power since 2002)

Trained as a hydrolic engineer, Hu Jintao joined the Communist Party in 1964 and spent the next 38 years working his way up the hierarchy. While serving as Party Secretary of Tibet, he did not hesitate to administer martial law and to oversee the killing of unarmed demonstrators. Now that he is General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, Hu, although not all-powerful, is the leader of an unusually repressive regime. The communist party still controls all media, and uses 40,000 internet security agents to monitor online use. More than 200,000 Chinese are serving re-education sentences in labour camps and China performs more than 4,000 executions every year, more than all of the other nations of the world combined, and many of them are for non-violent crimes.
4. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe (in power since 1980)

Mugabe began his reign with widespread international and national support. After leading a successful anti-colonial war of liberation, he was elected independent Zimbabwe’s first president. But over the years he has displayed increasingly dictatorial tendencies. According to Amnesty International, in 2002 alone, Mugabe’s government killed or tortured 70,000 people. Unemployment is above 70% and inflation 500%.
Mugabe has been accused of blocking the delivery of food aid to groups and areas that support the main opposition party. He has continued to hold elections, but has restricted the opposition’s ability to campaign and has shut down media that do not support him. When opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai won 42% of the vote, Mugabe had him arrested and charged with treason. Mugabe has also confiscated farms owned by white people and turned them over to his supporters.
5. Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia (in power since 1995)

Crown Prince Abdullah has been the acting leader of Saudi Arabia since his half-brother, King Fahd, suffered a stroke in 1995. Saudi Arabia is one of the only nations that holds no elections whatsoever. The royal family has promised municipal elections soon but has not announced whether women will be allowed to vote. In fact, it is forbidden for unrelated Saudis of the opposite sex to appear in public together, even inside a taxi. Women are not allowed to testify on their own behalf in divorce proceedings and, in all court cases, the testimony of a man is equal to that of two women.
According to the US State Department, Saudi Arabia continues to engage in arbitrary arrest and torture. During a human rights conference in 1995, Saudi authorities arrested non-violent protesters who were calling for freedom of expression. Some were later flogged, the usual punishment for alleged political and religious offenses.
In a very unusual show of power, the religious forbade children from playing with Barbie dolls, which they dubbed ‘Jewish dolls’ that are ’symbols of decadence of the perverted West’.
6. Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea (in power since 1979)

This small West African nation (population 500,000) was a forgotten dictatorship until major reserves of oil were found in 1995. Since then, US oil companies have poured billions of dollars into the country. Although the per capital annual income is $4,472, 60% of Equatoguineans live on less than $1 a day. The bulk of the oil income goes directly to President Obiang, who has declared that there is no poverty in Guinea, rather that the people are used to living in a different way. In July, state radio announced that Obiang is “in permanent contact with the Almighty,” and that “He can decide to kill without anyone calling him to account and without going to Hell.”
There is no public transport, no newspapers, and only 1% of government spending goes to health care. When asked why so much of his nation’s oil money is deposited into his personal account at the Riggs Bank in Washington, DC, Obiang explained that he keeps total control of the money in order to ‘avoid corruption’.
7. Omar Al-Bashir, Sudan (in power since 1989)

Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is in the midst of a complex 20 year civil war that has claimed the lives of 2 million and uprooted another 4 million. Al-Bashir seized power in a military coup and immediately suspended the constitution, abolished the legislature, and banned political parties and unions. He has tried to negotiate a peace agreement with the main rebel group, but he insists that the nation be ruled according to Islamic Shari’a law, even in southern Sudan, where the people are Christian and animist.
His army has routinely bombed civilians and tortured and massacred non-Arabs, particularly in the oil-producing areas in the south. He has a long history of providing sanctuary for a wide range of terrorists, only to turn against them. He turned over the notorious Carlos the Jackal to France in exchange for financial and military aid and, in 1996, he tried unsuccessfully to sell Osama bin Laden to the US government.
8. Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan (in power since 1990)
Since taking charge of this former Soviet republic in central Asia, Niyazov has developed the world’s most extreme personality cult, challenged only by that of Kim Jong Il. Niyazov’s picture appears on all Turkmen money, there are statues of him everywhere, and he renamed the month of January after himself. His book, Book of the Soul, is required reading in all schools at all levels, and all government employees must memorize sections of it in order to keep their jobs.
Niyazov rules without opposition. As he put it, ‘There are no opposition parties, so how can we grant them freedom?’. In recent years Niyazov has cracked down on religious and ethnic minorities, including Russians, and has refused to grant exit visas for families for women under the age of 35. He has imprisoned political dissidents and subjected them to Stalinist-style show trials and public confessions.
The Turkmen constitution requires retirement at the age of 70, but Niyazov has ensured his own rule by creating a 2,507-member People’s Council which unanimously elected him Lifetime Chairman.
9. Fidel Castro, Cuba (in power since 1959)

The longest reigning dictator, Castro took advantage of the world’s preoccupation with the Iraq war in March and April of 2003 to carry out his biggest round-up of non-violent dissidents in more than a decade. He arrested 75 human rights activists, journalists, and academics, and sent them to jail for an average of 19 years.
Cuba remains a one party state with all of the power in the hands of Castro. The courts are controlled by the executive branch (in other words, Castro). He traditionally blames all of his country’s problems on the USA.
10. King Mswati III, Swaziland (in power since 1986)
Swaziland (population 1.2 million) is the last remaining absolute monarchy in Africa. Mswati III ascended to the throne when he turned 18, four years after the death of his father. Because he had been educated in England it was thought that he would modernize his kingdom. However, he has shown a liking for certain Swazi traditions. On September 15, 2002, he watched thousands of girls and young women dance bare-breasted in the annual Reed Dance and then chose one of be his tenth wife (his father had 100 wives). The girl’s mother filed a lawsuit against the king, charging him with abducting her daughter. Mswati, who rules by decree, then announced that the Swazi courts were forbidden from issuing rulings that limited the king’s power.
In an attempt to appease international opinion, Mswati approved the drafting of a new constitution to replace the one that his father had suspended 30 years earlier. However the new constitution bans political parties, allows the death penalty for any criminal offense, and provides for the reintroduction of debtors’ prisons.
Technorati Tags: Dictators, Politics, Top 10 list
Related ListsTop 10 Most Commented On Lists5 Signs That You Are Turning Into A Dictator Top 10 Worst Dolls Ever Top 10 Worst Scenes In Movies |
SubscriptionsLike this article? Subscribe to the RSS feed to keep 'em coming, or subscribe via email: |
If you find this site helpful, please leave a donation so you can enjoy the spirit of giving too.
Email This Post





1. Chris - July 9th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Where is George w Bush on this, he has centralized power in the most dominant country in the world to a level never seen before, taken away basic rights of freedom and privacy, militarized the police force, has tampered with elections twice, Invaded 2 countries. He has also arrested an unknown number of people without trail and had them systematically tortured, and killed more people worldwide through his imperialistic agenda more then anyone listed here. Dictators are not just limited to lesser developed countries, He is the worst dictator ever known
2. Michael - July 9th, 2007 at 3:12 am
Don’t be ridiculous Chris. Whatever wrongs Bush has done doesn’t make him a dictator. And such hyperbole only weakens the fight against the neocons.
3. Greg - July 9th, 2007 at 6:28 am
Is it really hyperbole, Michael? Whereas many or most of the above listed do not have international support, the United States has enough economic and military power to easily be considered a dictatorial oligarchy that has free, oppressive reign over the rest of the Earth. Bush’s country (through none of his own doing, assuredly) may have many more basic human rights than the other countries listed above. However, U.S. policy allows for American military and international business to subjugate entire countries, sending them into civil war, eternal debt, lawlessness and general despair. Would that more people see this for what it is.
4. jfrater - July 9th, 2007 at 9:09 am
I don’t agree that Bush is a dictator - he is going to be out of power at the next elections and it would take a Communist style election rigging to prevent that.
5. jfrater - July 9th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I would like to thank Erik Marcus who emailed me to point out that dictator number 8, Saparmurat Niyazov, died last year. He has been replaced by Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow, elected (apparently falsely) by an 89% majority. He was previously the Minister of Health and it was during his time as Minister of Health that the country’s hospitals outside of the capital City were all closed.
6. dj41326 - July 9th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Chris - Lets define dictator. Dictator - refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state. Bush was elected BY OUR ELCTORIAL PROCESS twice (if you don’t like it then vote to change it) and please spare me your fixed voting conspiracy theory. Your elected CONGRESS gave him the authority to take us to war against two countries. As far as the imprisonment and torture goes why not defend the right of our American workers and countrymen who are captured an beheaded? After the first WTC bombing and attack on USS Cole we did nothing. So 9/11 happened and did you expect us to do nothing again? Hardly! Still more terrorist plot to bomb major metropolitan cities like the bombing attempts in London but what we should sit back and do nothing? Take no action? Instead of placing blame or pointing out what you think is the obvious be part of the SOLUTION!
7. Michael - July 10th, 2007 at 3:44 am
Bush aside, great list jfrater.
8. Jon - July 10th, 2007 at 4:54 am
I guest invading a country, which had nothing to do with 9/11, and causing the death of over 100,000 of its citizen seems like the logical thing to do.
9. Deuce - July 10th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
dj41326. You sir are an idiot! IF there was any logic to your argument it would be incorrect. As it is you seem to be saying that the US was attacked so lets go out and fuck up some other countries. George Bush didn’t like Iraq so he invaded. Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? No. Did that matter? No. Why not? Because there are enough dumbshit morons in this country who will believe any lie told to them by the fascist right wing shitstains that are currently in charge in this country. Why is Bush’s approval rating in the toilet? Because the people finally realized how stuped they were to listen to him and his sycophants. He may not be a dictator, but he sure is a dick. By the way nutjob, who said anything about “take no action”? You seem to be the only one saying that. I say we take action against the Taliban and al qaida but currently our military heros are diverted and dying in Iraq so osama goes free. Smart plan. Way to think it through. If you supported this bullshit and voted for Bush (especially the second time) then I blame you personally for every unneccessary death that has occurred (that includes the Iraqi’s that have died).
10. Steve - July 13th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
George Bush wasn’t really elected the 2nd time. He called to his father for help and the Supreme Court was pressured by the “powers that really be” to stop the re-count. Typical dictator behavior. Bush has also broken multitudinous US laws, lied in a pathological manner, has enriched his friends (and their friends) through a devastating, illegal war, …. sheesh, the list goes on and on. Yes, Bush is the worst living dictator since Hitler. If we aren’t careful, he’ll declare martial law in the US and take power for good.
He and Cheney need to be impeached, tried, and then executed for their crimes. Lesser members of the Bush regime should be incarcerated.
11. Kristopher - July 18th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Here is a free clue:
Dictators murder and imprison dissidents. I do not see any BDS sufferers being shipped off to the camps. If Bush really was a dictator, you would not be able to whine about him on the internet without getting hauled off to the gulag.
If Bush and Cheney were as evil as Steve seems to think, Steve would have vanished mysteriously after his last post.
Dictators are not removed from power by being “careful”. They generally require violent revolutions to be deposed. If Bush really is a dictator, then I am afraid it is too late for Steve … he had best flee to Canada now while he still can.
12. will - July 19th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I am an european..I like a lot american people… but sometime is so light mind.
Bush made too many trouble to the world, I hope war stopping and America became more friendly and no so close.
Otherwise America will lose, step by step, all the power she produced in 60 years..
I mean: so short time of empire relatives Rome, London, Babilonia.. (now IRAQ!!!!) So learn History, know other people and don’t worry..
In 30Years you will became the past.
INDIA, CINA and EUROPE need to became the leader for hundred of years.
Goo bless, America.
13. Jose - July 20th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Will, let me personally thank you for your kind words. In reference to those who posted before me about Bush, you guys need to stop going off-topic. First and foremost, Bush is not, and will not, be a Dictator. This country runs on a system of checks and balances that ensures that no branch overpowers another, that includes the executive branch, which is the “Presidential” branch. Yes I agree that electing Bush twice wasn’t the best of decisions, but we DID pick him indirectly so if you want to complain, send a letter to your congressman or senator. In order for Bush to pull of a fixed election, he would have to manipulate the entire system, which hasn’t been done, and certainly won’t be done with today’s technology. I don’t want to provide excuses for invading Iraq and sending our men there, but it’s better than nothing, and it has worked so far since we haven’t had any terrorist attacks after 9/11 have we? Anyways, I’m already veering off-topic so let me tell you guys that you need to stop bringing up Bush in this list, because he is not a dictator, no matter what he has done. Also if you hate your country so much or its system, you are free to move to whichever country you’d like, a freedom not enjoyed by many people of the world. Maybe you guys should start stepping back a little bit and take a look at the world around you.
14. Matt - July 22nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Top 10 worst living dictators
Hello. This is a great website, I have been reading it all day.
3. Hu Jintao, China, you said he was an engineer, should that be a hydraulic engineer? Perhaps I am wrong.
If not it is the only fault I have found, good work!
Matt
15. Mark - July 22nd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
The vast difference in opinions is eye opening. MARK
16. Scott - July 23rd, 2007 at 10:08 am
Its amazing how quickly some people go off the deep end when things don’t go their way and they watch a little too much you tube. Steve sounds like the type who watches the conspiracy network for his ‘news’.
Anyway, nice list.
17. vanessa - July 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
I agree with Chris and Steve =D! Oh and don’t they know that Cuba wants Castro? Like duh, old news! Cubans… in a whole believe that Castro brought their country out of a very bad era and into something much better. Jeez, when will Americans just leave the old man alone?
Best to begin the video at 30:00 mins into it
http://video.google.com/videop.....2995115331
18. Chris Orbz - July 25th, 2007 at 6:35 am
My university Spanish prof was born into a position of abject poverty in Cuba’s definite lower class. He had no hopes for anything, but after the revolution, he was able to receive an education to such a degree that he now teaches in Canada.
Why do you think it’s so ridiculous to suggest that the proprietary Diebold machines, the ones that insiders have said were specifically designed to include backdoors, could have been a part of a neocon voting fraud scheme?
Neocons do not have any respect for the principles of democracy and its processes, they simply analyze the system, identify loopholes and exploit them to take full control. And, yes, they are perfectly capable of doing it while simultaneously “allowing” free speech to be maintained.
In other news, there’s this brand new shade everyone’s talking about, it’s called gray.
19. lena - July 25th, 2007 at 7:02 am
I see no point in even wasting youre valuable time calling bush a dictator..if you look at our country’s history no one who EVER entered office has ever even shown signs of dictatorship so why think that should change now??? get of your high horse and spare us your pity arguments..you probably just regret your OWN vote..
20. jfrater - July 25th, 2007 at 8:14 am
I wonder if all this anti-Bush stuff on the net will go away after the next elections. It could change the face of the internet!
21. eddiesammy - July 25th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
George bush did not invade any country.
The army of the United States of America by request of President George W. Bush, (their commander in cheif) and with permission from the U.S. Congress invaded two countries.
I do not totally like Bush and I do not totally dislike him.
For enough americans to vote him in something had to be right. We don’t just give the job of President to the village idiot (or in this case the country idiot).
A person has to be well educated and somewhat intelligent.
Were he a dictator we would lead much different lives than we do now.
Try having all your assetts seized for the betterment of the coutry, try having your family killed or imprisoned for voicing disagreement with the political government.
In fact if we are able to make comments against our government in a public forum such as this without repisal means our president is not a dictator.
Thanks.
22. Loose Cannon - July 26th, 2007 at 6:42 am
This is just typical internet neo-leftist anti-Bush hysteria.
Bush as bad as Kim Jong, Mugabe, or Saparmurat Niyazov? Last I checked, there aren’t thousands of Americans in re-education camps around America, Bush hasn’t had but one wife, January is still called January and his face doesn’t appear on any of our bills.
Allow me to rephrase it:
There are more then 200,000 Chinese serving prison terms for political reasons. There are currently 0 Americans serving prison terms for political reasons.
Niyazov’s book, BOOK OF THE SOUL, is REQUIRED reading for government workers. Bush’s book is not required reading for anyone.
Mugabe’s government has killed or tortured over 70,000 of it’s own citizens. Bush has never killed or tortured any American citizens.
Than Shwe arrested his opponet in a general election. Both Gore and Kerry seem to be doing pretty well on the tour circuit and in Congress, respectively.
Last but not least, Bush’s election: Even the most liberal leftist newspaper in the US, the New York Times, on Nov. 12, 2001, ran a front page article that began: “A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.”
Folks, if you are this bat-shiat crazy against Bush that you would make him the worst dictator in the world, compared to these top 10 nuts, seek professional help. You are mentally disturbed.
23. DOOOMKULTUS - July 28th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I totally don’t agree with Hu Jintao & Fidel Castro on this list of the WORST,first Hu isnt even a dictator so thats off and Castro is better than many US presidents and has made cuba a politically stable and strong country and its medical facilities is better than US so he is a dictator BUT not the WORST,sorry ur just wrong there.
24. wideload - July 28th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
The fact that you put Castro on this list shows your utter lack of knowledge re the latin world and US imperialism in that region.
25. jfrater - July 28th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Wideload (and partly Doomkultus): I don’t consider that any nation’s imperialism gives someone an excuse to become a dictator. No matter how bad the US may have been, Castro murders people who oppose him and prevents free elections. That makes him a dictator. When he gives Cuba free elections and stops murdering people for political reasons, I will remove him from the list. Thanks for the comments.
26. Six Million Jews - July 29th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Bush is a traitor. He belongs in the number 1 spot.
27. George Bush - July 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
So I was hanging out in the Imperial, I mean the Oval Office this morning surfing the net I saw Chris and Greg’s e-mails. That’s it for them, I’ve already had them picked up by the NSA along with their families. They’ll be shot, of course, and the families put into the Correction Facilities in Area 54. My NSA agents are out looking for Steve, and that will guy is in for it too, just as soon as they figure out which Euroweenie country he is from and who to bribe. Black helicopter time for him. And I’ll show that six million jews guy the ropes, too. (Get it? The ropes? Little dictator humor there.)
That’s why I had Harry Reid killed, too. Looked like a car accident, but that was Daddy’s friends in the CIA. And Nancy Pelosi “just dissapeared?” Come on. I fed her feet first into the woodchipper and made a coffee cup out of her skull. And I made Olympia Snowe drink out of it last time she opened her mouth about where all the stolen oil went.
But you know what was really satisfying? When I closed down the New York Times and fed Pinch Sulzberger the publisher to the hyenas at the Bronx zoo. Man, the screams and the laughter juxtaposed together were really sonic art. I recorded and listen when I play with “Little George” while watching “Peace Mom” Cindy Sheehan and those other “Code Pink” bitches raped by the Washington D.C. Police Cavalry Unit. “Absolute Moral Authority” my ass. Her ass, actually. More Dictator Humor. We don’t use any vaseline, so you *better* laugh. And after that fake “toilet story” in the U.S. World Report I closed the magazine down and threw the entire editorial staff into the Gitmo Latrine on CNN and had all the terrorists do their business on them for a few hours, and then I invited the CNN people to join them. They “reluctantly” agreed, so I just left them there.
Now *that’s* what happens in a dictatorship. Who can see the difference? This is a test. If you fail, you get to live in a dictatorship. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life.
28. Loose Cannon - August 1st, 2007 at 2:27 am
Ummm..Mr Bush, I’m not sure. Can you go back to the part about Cindy Sheehan, though, that was fun.
Can you tell us more stories about Pelosi’s Coffee-Mug-Skull, too? Who else drinks out of it?
29. a. abdul - August 10th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Where is Maumoon Abdul Gayoom of Maldives in your list. He’s been in power for nearly 30 years, with absolute control on everything. He is probably the worst dictator of them all.
30. Phil - August 10th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I would vote the american presidency starting sometime more or less with kennedy as an imperial presidency. whereas in the past the office of president was just a public official like any senator or judge, nowadays they have unprecedented power.
31. Loose Cannon - August 10th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Phil: I would vote the american presidency starting sometime more or less with kennedy
As the top 10 worst dictator in the world? Are you farking nuts?
Again, real slow so you can understand me; Show me where any one of the previous Presidents rose to the level of pure madness these current 10 listed here have.
Seriously, put the pipe down, folks and step away from the bong. You’re two last brain cells are fried.
32. jfrater - August 10th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Phil: erm, I don’t know that Kennedy had long enough to be classified as imperial. Regardless though, he was elected. May I ask what your political affiliations are? You don’t seem too keen on the Demos or Republican’s.
Loose Cannon: I should try to be unbiased, but… you go!
33. Phil - August 10th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Loose Cannon: I was referring to the first few comments above. by imperial presidency I mean that the presidents have been given more and more authority. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_presidency
jfrater: i’m liberal but don’t really belong to any of the two parties.
34. Slim Jim - August 10th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
What about the Pope? he has absolute authority within the vatican and catholicism, and is considered infallible.
35. jfrater - August 10th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Phil: Thanks for replying. Your answer makes it clear why you don’t seem to support republicans or demos. What was it about Kennedy that makes you feel he was imperialistic? Do you think (Iraq war aside) that recent Presidents have really acted in an imperial manner (keeping in mind that true imperialism is what we saw from the English monarchy in the 1800’s - it has since been abolished).
36. Slim Jim - August 10th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
“Bush” said: But you know what was really satisfying? When I closed down the New York Times and fed Pinch Sulzberger the publisher to the hyenas at the Bronx zoo. Man, the screams and the laughter juxtaposed together were really sonic art. I recorded and listen when I play with “Little George” while watching “Peace Mom” Cindy Sheehan and those other “Code Pink” bitches raped by the Washington D.C. Police Cavalry Unit.
Loose Cannon responded: Ummm..Mr Bush, I’m not sure. Can you go back to the part about Cindy Sheehan, though, that was fun.
you’re a sick fuck loose cannon and i discredit your arguments
37. Phil - August 10th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Jfrater: I don’t specifically think the “imperial presidency” started with kennedy. it’s just around that time (the mid 60’s maybe) that the office went from being something smalltime like a senator to big like the president was the supreme executive authority.
38. jfrater - August 10th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Slim Jim: The infallibility of the Pope is very limited (ie, it relates only to morals and doctrine); but that aside, Catholics have never considered imperialism to be a bad thing - that is why the Catholic Church used to crown the royals of Europe’s thrones. You could say that in an ideal world (from a Catholic perspective) each country would be governed by an absolute monarch who acts for the best of all his subjects. Frankly this worked for a long time, but you do suffer the occasional despot who screws it up for all by being totally evil. I am not sure we will ever find a perfect balance.
39. jfrater - August 10th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Slim: you go!
Phil: I see - to be honest I don’t follow politics a great deal so I am not one to debate on a deep level as I lack the knowledge. I am happy to just chew the fat though (as we have here).
40. Loose Cannon - August 10th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Slim Jim: you’re a sick fuck loose cannon and i discredit your arguments
It was satirical. If you’re that oblivious to sarcasm then I suggest you stick to the Disney Channel forums.
My argument is simple: Rating any political leader in this nation as one of, or the, worst dictator in the world, especially when we have so many others that are clearly worse, is hysteria.
Anyone who disagrees with this argument is either an imbecile or suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
41. jfrater - August 10th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Loose Cannon: passion is good - but we should probably try not to resort to name calling. I think we could probably have a reasonable debate here if everyone is willing to listen to the others and ALSO to be heard by the others. Hysteria is always lame - we should try to be moderate. Thanks for the comment though - I guess if some are passionate about their views we need to have others as passionate for the opposition too!
42. Louis - August 17th, 2007 at 6:33 am
I wouldn’t go as far as to say Bush is a dictator. Besides, the problem really seems to be with the whole system as opposed to just one centralized figure. Too many representatives and congressman are more interested in filling their own pockets and egos than helping the state of the nation or the world.
Also, for those comments about Bush being elected, you seem to forget that in order to have any realistic chance of being elected you need to have $250 million and to have all the right corporate powers in your pocket. That narrows it down to a very small pool of people who generally don’t care about the average American any farther than where their votes and money go.
I’m sorry if that wasn’t very on-topic or if it was a little extreme. I always get fired up when discussing what I see as a great disservice to the American people(i.e. politics).
43. Billy - August 17th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
“It is amazing that these people continue to rule while we busy ourselves fighting in places that are ruled by far less dangerous men.”
That is a quote from the top of the page. Funny — We are talking about dictators and at the same time we are talking about how Bush ‘invaded Iraq for no reason’, yet where the hell do you think Saddam Hussein would be on this list? In my opinion, top 3.
So, how do you make a list about evil dictators, then in the introduction you say we are wasting our time in Iraq while these people are still ruling.
I guess the millions tortured, raped and murdered by Saddam Hussein don’t matter and should be overlooked because a Republican actually did something about it. God, I hate those damn Republicans so ill bitch that we arent doing anything in the world to help genocide and at the same time ill overlook what Saddam did in Iraq throughout the years.
44. jfrater - August 17th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Louis: thanks for the comment - it is nice to hear a fairly moderate view of the state of things.
Billy - when I compiled this list Saddam was dead - therefore he can’t be on the list of living dictators. My introduction to the article was not actually related to Iraq. I watched the execution of Saddam (and I must confess, I watched it was with glee) but I think we tend to focus on countries that have the most to offer us, rather than those which actually are suffering dreadfully while the world is oblivious. Where were we in Rwanda? Please don’t take this is as a condemnation of our actions in Iraq - I think they had to happen, and now it is time for us to let the Iraqi people govern themselves finally. Surely we are all for the freedom of people to decide their own governments?
Just to confirm: I think Saddam had to be taken out of Iraq and am glad we did that. I will never forget the images of his political opponents hanging by the neck from streetlights.
45. Loose Cannon - August 17th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Jfrater, I think you might have missed Billy’s point.
Others in this comments section have asked the question or submitted the comment about Pres. Bush being one of the worst dictators.
Billy’s point is if Saddam were alive, he would have made the top 10 here. He surely had the cult of personality, the sheer brutality, and posed a danger to everyone around him, having attacked four of his neighbors in just the last 15 years. Not to mention, he would have been the only one on the list to have used WMD on his enemies and his own people!
That in removing this brutal dictator from power, Bush would earn himself a place on this list, according to some, seems outrageous and hysterical.
My point is that if anyone thinks that Bush is the worst dictator in the world compared to these 10 baddies, they are completely unhinged and should seek professional treatment for insanity.
While it would be nice to tip-toe around the issue by ‘agreeing to disagree’ and using niceties to point out the ignorance of people you disagree with, there’s just no comparison here. You did an excellent job in listing the worst in the world. For anyone to put Bush in this list because they disagree with him politically is morbid and ignorant.
46. bob - August 18th, 2007 at 4:00 am
Saparmurat Niyazov renamed himself Turkmenbashi (leader of all turkmen). he has also renmad cities, schools, and anything else he can Turkmenbashi.
47. Gmoney - August 18th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Bush is certainly no dictator- no American president was or will be. The closest any have come to dictatorship was FDR. Four terms in office and placing Japanese, Italian, and German Americans in camps from 1942 until the end of World War Two is worse than anything Bush has done. Bush may not be a very good president, but hes no where near as bad as these 10 monsters.
48. jfrater - August 18th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Loose Cannon - you are right - I did misunderstand Billy. However, my comment is still true - the first paragraph of this article was not a criticism of Bush’s actions in Iraq.
49. Billy - August 18th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Loose Cannon is right on with the point I was trying to make.
How people can honestly believe George W Bush belongs ANYWHERE near this list, I just dont know.
I hate Hilary Clinton as much as some of these people hate Bush, however, I would never compare her or anyone else to dictators such as these. You can disagree with policies and hate the way they are running the country, but to put a man as more evil then Kim Jong II is simply ludicrous.
50. jfrater - August 18th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Billy - hear hear!
51. Simon - August 20th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I think this list should be changed to enemies of America.
52. Huh - August 23rd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Woah where’s Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. The guy who killed 5 thousand unarmed protesters mainly contained of women and children, who uses millions of children to plant and harvest cotton for him, exports all the natural resources of the country, where its own citizens don’t even have electricity in their homes, the person who keeps all the money, the country makes, the person who doesn’t even provide police officers with modern torture equipment, so that they use boiling water to torture innocent people…
53. Crimanon - August 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Why would Police need torture equipment??? Military state polilitcs??? excessive even then. Less than lethal ?????
54. jfrater - August 24th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Simon: they are enemies of their own people! Mugabe is a criminal - regardless of US views, he is a thief.
Huh: It is probably high on the list - just not the top 10.
Crimanon: Police should never need it - I can understand for the military in some cases, but certainly not the police.
55. Crimanon - August 24th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Never need it, Yes. But reguardless of what they should never Need, it is necissary to have on hand things like Pepperspray, beanbag rounds, and tasers. People are not rational and don’t respond well to “Authorities”. Street justice isn’t legal or even a viable option, no matter how much I believe in it. Vigilantism would only work IF humans were rational until then we need trained Men And Women who can handle a crisis. Keep your nose clean and you won’t have a problem with the police. I could write an essay on this……Until Humans have learned to control themselves cops will be needed and I will stand by Any Officer who isn’t already corrupted by Indifference.
56. jfrater - August 24th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Crimanon: oh - I have no problem with pepper spray and tasers, etc. They are definitely needed by the police.
57. Özhan - September 10th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Stop blaming one guy (Bush) for all your problems. You are guilty, alright? Share the guilt.
—
“The army of the United States of America by request of President George W. Bush, (their commander in cheif) and with permission from the U.S. Congress invaded two countries.” quoted from eddiesammy
—
Fidel Castro is a dictator, but I dont think he’s that bad
58. jfrater - September 10th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Özhan: Castro arrests and sometimes executes people just because they don’t agree with him - that makes him bad in my books!
59. Cosmc unwinding - October 12th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
ok,so first off, great list.
second, while i may be a bit harsh to call bush a dictator,to ignore the erosion of american civil liberties in the last 6 years is downright foolhardy.
to those of you that said “we elect presidents”, this is not true. we “appoint” a electoral college,which can then vote the way we asked, or vote what ever way they please.
also, to think that he will definitely go away is niave on a level that is astounding. hell, right now as we speak, putin of russia is suspected of setting up a “puppet president” that he can control behind the scenes, after he leaves office.
history is full of democracys(sp?) that have all but dissapeared, almost overnight. greece(several times) rome(also a couple times) france(napolean) germany (hitler). these are just the most common known examples.
so remember, while it is true we should not compare the crimes of “dubya” to,say, pol pot,he IS a criminal,and IS (in my opinion) a very dangerous man that could destroy this country,if left unchecked.
60. Loose_Cannon - October 12th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
second, while i may be a bit harsh to call bush a dictator,to ignore the erosion of american civil liberties in the last 6 years is downright foolhardy.
Well, your ‘civil liberty’ of free speech still seems intact. I’m assuming you still have the civil liberty to use capitalizations, right? What other ‘civil liberties’ are ‘being eroded’?
61. Crimanon - October 13th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Right to Bear Arms, Right to Privacy, False Imprisonment, Fair trial…
Should I keep going Cannon??? Read the Patriot Act, see if You are entirely law abiding.
62. Loose_Cannon - October 13th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Right to Bear Arms, Right to Privacy, False Imprisonment, Fair trial…
Should I keep going Cannon???
I think your going to have to ‘KEEP GOING’ since none of these have been significantly eroded and I suspect you haven’t read the Patriot Act yourself, since it doesn’t effect any of these.
You don’t have a right to privacy, perse. The dozens of suspects in recent computer child porn case and meth lab owners can tell you this. Hell, look up the Clinton-era development by the FBI of OMNIVORE and CARNIVORE for a real eye opener on the loss of ‘PRIVACY’.
You still have a right to ‘BEAR ARMS’. This hasn’t been touched by the so-called ‘PATRIOT ACT’ at all. Since the passage of the Brady Bill in the early 90’s ,and subsequent enhancements, by the Democrat congress, there has been instituted waiting periods. I can’t purchase a fully automatic machine gun, but I can still legally own rifles, shotguns and handguns, so long as their caliber is less then .50.
As far as ‘FALSE IMPRISONMENT’ and ‘A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRAIL’, again, these have nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
In these cases Bush relied on rulings by the Supreme Court dating back to the 1940’s and Civil War era. In ‘Ex Parte Quirin’ the 1942 US Supreme Court ruled, UNANIMOUSLY, that the US President could 1) create military tribunals, (2) this authority could not be regulated by Congress, and (3) this power was by virtue of the President’s power as commander in chief. Furthermore, since the one of the litigants in Ex Parte Quirin was a US CITIZEN, this applied to anyone, even US Citizens.
Further included in another ruling, from the US Supreme Court in 1865, Ex Parte Milligan is the right of the President to suspend ‘Habeas Corpus’ even to US Citizens. Both Lincoln and FDR used this right during war time without further challenge’s.
Just look at FDR’s interment of 110,000 Japanese-American citizens in 1942-1943 for a real example of the erosion of ‘CIVIL LIBERITIES’. BTW, the Canadian government did the exact same thing.
However, the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court in 2004 titled Hamdi v. Rumsfeld cited two caveats to the Presidents power but only as it applies to US Citizens: The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge. So, in this case at least, your so-called ‘CIVIL LIBERTIES’ were actually enhanced, albeit with no help from Bush.
The term ‘EROSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES’ is thrown around by socialist leftist, like yourself, who have no understanding of really what liberties you have and don’t have. And typically, because you’re so blinded by your hatred of Bush/Cheney/Rove, and suffering from what most of us call ‘BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME’, you blame decades old established laws on the Patriot Act.
It’s so sad to witness the results of the break down of our education system.
63. Loose_Cannon - October 13th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
BTW, since this thread is about the world’s ‘WORST DICTATORS’, where does Bush fall in this group, if his own power to suspend the right to ‘Habeas Corpus’, established over 140 years ago, can be overturned by the US Supreme Court?
As of right now, only a couple of US Citizens have been detained and declared ‘Illegal Combatants’ and held without charge. All since the ‘Hamdi v. Rumsfeld’ ruling have since been charged or given trials.
Does anyone else see the irony of socialist leftists protesting in our streets and ranting on public forms and in our newspapers about the loss of ‘CIVIL LIBERTIES’ when in fact, by making such claims public, they prove those ‘CIVIL LIBERTIES’ are still intact?
64. Crimanon - October 13th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Fuck You! The freedom of speach, a favorite of mine. Give me my guns, give me my money, leave me alone on my land, Go get Stuffed. Sound at all leftist? Get out and actually see things, live the “Shittown” Life. It’s you Over Educated Bastards, high and mighty, Talk down to the little guys. You have so many good Ideas Run for Office. Some other prick will vote for you. I’ll stick to the Liberterians and my Constitutional rights.
Civil liberties- Do you really think that it would be wise to gun down protesters while being recorded, Myanmar style?
Believe whatever you want. But you’re not the only one who knows how to research:
Your bill of rights: Amedments 1-10 vs. “The Big G” (as with my comments and rantings on Scientology, you should spit a little Whenever saying Patriot.)
1: Targeting Musilums and any other Religion that is Deemed a potential for Extremism, harmless or no. Infringing on the confidentiality of “Sources” involved in press coomunications.
2: From personal experience I Know that a Credit card fraud charge (A Felony mind you) can keep you from owning a fire arm. Credit Card Fraud and Murder are classed with the same penatlties. Fortunate that I am still able to Legally Own a Weapon. This is not covered in Search and seizure clauses throughout the “Act” but directly relates to targeting of Minority Religions in America.
4. Search and Seizure. Don’t make me laugh. You can’t even carry a copy of The Catcher in the Rye, and not have your car searched. Look that one Up!
6. James Earl Ray, Need I Say More!!!
8. 2 million dollar bails for Rape, I don’t like the bastards either, but it is Excessive.
Govenment officials Fed., State, and Local; Police and even school systems are using the Patriot Act to bend the constitution in a manner Not prescibed by our Founding Fathers. I have read the Patriot act And Studied the Constitution. Don’t make assumptions, They make you look stupid.
For you to go on and on In what Was, sorry Jamie, a peaceful forum in, the manner that you have shows little reguard for the sanctity of calm discussion.
Bush is not on the list and I didn’t put him there, don’t attack me for voicing my Opinion on a differnt matter.
65. Crimanon - October 13th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
There’s your Degrading Civil liberties right there.
66. jfrater - October 13th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
No need for apologies - I am actually quite enjoying the debate
67. Loose_Cannon - October 14th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Crimanon: Fuck You!
I love it when I prove ignorant people wrong and the first thing they do is use a vulgar attack, then accuse ME of being uncivil.
Get out and actually see things, live the “Shittown” Life. It’s you Over Educated Bastards, high and mighty, Talk down to the little guys.
Sound leftist? Absolutely. It’s the Ad hominem attack, a typical class warfare ploy, in which you accuse others of not ‘Living Among The Lowly’ enough to know what’s going on.
This is just ANOTHER attack favored by the crazed and loony left: Attack the writer. If I’m not sharing your crazed point of view, well hell, I must be over educated enough and never lived my life ‘Among the Lowly.’ Better watch out, though, I think Edwards has that argument trademarked.
What’s hilarious and made me laugh out loud is later when you wrote:
Don’t make assumptions, They make you look stupid.
I would remind you of the same point. Who’s to say where I lived or how? I can share a different opinion even if I lived in the “Shittown” Life, whatever that is.
But the funniest, and most amusing is your so-called ‘LIST’, which could only come from the depths of a very disturbed person:
Targeting Musilums and any other Religion..
Sorry, but they’re terrorists. Just because they happen to share the same religion doesn’t make our persecution of them any less valid. If Jews or Witch were being persecuted, you’d be claiming the same argument. But it fails.
From personal experience I Know that a Credit card fraud charge (A Felony mind you) can keep you from owning a fire arm.
Then I suggest, in the future, you don’t steal people’s credit cards if you still want to carry a weapon. Seems pretty common sense to me.
Search and Seizure. Don’t make me laugh. You can’t even carry a copy of The Catcher in the Rye, and not have your car searched. Look that one Up!
I’m not really sure if you know how this works. I don’t do the leg work to prove you right. You got something to prove, YOU LOOK IT UP. Don’t be so lazy, do your own homework. Besides, no judge in America would ever uphold such a blatant disregard for the 4th Amendment. You fail.
6. James Earl Ray, Need I Say More!!!
Love how you want from 4 to 6 on your list. I wonder if your ‘CIVIL LIBERTY’ for the right to use number 5 was somehow taken away by the Patriot Act!
Unfortunately, I don’t follow the nutty conspiracy theory story of of the week. Was it actually an alien who killed MLK or just Bigfoot up to his old tricks?
Please enlighten all of us on how the killer of one of the most revered civil rights leaders in history was somehow maligned by the ‘Gum’ent’
And you last example. appropriately numbered 8, right after number 6, is:
2 million dollar bails for Rape, I don’t like the bastards either, but it is Excessive.
Fine, let the lawyers battle it out. This isn’t an overextension of the Patriot Act, excess bails have been handed out for decades, long before the Patriot Act became.
Bush is not on the list and I didn’t put him there, don’t attack me for voicing my Opinion on a differnt matter.
Heavens, why not? What you call an ‘ATTACK’ is simply my right to voice my contrary opinion. You disagree with it, so you label it an ‘ATTACK’. Next you’ll be trotting out your children who were somehow scarred for life for my ‘ATTACK’.
You didn’t, with perhaps the exception of the Search and Seizure’ rant, disprove my post in any way, shape or form. I find it very hard to believe that anyone was convicted of a crime simply for carrying a book, or the evidence of a crime was based on finding that book.
You fail, sir.
I doubt you’ll read my entire reply because, well, I’m right and you couldn’t bear to open your mind to the possibility that you might be deranged and wrong. So I’ll leave this part for the loyal reader:
I don’t necessarily believe in the legality of the Patriot Act, but it was properly passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. I’ll let the judges rule on the parts that are constitutional. My contention is with those would tell us our ‘CIVIL LIBERTIES’ are being deeply eroded, even while they post, scream, and
march, all ‘CIVIL LIBERTIES’ protected by the constitution.
The irony of it all is just too funny not to miss!
‘Niters!
68. Yarr - October 14th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Damn.
I didn’t realize comments could be that long.
69. Cosmic unwinding - October 14th, 2007 at 11:58 am
ok, so loose cannon would like some reference.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/i.....cleId=5721
there’s my newest favorite.
this is almost identical to what hitler did, back when he took control of germany. remember folks, hitler wasn’t even President when he seized total control. he was merely a “prime minister”.
oh, and after you read the article i have linked there, check this one out (BTW, this is on a CONSERVATIVE website, i figured it would seem more trust worthy to those who may “think” that the “conservative agenda” is being followed, and those who speak up are obviously just leftist nuts) http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965
and lastly, for those of you that have the balls to watch the truth, and aren’t afraid to have your entire understanding of civilization shaken to the ground http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ i will warn you, the film is nearly 2 hours long, and you need to pay attention from begining to end.
oh, and loose cannon, as far as your argument with “crimmon” goes, you said you would need proof. here ya go, buddy.
remember, history shows us that in order to erode a democracy of any form into a dictatorship, the people have to beleive that is it good for them, that is actually their will, and for the people to DO NOTHING ABOUT IT.
it amazes me, then, how you can seem to have been educated and yet seem entirely oblivous to this fact. and i say you seem educated, because despite the “eyes wide shut” approach (i.e. “I don’t necessarily believe in the legality of the Patriot Act, but it was properly passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. I’ll let the judges rule on the parts that are constitutional.”), you are quite composed in your arguments, and are quite coherent in making your points. they are, however, points that you have taken for fact without doing much research, as espoused by the fact that you didn’t know (or didn’t believe) our civil liberties were being taken away.
sorry for the novel, folks, but i’ve been busy, and felt i should try and catch up :p
70. Yarr - October 14th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Our civil liberties are being taken from us every day. It’s not just the Patriot act. Smoking bans, red light cameras, trans-fat bans, bicycle helmet and seat belt laws- just to name a few.
All in the name of “Protect the Cheeeldren! What about the cheeeldren?! Think of the cheeeeeldren!
Fuck the children.
Your job as senators, congressmen, judges and presidents is to, quite literally, protect me from invading forces and build infastructure and regulate trade. That’s it.
Stop trying to regulate how I live my life.
That’s my wife’s frickin’ job!
71. Ravyn - October 14th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Yarr: You better believe that is your wife’s job!
Without her you would be sitting in the corner not knowing what to do next.
/sorry had to comment…that is a fabulously funny comment.
72. Hobolad - October 14th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
“Smoking bans, red light cameras”
I’m kinda left as hell, but they’re about protecting other people.
I couldn’t care less if you wanna do those things and put your own life at risk- but putting other peoples? And since when are forcing smoke on other people/running red lights (putting others at a pretty much inavoidable risk) “civil liberties”?
73. jfrater - October 14th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Hobalad: concerning the smoking - the law permits people to smoke. If people don’t want to inhale secondary smoke, they can avoid places where smoke might be. Something is seriously wrong when the government allow something, take a lot of money from it (via cigarette taxes), and then turn you in to a pariah for doing what you are legally allowed to do. That is, in my opinion, a breach of civil liberties.
74. Hobolad - October 14th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
“Hobalad: concerning the smoking - the law permits people to smoke. If people don’t want to inhale secondary smoke, they can avoid places where smoke might be. Something is seriously wrong when the government allow something, take a lot of money from it (via cigarette taxes), and then turn you in to a pariah for doing what you are legally allowed to do. That is, in my opinion, a breach of civil liberties.”
Smokers can still smoke- just outside or in their own homes. Remember what it was like say, a year or two ago? Restaurants, bars, bus stations- full of smoke. It wasn’t that easy to just avoid (unless you were a complete hermit).
“Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.”
Forcing it on other people, legal or not, is just kinda ignorant. “I want to smoke so I’m gonna put you all at risk too when I could just step a few feet outside.”
75. Cosmic unwinding - October 14th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
here’s an erosoin for ya :
find me a law the gives provision for Federal income tax. go ahead, try and find one. there isn’t one, yet there is an agency that everyone i know is afraid of, that takes ones money each and every year. in fact, it is estimated the the average american spends four months out of the year working to pay income taxes.
or, how about the provision that IS in the patriot act that allows search, seizure, and holding of American citizens, and all the government has to do is say you might be a terorist.
and as far as freedom of speech goes, OF COURSE I CAN SAY WHAT I WANT! the mainstream media is all that matters, and everyday fox news will tell you that people that think the way i do are crackpots!
its really quite simple, in other words. if you let people have useless rights, then you can slowly and systematically take away all the ones that actually add up to something.
oh, and even though i should rise above this, i cant help but point out that even though you commented on my comment, all you really did was make a snarky remark about how i tend not to use capitalization. well, ya got me there…. i also tend to use “ya” in place of “you”, and “yer” in place of “your”… and i tend to missspell things from time to time… there, i think i got that out nof the way, so maybe next time, you can respond to my comment, instead of taking a poke at how i said it.
76. Yarr - October 14th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Red light cameras give you tickets you can’t protest in court. You have to pay the fine just because they tell you that you committed the offense.
“Innocent until proven guilty?” I think not. Money grab? Yep.
I’m not advocating the running of lights. But the enforcement of the LAW should be done by cops and courts.
As far as smoking, 2 things:
1. If it’s so damn bad for me and everyone else, if everyone who even knows what a cigarette is is going to die of cancer, then just ban the product and call it a day. If not, then shut the hell up.
2. If I own a business, it’s my right to refuse service to anyone, and as a property owner, it should be my right to decide what and what not to do with said property. You, my non-smoking friend, can make a choice to come into my bar, or not to come into my bar if you don’t like smoke. It is not being forced on you. You choose. But, my non-smoking friend, you bitched. And now the government has taken away my rights as to what I can or can’t do in my own building. Business is down 40%, and I can’t do anything about it, all because of the fucking CHEEEELDREN!!!!
So, punishment without trial, and a stomping on the rights of property owners.
Are we good on how things like these these are chipping away at little freedoms?
77. Loose_Cannon - October 14th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Cosmic unwinding - there’s my newest favorite.
My first reaction is obvious: YAWN
It’s just typical leftist hysteria.
OMG! Bush is declaring himself DICTATOR! HELP!
All that it does is extend the rights of the President in the event of a “catastrophic emergency.” - a simple follow up of what most people would consider ‘Marshall Law’- by specifying the procedures for continuity of the federal government.
Seriously, that’s all. Similar executive security directives have been issued by previous presidents, but their texts have been kept secret; this is the first to be made public in part. Why would a supposedly power-grabbing dictatorship list any part of it’s plans to the public when previous presidents have made it secret? If anything it shows an integrity in releasing it publicly.
A Continuity of Operations Plan has been a part of government operations since at least the Cold War, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower provided by executive order various measures which were supposed to ensure that the government of the United States would be able to continue in case of nuclear war.
According to the Washington Post article on this “Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and an adviser to an independent Continuity of Government Commission, said the order “is a more explicit embrace of what has been since 9/11 an implicit but fairly clear set of assumptions.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02719.html
That’s it.
You’re second link, from HumanEvents.com has to do with extending NAFTA and to secretly “dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union.”
What this has to do with your claim that our civil liberties are being eroded, I haven’t the faintest clue. Frankly, I don’t think you do either, since you list the site with some forbearance but refuse to summarize what it’s about.
as far as your argument with “crimmon” goes, you said you would need proof. here ya go, buddy.
I’m still waiting! All you’ve done so far is list a directive for procedures for continuity of the federal government - YAWN, something nearly every president during the cold war has done - and an unrelated article about the extension of NAFTA. I wonder if you even bothered to read the article yourself, since it has nothing to do with the erosion of our civil liberties that you’ve claimed.
So far as your challenge to watch ‘Zeitgeist, the Movie’; If I want to be bored for two hours while watching some propagandist film pocked with factual holes I’ll stick to ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. At least as I understand it, it actually lists some sources and entertains.
One reviewer wrote of this film: ‘The over-all temper of the video is rather like the John Birch Society on acid, with interludes by Harry Smith.
Even the Producer of the film states “It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth . . .”
http://www.boingboing.net/2007.....ews-z.html
For those who don’t wish to subject themselves to what the reviewer wrote as “like I was getting Malcolm McDowell’s treatment in Clockwork Orange: eyes pried wide open while getting bombarded with quick-cut atrocity photos.” Picture this:
1) 9/11 Conspiracy claims
2) The ultra-rich have been secretly manufacturing wars.
3)Christianity is used by the rich and powerful to control people.
Just your run-of-the-mill left-wing, hysterical conspiracy, propaganda film lacking sources and facts.
Your hysterical pleas that somehow Bush/Cheney/Rove are forming a dictatorship are old and tired. Your ilk have been claiming this since Bush was elected. It’s like a one note song you keep playing over and over. First they claimed there would be no election in ‘04, now they’re claiming they’ll be no election in ‘08.
Seriously, stick to your original premise that that there has been an “erosion of american(sp) civil liberties in the last 6 years.”
Be ORIGINAL! Instead of posting some whacked out sites that have nothing to do with your original claim, give us some evidence that today, right now, as I sit here typing this, my ‘CIVIL LIBERTIES’ are gone or at least ‘ERODED’.
You failed terribly and embarrassingly in your post. Try to do better.
78. Cosmic unwinding - October 14th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
yarr, i must congratulate you on toeing the line and speaking the truth.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/h.....htm?csp=34 now there’s some scary stuff, people. they wanna ban us having a cigg in our apartments!
point of fact is, like yarr said, if it’s such a damn problem, why not just OUTLAW the damn things????
79. Hobolad - October 14th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
“Red light cameras give you tickets you can’t protest in court. You have to pay the fine just because they tell you that you committed the offense.
“Innocent until proven guilty?” I think not. Money grab? Yep.
I’m not advocating the running of lights. But the enforcement of the LAW should be done by cops and courts.”
Isn’t photographic proof sufficient evidence to be proven guilty?
“As far as smoking, 2 things:
1. If it’s so damn bad for me and everyone else, if everyone who even knows what a cigarette is is going to die of cancer, then just ban the product and call it a day. If not, then shut the hell up.
2. If I own a business, it’s my right to refuse service to anyone, and as a property owner, it should be my right to decide what and what not to do with said property. You, my non-smoking friend, can make a choice to come into my bar, or not to come into my bar if you don’t like smoke. It is not being forced on you. You choose. But, my non-smoking friend, you bitched. And now the government has taken away my rights as to what I can or can’t do in my own building. Business is down 40%, and I can’t do anything about it, all because of the fucking CHEEEELDREN!!!!”
Ban it? That probably won’t happen ’cause of the whole industry behind it(And isn’t banning it outright worse than just banning it in situations where others would be put at risk?)
We didn’t like it, and it got changed. You guys can try reverse it in the same way- let’s see how much support you get. Good luck with that.
Again, it wasn’t as easy to avoid as you claim. Everywhere allowed it, there was no where to go. Now there’s gonna be thousands of less deaths a year, just because some people have to step a few feet outside to smoke for a bit.
Can I ask what the whole “cheeldren” thing is a reference of? Or how it’s related to the smoking ban in any way?
Oh, and please could you mellow down for a bit? You seem quite heated, y’know? After all, it’s only the internet.
80. Ravyn - October 14th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I can understand banning smoking in resturants specially places like Big Boy’s, Golden Corral, the McD type places and the such. But at small resturants where the owner is the cook and his wife is the waitress and his kid is the busser (I.E. Grape’s in Oxnard, California) it should not be the case. They are not a huge corperation that not be affected by a smoking ban.
Also bars and adult clubs should not be affected by the bans either. The children are already banned from going in even if it is with thier parent. (I remember my grama always taking me to the bar with her when I was real young). An adult is responsible enough to realize they don’t like the smell of smoke and can choose to go to a bar that is smoke free. There were many of them before the ban was enforced and they were doing well. Now the bars that use to allow smoking that can not anymore are loosing business at a very rapid pace. So many have been hit so hard they were forced to close down and sell the building. This isn’t just bars that it happens to, but bars are the easiest to reference. It is sad that a ban can affect businesses so dramatically.
The prohabition on alcohol didn’t last long, this one hopfully won’t either. Think about what would happen if they desided to ban hamberger and steak due to people dying from obesity. Think of all the businesses that would crumble.
Hey, maybe that whole “Every resturant is Taco Bell now.” statement from Demolition Man isn’t to far from being accurate…..
81. jfrater - October 14th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Hobolad: I simply do not believe the numbers of “passive smoking” related deaths that are often reported; I need to see to believe, and in my own life I have not seen a single example of this in a predominantly long term smoking extended family and friends. Because of that - and the fact that you probably do believe the numbers, I will bow out of the debate on this topic because we will only argue back and forth and smoking is not a topic worth losing friends over
82. jfrater - October 14th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
This topic will go down in the annals of listverse history I think
83. Cosmic unwinding - October 14th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
cannon, while you make claims that i have no proof, you fail to actually say how, so here’s a challenge to all others. do a google search, and try these topics out for size.
Prescott bush - nazi link
the amero- and how it will effectively ABOLISH the constitution
the patriot act- dont be suprised to find out most of this “law” is deemed classified
i’d list more, but these three will keep most busy for months, if not years.
84. Ravyn - October 14th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Yes j…it very well may….
85. Loose_Cannon - October 14th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
. Cosmic unwinding - find me a law the gives provision for Federal income tax. go ahead, try and find one.
The 16th Amendment is pretty clear on that: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....nstitution
How about I provide you with several more? The IRS conveniently lists a brochure on it’s website pointing out the fallacies of the so-called ‘Lack of Law’ in Federal Tax code.
You can get the PDF for yourself here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf
For your convenience I list some of the pertinent laws right here:
The requirement to file an income tax
return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a),
et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).
Relevant Case Law:
Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938) – the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[i]n assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts . . . in his annu
return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent
attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes [either criminal or civil]
sanctions.”
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court held that “[a]ny assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary
without merit.”
United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986) – the court upheld a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, stating that the premise “that the tax system is somehow ‘voluntary’ . . . is incorrect.”
United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983) – the court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns stating that the claim that filing a tax return is voluntary “was rejected in United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), wherein the
court described appellant’s argument as ‘an imaginative argument, but
totally without arguable merit.’”
Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988) – the court rejected the claim that reporting income taxes is strictly voluntary, referring to it as a “‘tax protester’ type” argument, and found Woods liable for the penalty of
failure to file a return.
Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-312, 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 468 471 (1999) – the court found Johnson liable for the failure to file penalty
and rejected his argument “that the tax system is voluntary so that he cannot be forced to comply” as “frivolous.”
And the list goes on and on.
Do us all a favor and actually educate yourself on the relevant facts before posting such nonsense here. You just look silly.
86. Hobolad - October 14th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
“Hobolad: I simply do not believe the numbers of “passive smoking” related deaths that are often reported; I need to see to believe, and in my own life I have not seen a single example of this in a predominantly long term smoking extended family or friends. Because of that - and the fact that you probably do believe the numbers, I will bow out of the debate on this topic because we will only argue back and forth and smoking is not a topic worth losing friends over :)”
You do have a point, who was that guy who said statistics often hide more than they show? Still, I guess we’ll be able to see how the smoking ban affects these statistics in the future.
Y’know we’re all entitled to our opinions- there’s no way any online argument (Hmm, prefer the word “debate”) is gonna make me think any worse about anyone (Well, neo-nazi’s and the like… maybe :)) but definately not the genius behind this class site!
87. Loose_Cannon - October 14th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Cosmic unwinding - cannon, while you make claims that i have no proof, you fail to actually say how,
No, actually I’m pretty specific in my post; You fail to list anything factual, but merely opinionated drivel from left-wing nut websites.
Anyone can say - “LOOK HERE”, “SEARCH THE GOOGLES FOR THIS”, “HERE’S SOME PROOF”, but it takes real intelligence and research to state your case coherently and summarize your references.
You fail miserably.
You claimed our ‘CIVIL LIBERTIES’ are being ‘ERODED’, now you have your bored readers searching for ‘PRESCOTT BUSH’ and “NAZI”? Why, is Prescott Bush now President? How does this relate to your original claim?
It seems appropriate that during this season you would erect scarecrow after scarecrow, but seriously, it’s not what you originally claimed.
88. Loose_Cannon - October 14th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
For fans of Cecil Adams’ ‘The Straight Dope’, I’ll provide this link on who Prescott Bush was:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html
To summarize Cecil Adam’s article, I’ll simply list his conclusion here:
So, did Bush and his firm finance the Nazis and enable Germany to rearm? Indirectly, yes. But they had a lot of company. Some of the most distinguished names in American business had investments or subsidiaries in prewar Germany, including Standard Oil and General Motors. Critics have argued for years that without U.S. money, the Nazis could never have waged war. But American business has always invested in totalitarian regimes–witness our dealings with mainland China.
What this has to do with “Cosmic Unwinding’s” claim about our ‘CIVIL LIBERTIES’ being eroded today, I’ll leave him/her to explain.
89. Cosmic unwinding - October 14th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
cannon- while you claim my sources to be “left wing nut websites” like i aid in one of my previous posts, the info i showed about the north american union (which is NOT, i might add, part of nafta) was from a CONSERVATIVE website.
but you keep on acusing me of being a “left wing nut”, even though i’ve made no political affilation known… strange how that accusation arises ever time you post.
as far as telling people to do research on prescott, i told people to do a search on that for one simple reason. if you lok hard enough, you’ll find that all the evidence in the matter shows that he vastly expanded his fortunes off the nazi movement, and was a big fan of a thing called eugenics.
what i’m saying here is, while you merely try to put down everyones ideas that dont fall into to line with yours, i just say, “here, look for yourself, be educated, learn”
so my question to you is, who are you, and why are you so driven to squash any free thinking here?????
if what you say is right, then why be against people taking a look for themselves, and claiming that i’m just “boring them”?
hmmmmm, strange how i invite people to take a look and think, and you’re right there, going “NO!! he lies, dont look!”
oh, and the 16 amemdment was never ratified, so nope. that one’s a bust(as are, in turn, all laws based on it). dont beleive, look it up.
90. Cosmic unwinding - October 14th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
cannon, so in response to your post entirely about prescott, you say “well, there were lots of people funding nazi germany”…. um so, that makes it right???
and as far as your comment on our dealings with mainland china…gee, thanks for making that point for me
91. Hobolad - October 14th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
“cannon, so in response to your post entirely about prescott, you say “well, there were lots of people funding nazi germany”…. um so, that makes it right???”
Looks like LC was quoting someone about that, for us too lazy to do the googling
92. Cosmic unwinding - October 14th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
oh, and cannon, i already listed some sites about the erosion of civil liberties, and invited other to look for more, as i will do again.
DONT BE BLIND, PEOPLE, MAKE AN EFFORT TO BE INFORMED FURTHER THAN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WANTS!
93. Loose_Cannon - October 14th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Cosmic unwinding - what i’m saying here is, while you merely try to put down everyones ideas that dont fall into to line with yours, i just say, “here, look for yourself, be educated, learn”
No, what I’m saying is that you’re lazy.
Most people, when told to ‘LOOK HERE’ and “GOOGLE THIS” simply won’t. But, either way, it doesn’t make your argument any stronger by simply listing ‘LOOK AT THIS’. It just means you’re a robot who can point to articles somewhere on the ‘net but can’t formulate a cohesive opinion on your own.
My post concerning Prescott Bush was from a very well known journalist and researcher most people would trust for a reference. I used something called ITALICS to show I was quoting from his article.
Google: ITALICS and CECIL ADAMS. Now Google: CITING A SOURCE. Now Google: USEING REFERENCES.
See, I can win an argument by telling you to ‘LOOK IT UP’, too.:)
But none of this goes back to your original claim of our ‘ERODING’ civil liberties. Why do you continue to run away from that topic, by telling us to ‘LOOK UP’ Prescott Bush and Americo?
By the way, according to the excellent article from Cecil Adams, Prescott Bush owned just one single share in UBC and when it liquidated in 1951 it was worth $1.5 million. Hardly a ‘vast expand(tion) (of) his fortunes’ for a guy who was already worth many millions of dollars.
94. Loose_Cannon - October 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Cosmic unwinding - so my question to you is, who are you, and why are you so driven to squash any free thinking here?????
I’m not at all. I’m telling you why you are wrong, by citing and summarizing references that actually contain something we call ‘FACTS’.
Look this up: FACTS. Now look up: DEBATING.
See, it’s not my place to prove you correct. That’s your job. My job is simply to prove you wrong and tell you why I am right.
Also, I think it’s important to keep it informative and entertaining. After all, who’s going to bother to read this if we don’t provide something interesting or fun to read?
Google: READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. Now look up: ENTERTAIN and INFORMATIVE.
hmmmmm, strange how i invite people to take a look and think, and you’re right there, going “NO!! he lies, dont look!”
Actually, I invite everyone to take a look. Sometimes it’s entertaining and fun to watch the delusional. But to continue to do my job in pointing out you’re wrong and I’m right, I also provide the reader with some clue about WHY you are incorrect or that it might be just a gigantic waste of time, such as the two hour ‘MOVIE’ you suggested.
Google: MOVIE CRITIC. Now look up: SUMMARIZE. Now look up: DELUSIONAL.
95. Hobolad - October 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Thinking about it, we are losing our civil liberties (over here in the UK at least- can’t speak for any other countries).
I mean, what a surveillance society we’ve become! Phone/email instrusions legal (And not just from the government), CCTV all over the place (Places where they don’t help, just intrude- whereas they do at red lights, I reckon)
And the policing- the friendly bobby on the beat is now a myth- it’s squads of military style cops appearing in vans and dragging people off.
The vote is just a vote between two evils as well- what’s that thing where it’s like, we’re getting fooled into thinking we’ve got a choice by being given two choices that don’t make a difference to the outcome- ’cause it’s the guys behind the scenes who call the shots? The rich b*st*rds?
And ID cards to possibly become compulsary as well as passports, and not being cheap either.
Etc. etc. etc. Could go on all day, but His Holy Bobness is on BBC4.
96. Loose_Cannon - October 14th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
oh, and the 16 amemdment was never ratified, so nope. that one’s a bust(as are, in turn, all laws based on it). dont beleive, look it up.
Actually, it was ratified and it’s part of the US Constitution.
From Wikipedia: On February 25, 1913, the Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-quarters of the states, and thus had become part of the Constitution.
It further goes on to list the 42 states that ratified it and on exactly what date it was ratified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....on_process
Don’t believe me?
Google: RATIFICATION. Now look up: US CONSTITUTION.
97. Loose_Cannon - October 14th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
BTW, Cosmic unwinding, failing to pay your taxes based on the misconception that the 16th Amendment wasn’t ratified will lead you to jail; Do not pass ‘GO’, do not collect $200!
From the article: Joseph Banister, a Certified Public Accountant and former IRS Special Agent was arrested at his San Jose home last month on a federal indictment accusing him of numerous tax crimes. According to news reports, Banister advised clients they didn’t have to file federal income tax returns because “the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.” If convicted of all counts, Banister could be sentenced to 14 years in prison and face a $1 million fine.
If you would like to bet your freedom and wallet that the 16th Amendment wasn’t ratified, be my guest.
But, as the writer of this article points out: …the federal government had the power to impose income taxes before the Amendment was ratified, or not ratified, and it would retain that power even if the Amendment was torn out of the Constitution and thrown in the trashcan. All the Amendment did was settle the constitutional controversy as to whether income taxes fall in the category of direct or indirect taxes.
His excellant article can be read here: http://www.thepriceofliberty.o.....nslade.htm
For a more direct source, let’s read the US Constitution itself:
Article I, section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
If you don’t believe me, look it up!
98. Yarr - October 14th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Hobolad:
“Isn’t photographic evidence enough?” (paraphrased)
Um, no.
1. Not me driving. (mom, wife, friend driving- I still get the ticket they were supposed to get.)
2. Equipment malfunction (camera mistimed, etc.)
3. In our system, you can rape a nun on the 50 yard line at the halftime show at the superbowl, and you are still entitled to a fair and speedy trial. Of your peers. In a court.
4. If all you need is a picture to prove that something exists, movie night at your house must be spectacularly interesting…
To smoking: “we won, try to change it back.” (paraphrased)
You are sitting happily in a bar that is about to shut down. The owner is being told by the guv’ment what he can or can’t do with his or her own property. That is a violation of our rights.
You can sit happy in your smoke free bar knowing that the owner is being screwed by your “victory”.
And the next thing that bothers you enough to complain is going to take away someone else’s rights.
You do not have the RIGHT to a smoke free bar unless you buy a building and create one. Otherwise you are simply stepping on other people’s freedoms for your own selfish desires.
I’ll admit, smokers are and have been rude and careless, and a lot of the backlash we have brought on ourselves. But, don’t think for a second that Mr. Smoker down the bar is the one you are hurting.
We’ll adjust.
We’ll stay home and put dartboards and pool tables in our own houses.
You are only really hurting small business owners- who suffer whether they personally smoke or not, but are forced to refuse service to a customer based on another customer’s preferences.
And their ability to bitch alot.
99. Yarr - October 14th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Also, you asked if outright banning it wasn’t worse than just restricting. I’m just tired of the word ban, I guess. Everything has to be banned. Heavy Metal (Thumbs up there Mrs. Nobel prize winner) light bulbs, pit bull dogs, SUV’s, etc.
BUT, the Gub’ment likes to tax on one end and restrict on the other.
Like I said, if everyone that ever saw a cigarette is doomed… if it’s THAT bad…
Well I’m not for bans, and I haven’t bothered to go to Wikipedia for a reference, but last I checked the domestic sale and distribution of cyanide is pretty limited, if not banned outright.
It’s not because a lobbyist had his AMEX declined. It’s because cyanide is BAD FOR YOU!!!
If the politicians really give a shit, and/or it is really that bad, it should be banned altogether. Stop taxing me on Monday and restricting me on Tuesday.
Shit or get off the pot!
The CHEEELDREN thing is because every time I see a useful idiot out on the street with a megaphone calling for the banning or restricting of whatever, they always have to use children as the reason for their protest. It’s always really dramatic and maudlin, and somehow in my town, strippers have to wear pasties over their nipples in an age restricted venue over 1500 feet away from any church and/or school because of the CHEEEELDREN!!! (that would have to travel 1/4 mile, sneak through security and then not get noticed by anyone at all in the club– I say if he can accomplish all that, a little piece of tape shouldn’t stop him from seeing the boobs he worked so hard for!)
And finally, I dropped into this discussion just to shoot off a little about eroding civil liberties. I say, smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, or not. I don’t care. Didn’t mean to start a smoking debate, and I’m sorry, but the wounds are still fresh. Friends of mine are losing their livelihoods because of this. It hits really close to home. I’m usually a lot more fun.
100. Yarr - October 14th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Hobolad:
Didn’t read comment 95 before going off before. Sorry.
I’m not exactly sure how your court system in the UK works, but here the red light cameras are not only insulting, but their automated punishment is absolutely illegal and unconstitutional, yet they are there.
They are there and nobody seems to be willing to fight them.
It’s government out of control, and not a Bush/Cheney conspiracy.
Loose Cannon and Cosmic are arguing.
It’s entertaining.
But ultimately we will be subjugated and enslaved; not by GWB, but by ourselves.
As long as we lean on the government to solve our problems; as long as we shout in the street and in the courts for one or another to be forced to conform; as long as we keep giving them power they will continue to take it and use it against us.
Every day we are a little less free.
And nobody seems to care.
101. Yarr - October 14th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
And yes, I am the guy who commented that my favorite teen movies were pornos.
I’m usually so much more fun.
Somebody say something funny, dammit!!!
102. Loose_Cannon - October 15th, 2007 at 5:15 am
Something funny, Dammit!
103. Yarr - October 15th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Hobolad:
30. “The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America’s children.” - Nancy Pelosi, on the prospect of Democrats winning back Congress
Right out of listverse!
104. Hobolad - October 15th, 2007 at 10:59 am
I understand where you’re coming from about the red light cameras- but without them I’d guess (I’m not gonna pretend to know the facts and figures and whatnot :)) that it’d be very hard to get anyone convicted.
Possibly- have a trial, in which the photo can be used as evidence? That would be likely increase the cost of the fines though, to cover costs and things.
As it is, you can appeal if you think it’s unfair- I think? Not too sure if that’d end up costing more than the ticket though. It’s not a subject I’m an expert on, to be honest
About the smoking- I didn’t know it was that bad. People aren’t going to bars because they can’t smoke in them? I just don’t understand the mentality behind that, when they could just nip outside for a smoke (what all my smoker-friends do).
Maybe we’re each talking about different smoking laws? I haven’t a clue how it works over there, but over here it doesn’t seem to be doing much damage to any local bars or whatever over here.
105. Ravyn - October 15th, 2007 at 11:49 am