Oh NOW I understand why Elspode feels the nation is fascist
 

Cause where he lives it sometimes is!!! Read on and vomit.

Unwed couple sues town over housing flap

This is actually a fairly common ordinance in towns trying to keep college students at bay... of course, that doesn't make it right.

This started earlier this year, IIRC. Some suburbs here in St. Louis still require occupancy permits for homes and apartments, Black Jack being one of them. The family fought the definition with the City Council, but lost a few months ago.

While I think the couple is stupid for not marrying (13 years? Come on now!), Black Jack is even more stupid. I guess they don't like tax revenues.

Of course, I believe MO still has a law that officially prohibits an unmarried man and woman from living together.

No common law marriage in Mo?

No. I thought IL did, but they don't either...only 15 states and DC.

Town right next to University of Dayton (Oakwood) has that same ordinance. Utter BS.

http://tinyurl.com/jagg6

Some background on this story, based on what I heard on the radio yesterday:
--Person wants to set up fruit/vegetable stand in Pevely
--Person gets a hard time from Pevely's city government
--A state permit to sell your own bounty is not necessary
--Mayor sells his own tomatoes from his house
--Mayor draws ire of some residents

Does anyone know why common law marriage was introduced? It's a really dumb concept in my opinion, if a couple is intentionally NOT getting married then they probably don't want to be told they are now married due to time spent together.

Also, even though it's a stupid law it really doesn't qualify as fascist. Fascist is now just a buzzword people throw around indescriminantly.

Initially, it was because there were some people who literally couldn't afford to get married, because of the various government and officiator fees. Now it has become easier and cheaper to get married. My parents were common-law married, because they both thought weddings were dumb and didn't want to bother with the hassle of getting a marriage license from the government.

Some folks misuse it as a suffix as well.

Sounds like you need our Human Rights law.

Over here if anyone tries to prevent someone doing what they want then that someone claims their human rights are being abused/infringed and, lo and behold, they get their way.

May sound good, but the trouble is every Tom Dick and Harry uses it when they are in a situation they don't like - even (maybe that should be 'mainly') criminals who all too easily when trying to be brought to justice will use the Human Rights Act to turn the tables.

As an example we find that attempts to deport terrorist agitators are thwarted because the individuals claim that we are denying them their human rights to stay here as a place of safety rather than their homeland where they would be under threat of death from their government.

Just shows the sorts of mess we land ourselves in, what with the wierd rules and regulations aired here in this thread and then the equally wierd outcome from a law that's meant to bring the situation into balance. Prime examples of what you get when people stick their oars in attempting to make inappropriate improvements - they only end up creating as many (maybe more) problems than existed in the first place.

The best action would probably be to remove common law marriage from the books. It doesn't serve any meaningful purpose, and it's only going to muddle things further in the future. In states allowing gay marriage for example, you'll run into trouble with people making legal comittments they never intended too. As a college student I'd have to watch my housing agreements very carefully, and make sure I never shared an apartment with anyone long enough for CLM to kick in. Sounds weird? Not really, I'm sure there are plenty of scumbag guys out there who'd take advantage of having a legal right to half my belongings. It's just too outdated to keep around.

If you don't graduate before CLM kicks in, then give it up. :lol:

Unless you "present" yourself as being married, you'd have to live together a very long time to be ensnared into CLM against your will. Having a kid or two would shorten that, however.

There are still places in this country where doing the paperwork and finding someone "authorized" to marry people, could be expensive and time consuming.
In the distant past, those places were not hard to find. Also in the distant past, people didn't feel right about "living in sin"...and had even stronger feelings about their neighbors, "living in sin".

It's my understanding that it entered the legal code because during the Middle Ages (probably earlier but the Middle Ages is when codified law started in England) it was required that a priest perform all sacraments, and specifically marriage and baptism. But priests were not available in many areas, or only occasionally. Couples might have had to wait years before they could stand before a priest, and babies tended to happen without the blessing of the church. To avoid the stigma, a couple was allowed to proclaim THEMSELVES married and get on with the housekeeping. That is the key point of common-law marriage, you have to publicly say that you are married. Shacking up for years does not constitute a common law marriage, as many abandoned women have discovered in court.

On the path to fascism...I think we're *on the path* to fascism.

Lots of things going on in this country look awfully familiar with things that have gone on in other countries in the past...things that didn't end up in safer, more free societies.

Fascism: "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism."

Sound familiar to anyone?

Yes: Cubans.

Let's see:
Strong, centralized government under one authority (the Executive)? Check.
Belligerent nationalism? Check.
Stringent social and economic controls? Not yet, but we're on the way.

On the assumption that you are not responding to UG, but rather are engaging in commentary about the United States ... (if I'm wrong, please just ignore this post, thank you.)

Last time I checked they hadn't shut down the Judicial and Legislative Branches.

Get back to me after the state of emergency is declared after the Reichstag burns down.

Anti-Nationalism is much more belligerent. When was the last time that a bunch of patriotic guys waving flags threw a newspaper box through a Starbucks window?

While I have problems with paying farmers not to grow cotton or corn, and the Federal Reserve (which is neither Federal nor does it have Reserves of anything) as far as I can tell prices still react to supply and demand for the most part.

Isn't a state of emergency adter the WTC was knocked down the justification for bypassing Congress and the Courts to do warrantless wiretapping?

Our government has a long tradition of appointing people who can be counted on to interpret law in a predictable manner, one which is agreeable to the appointer. Now, I'm not saying that this is the exclusive province of the current administration, but, if done skillfully and thoroughly enough, it could well remove most of the problems a potential despot might incur from the Judiciary. As to Legislative...last time I checked, they were pretty much on board with the current programs, so they aren't going to pose much of a problem to our prospective despot, either. Vote along Party lines, outcomes are rather predictable.

Perhaps the American sheep...err, People...will vote to make all of this a bit more balanced? If the votes count, that is. :)

BTW, the definition of "activist judge" is any judge who fails to rule in accordance to one's own idea of how things ought to be.

-1)Last time I checked, the President made a statement saying that since we're at war, he doesn't have to obey laws that he doesn't want to.
-2)Newspaper box through window < Invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses and fear mongering. I'd argue about whether or not the Starbucks/window thing is anti-nationalism, but I don't want to right now...different thread.
-3)How much of the GDP is the current federal budget? How much will it be in six years, if current spending trends continue? How long did it take to get Plan B into stores as a non-prescription item, despite being characterized as the safest drug reviewed by the FDA? How much have barriers between church and state fallen in the past six years?

Yes. I'm hyperbolizing some. But only some. We are not headed in a good direction. Remember how great it was when all we had to complain about was the Prez getting head in the Oval? That was pretty terrific, by golly.

Was the Catholic Church considered to be fascist during the Dark Ages/Inquisition/Burning Times? I can't recall.

I learned something new on MPR yesterday at lunch. Fascists subordinate business to the state (sort of like Stalinists, but via a different mechanism). This administration has no intentions of doing that. So, instead of facism, we have a new political entity to try and describe. Sweet.
Any takers?

They've taken elements from feudalism, mercantilism, and fascism. I think it is new because we live in a different world. If you update mercantilism to a world where precious metals are not monetized, fiat money has only the value it is perceived to have, and where control of energy resources is paramount, the perceived military effectiveness is of a country becomes the real source of power. We are in the unfortunate position of Mussolini's Italians. It was our idea but we were not effective in its implementation. We'll bleed out while another power rises that is thinking clearly about the goal.

Let's call it Bushism. ;)

Duncism?

Wow.
Mechanized Italian Army is to horse-riding Ethiopians as Mechanized American Army is to IED-using Iraqi insyrgents.
Got it.

How about we call it penis envy?

Whatever you're smoking, I wish you'd share. :joint:

Amen!

And what is the goal?

Global thermonuclear war. :)

control
unintended consequence

I suppose it would be easier to persuade the Cellar that America is turning fascist if anyone posting here knew any fascists personally. In one's own neighborhood, excellent; anywhere in one's county, okay enough. I don't know any. Next?

Exclude picking on this politico or that -- that's vaporthink and partisanship overdone.

What...fascists are hanging out in the neighborhood grocery store? At the gas station?

Isn't it somewhat more reasonable to think that those who already *have* power and position also have a better shot at becoming fascists?

I don't have any Mexicans in my neighborhood right now. I guess that means they don't exist?

I'm not in your neighborhood either so I must be a figment of my imagination. :eek:

:D I was tempted to say something like If you implode into your Schwarzchild radius on the strength of that, send me a quick goodbye note, but instead I lay down until the urge went away.

We argue a LOT, but you're not warped. As long as we keep our disagreements honest, it's good.

Not really. That's still the kind of fever-swamp thinking that discredits the hotheaded radicals. This is a republic, and to be chosen by the electorate to exert power you have to show you have your ducks in a row. There are plenty of quasi-fascist fringies who try for office, some office, any office, in any general or special election you care to look at. But the fringies tally about a dozen votes apiece, which isn't even a drop in the bucket in a city like mine where voting precincts are between a thousand and twelve hundred registered voters in every one.

When you've been raised in a democracy, and not a one-party state like where Clinton came from, the political instincts you develop keep you away from fascism. The Left, out in the cold these many years, would like you not to understand that. The Left is mostly full of little round greenish things horses leave.

So you don't believe power corrupts? And absolute power corrupts absolutely?
I sure as hell do. I've seen it too many times not to believe it.

You're right in saying the obvious nut-jobs, rarely, successfully run for office. But too many prove to be just that when in power awhile.... even in America. :tinfoil:

...while the 'core' of the Right is bringing us two useless amendments to the Constitution and Creationism.

I'd say the Right appears to have been taken over by wackos more than the Left. Of course, that's probably because the Left is so disorganized that individuals can actually make their own decisions. The Right appears to be able to build a clear consensus on even the stupidest idea.

Well, yes. But here's the saving grace in how we do things: it's remarkable how the basic American political trait, that power shall be limited in scope and in duration, does such a good job of reducing that corruption. You're leader of the Free World for ten years, tops, by statute; et cetera et cetera on down the line to harbor commissioner and justice of the peace.

I've read enough political commentary for enough years to note how very often someone declares the sky will fall, is falling, or occasionally has fallen. It's like once a month! These criers notwithstanding, the sky is still about where it was. Maybe more or less clouded, maybe striking with lightning -- but I have faith in the country. I really do. I think some of my countrymen are pretty dumb, and could wish them otherwise, but for all the cries about things falling apart and the center can't hold, the advertised disasters never seem to come. There's a stability in how humans interact that the excitable columnists and talk radio hosts never seem to take into account. It is more stability, I think, than can be accounted for as people taking warning from the Chicken Littles.

It hasn't happened yet, so it won't happen? Lalalalalala....I'm not listening!
Blind faith in the institutions of the US is the quickest road to bad places that I can think of. The only reason we haven't become a dictatorship over the years is because there were people that did think the sky was falling and were willing to do something about it, not because the institutions are so perfect.

I'm no politician, but I think that, had I aspirations at fascist dictatorship, I'd try to keep it as subtle as possible until I had what I wanted. Better yet, if I could achieve it and still have the people only sort of halfway grumbling about the rights they used to have while they were playing their video games and watching DVDs, I'd be a damn successful fascist dictator...one to be admired and probably emulated.

In a very effective revolution, the "everything is okay, things aren't that bad" crowd would be some of very the first to have their fucking heads blown clean off. Then, we could get on with the business of reality.

Nah, that's far too machiavellian. If you're going to set up a dictatorship, you need to strike while the iron is hot. Like, say that Bush had gone nuts with closing borders and bugging phones and all those other horrible things the day after 9/11 -- everyone would have lapped it up like sweet milk. Trying to gain the kind of power a fascist dictator needs by instituting a bunch of incremental changes takes way too long. He's only got 4 years at a time to get this done. If he wanted to Rule The World, he would've moved much faster.

He did strike while the iron was hot and we did lap it up. The deal is sealed. "He" doesn't want to "rule" anything, these guys are figure-heads. The oppurtunity was taken full advantage of, it's irriversible, we've accepted it. We rolled over.

But his power has diminished, not increased. Castro knows how to run a dictatorship -- you do what you want, and kill anyone who argues. Bush fails on all counts as a dictator -- all he's done is piss people off and make them scared that the feds are looking at their porn collection.

Then who is the dictator-behind-the-curtain, Flint? Who is really in charge of these "irreversible" changes (whose influence we will presumably continue to see after 2008?)

..and successfully kept the courts and congress from making any foreign or domestic security decisions other than to rubber stamp his programs.

This will restore executive power and privilege to well above that wielded by Nixon, and possibly FDR.

Which, if true, maintains the status quo established by the previous 3 administrations. Which thwarted security policies are you referring to? The recommendations of the 9/11 commission?

edit:fixed quote

And when they find you with your porn collection, they take you to secret prisons and torture you!

Unless your porn is all bondage/discipline. Then, they figure out if you're a dominant or a submissive. If you're a sub, they let you go. If you're a dom, they hire you.

Ek-tuelleh... I think the Fed guys can just go to the same pornsites and assemble their own collections... just don't download onto gov't computers; they get their peepees whacked, and non-eroticizably, for that.

Unless maybe your entire collection is Bondage Fairies, naughty tentacles, and middy-blouse girls neatly packaged in multicolored poly cordage, in which case they might send a Japanese-speaking very Special Agent to wank you into an Atomic Wedgie.

[Bondage Fairies is, um, individual. You've got bondage -- and entomology. On the same page.]

Umm, I don't want more details, but you're saying there's a market for insect pron? ew, just ew:bolt:

wait, missed part of that, it's BONDAGE insect porn?? :scream:

Think spiders. OK, spiders aren't insects, but close enough.

At the end of each administration we all hop in a magic time machine ???

You keep saying "these guys" are "figure-heads." If someone is just a figure-head, then whoever is really in charge won't lose whatever mysterious secret power they have just because the figurehead is out of office. If they're capable of putting a puppet into the office of President of the United States, surely they could and would control the next administration as well, right?

But fine. I'll give you some leeway and assume that perhaps the Wizard of Oz still requires the Republican party to be voted in before he can run the show. So forget the next administration. Just tell me, precisely WHO is behind our figurehead president? I mean, you wouldn't just throw around the declaration that Bush is a completely powerless puppet without something to back it up, would you?

I'm confused...are you talking to me? I am not familiar with the "positions" you are citing. Maybe you accidentally quoted me, and then responded to a series of random comments by other people (so it only looks like you are putting words in my mouth)...???