Rahm Emanuel: Take American People Out of 2nd Amendment “Debate”

[ocdude]

thank you for your enlightenment!

You are welcome.

[parmenio]

For those of you who need some education on marxism. Let me give you a 101 level on the subject.

Key terms of Marxian analysis of social relations, social change, culture,

1.dialectical materialism

1.1 Materialism:

a)that all aspects of society stem from our need to maintain our physical reources

ie the material goods that sustain us

B)/>/> that our spirit, consciousness, culture: are all based on our material, physical being.

1.2 Dialectical

a)that social change is based not on some smooth progress but on conflicts of ideas and conflicts over access to material resources

B)/>/> that thought is developed through challenges to each others' ideas rather than any one individual's brillaint development of a series of ideas. (cf Socrates) and Hegel.)

1.3 these ideas then lead to his thesis that society and the history of society are based on class conflict; ie conflict over control of material resources.

1.4 it is labour that provides the major value to material resources. So class conflict is about control over labour

2. Class Conflict and History

2.1 History is the story of changes of the forms of class relations and class conflicts

2.2 from

a) some pre history Mythical communal non conflictual society to

B)/>/> Slavery

c) Feudalism

d) Mercantlilist.early form of capitalism

e) Colonial Industrial capitalism (of his day)

f) todays consumer capitalism

3. the nature of modern class relations; Political, Economic Cultural power

3.1 control over material or economic resource also includes control over political and cultural resources

3.2 cultural control means that

culture is ideological: the norms and values that legitimate the exploiting class's control of the exploited class

3.3 there are special cultural institutions eg Religion//Polical theoriy/Social science/the Entertainment Industry that legitimate the various historical class relations

3.4 the nature of these institutions changes eg from Religion to Political Theory to Social Science to the 'Entertainment/ Media/Advertisng/PR' complex as the class conflict changes its form

3.3 there are always contradictons in the legitimating narratives

3.3.1.eg Liberal Democracy sustains Capitalism but 'universal freedom and rights' is in contradiction with the actuality that rights were only extended to white male property owners

3.3.2 the current freedom and rights of Weterners are sustained by the unfreedoms of the workers in the global labour market who produce the cheap good of our Consumer stage of capitalism

4 Truth, Belief, Contradictions, Complexity and Doubt

4.1 Contradiction and social change: class power is never absolute as these contradictions enable the exploited class to question the legitimating narratives of the ruling class

4.2 social processes are so complex that no one society is exactly like another - so there is no 'true form' of class reltions,nor any 'one true way ' to change the system

4.3 Marx objected to those who treat his ideas as 'Truth'. He argued: 'I am not a Marxist'

4.4 so 'belief' is OK but only as a way of posing questions at the beginning of any research.. In other words that 'belief' must always

a)be tested and

B)/>/> never applied wholesale to every other society

Source(s):

See the chapter on social theory in any intro to sociolgy text.

or current social theory texts eg by Charles Lemert

BTW I won't charge you for my time! :P/>

Edited January 17, 2013 by parmenio

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

rham emmanuel is a tool.

his puppet masters have him in a little red box.

even suggesting that Americans NOT be allowed to legally take part in

our process makes him king of the commies at the moment.

just stand by.... another of of his ilk will do something equally illegal & stupid

any minute now.

passing their commie crown around is how they keep ignorants like themselves

feeling justified and useful.

like the Oscars.... or a Nobel Peace Prize.

[ocdude]

For those of you who need some education on marxism. Let me give you a 101 level on the subject.

Key terms of Marxian analysis of social relations, social change, culture,

1.dialectical materialism

1.1 Materialism:

a)that all aspects of society stem from our need to maintain our physical reources

ie the material goods that sustain us

B)/>/>/> that our spirit, consciousness, culture: are all based on our material, physical being.

1.2 Dialectical

a)that social change is based not on some smooth progress but on conflicts of ideas and conflicts over access to material resources

B)/>/>/> that thought is developed through challenges to each others' ideas rather than any one individual's brillaint development of a series of ideas. (cf Socrates) and Hegel.)

1.3 these ideas then lead to his thesis that society and the history of society are based on class conflict; ie conflict over control of material resources.

1.4 it is labour that provides the major value to material resources. So class conflict is about control over labour

2. Class Conflict and History

2.1 History is the story of changes of the forms of class relations and class conflicts

2.2 from

a) some pre history Mythical communal non conflictual society to

B)/>/>/> Slavery

c) Feudalism

d) Mercantlilist.early form of capitalism

e) Colonial Industrial capitalism (of his day)

f) todays consumer capitalism

3. the nature of modern class relations; Political, Economic Cultural power

3.1 control over material or economic resource also includes control over political and cultural resources

3.2 cultural control means that

culture is ideological: the norms and values that legitimate the exploiting class's control of the exploited class

3.3 there are special cultural institutions eg Religion//Polical theoriy/Social science/the Entertainment Industry that legitimate the various historical class relations

3.4 the nature of these institutions changes eg from Religion to Political Theory to Social Science to the 'Entertainment/ Media/Advertisng/PR' complex as the class conflict changes its form

3.3 there are always contradictons in the legitimating narratives

3.3.1.eg Liberal Democracy sustains Capitalism but 'universal freedom and rights' is in contradiction with the actuality that rights were only extended to white male property owners

3.3.2 the current freedom and rights of Weterners are sustained by the unfreedoms of the workers in the global labour market who produce the cheap good of our Consumer stage of capitalism

4 Truth, Belief, Contradictions, Complexity and Doubt

4.1 Contradiction and social change: class power is never absolute as these contradictions enable the exploited class to question the legitimating narratives of the ruling class

4.2 social processes are so complex that no one society is exactly like another - so there is no 'true form' of class reltions,nor any 'one true way ' to change the system

4.3 Marx objected to those who treat his ideas as 'Truth'. He argued: 'I am not a Marxist'

4.4 so 'belief' is OK but only as a way of posing questions at the beginning of any research.. In other words that 'belief' must always

a)be tested and

B)/>/>/> never applied wholesale to every other society

Source(s):

See the chapter on social theory in any intro to sociolgy text.

or current social theory texts eg by Charles Lemert

BTW I won't charge you for my time! :P/>/>

Thank you for explaining exactly WHY President Obama is NOT a Marxist. Glad you educated yourself.

[Shabibilicious]

BTW I won't charge you for my time! />

I should charge you for wasting mine.

GO RV, then BV

[ocdude]

For those of you who need some education on marxism. Let me give you a 101 level on the subject.

Key terms of Marxian analysis of social relations, social change, culture,

1.dialectical materialism

1.1 Materialism:

a)that all aspects of society stem from our need to maintain our physical reources

ie the material goods that sustain us

B)/>/>/> that our spirit, consciousness, culture: are all based on our material, physical being.

1.2 Dialectical

a)that social change is based not on some smooth progress but on conflicts of ideas and conflicts over access to material resources

B)/>/>/> that thought is developed through challenges to each others' ideas rather than any one individual's brillaint development of a series of ideas. (cf Socrates) and Hegel.)

1.3 these ideas then lead to his thesis that society and the history of society are based on class conflict; ie conflict over control of material resources.

1.4 it is labour that provides the major value to material resources. So class conflict is about control over labour

2. Class Conflict and History

2.1 History is the story of changes of the forms of class relations and class conflicts

2.2 from

a) some pre history Mythical communal non conflictual society to

B)/>/>/> Slavery

c) Feudalism

d) Mercantlilist.early form of capitalism

e) Colonial Industrial capitalism (of his day)

f) todays consumer capitalism

3. the nature of modern class relations; Political, Economic Cultural power

3.1 control over material or economic resource also includes control over political and cultural resources

3.2 cultural control means that

culture is ideological: the norms and values that legitimate the exploiting class's control of the exploited class

3.3 there are special cultural institutions eg Religion//Polical theoriy/Social science/the Entertainment Industry that legitimate the various historical class relations

3.4 the nature of these institutions changes eg from Religion to Political Theory to Social Science to the 'Entertainment/ Media/Advertisng/PR' complex as the class conflict changes its form

3.3 there are always contradictons in the legitimating narratives

3.3.1.eg Liberal Democracy sustains Capitalism but 'universal freedom and rights' is in contradiction with the actuality that rights were only extended to white male property owners

3.3.2 the current freedom and rights of Weterners are sustained by the unfreedoms of the workers in the global labour market who produce the cheap good of our Consumer stage of capitalism

4 Truth, Belief, Contradictions, Complexity and Doubt

4.1 Contradiction and social change: class power is never absolute as these contradictions enable the exploited class to question the legitimating narratives of the ruling class

4.2 social processes are so complex that no one society is exactly like another - so there is no 'true form' of class reltions,nor any 'one true way ' to change the system

4.3 Marx objected to those who treat his ideas as 'Truth'. He argued: 'I am not a Marxist'

4.4 so 'belief' is OK but only as a way of posing questions at the beginning of any research.. In other words that 'belief' must always

a)be tested and

B)/>/>/> never applied wholesale to every other society

Source(s):

See the chapter on social theory in any intro to sociolgy text.

or current social theory texts eg by Charles Lemert

BTW I won't charge you for my time! :P/>/>

Thank you for explaining exactly WHY President Obama is NOT a Marxist. Glad you educated yourself.

[Shabibilicious]

***///

rham emmanuel is a tool.

A tool?......How very hip of you ladies!! Interesting.

GO RV, then BV

[parmenio]

Thank you for explaining exactly WHY President Obama is NOT a Marxist. Glad you educated yourself.

You sire, are in the dark...; sad..., real sad!

[Bumper64]

Let's keep this a NICE DEBATE PLEASE!!

[TonyDownTheShore]

Why are you guys so afraid of change?

They're not coming to your house and take your guns.

They just want to keep guns from getting to the wrong hands.

If you don't have a criminal record what's the difference? unless you have something to hide.

If change is good for the safety of your kids then it needs to be done.

40% of guns are bought without background check, do you see a problem here? this tranlates to miilions of guns roaming our neighborhoods in the wrong hands.

They have changed or ammended laws since this country was founded, this is just another law that needs to be fixed to todays standard.

I'm not here to create enemies, I'm here to express my feelings, now if you don't like it you have the right to express your feelings too, you don't need to call me names, talk in a civilized way .

And by the way the negs only proves my point that some of you shouldn't have a gun, because you're trigger happy, I could care less about the negs.

[ocdude]

You sire, are in the dark...; sad..., real sad!

Actually I am not sad at all...I am very happy that I am far more well informed than the sad people who call our president a Marxist without knowing what it means.

Let's keep this a NICE DEBATE PLEASE!!

I thought we were.

[TonyDownTheShore]

I applaud your courage for posting your opinion Tony.....knowing the neg (-) machine gun would set it's sights on you. You stated your thoughts respectfully.....and got blasted by those unable to achieve the same level of respectability. It's a sad state of affairs.

GO RV, then BV

Thanks Shabibilicous for the support, I thought I was the only one with some common sense but I see I'm not alone, I appreciate you sticking your neck out here in the line of fire.

What they don't get is that I'm not anti-gun, I'm for change for a better standard of living safely, not just for me but for all across America specially our kids.

Idiot thinking like our friend who posted this POS is the reason we have a marxist in the WH. Talking about DUMBING DOWN society..., he's your example!

The only idiot here is you that can't have a conversation without name calling, you're very selfish and only think of what you want, you don't think about thousands upon thousands of people that have lost a loved one to a gun shot.

And talk about DUMBING DOWN the NRA has all of you DUMBED DOWN to believe that change is no good.

Tony you got it all wrong. Letting liberals stomp on our Constitution is plan wrong! This will mean the end of our freedom and liberties!

How can I be wrong when most of the country agrees that change is needed.

This has nothing to do with your freedom, it's about the safety of our kids.

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

A tool?......How very hip of you ladies!! Interesting.

***///

A tool of the left.

(He was rewarded with his current post. )

He parrots, poses, stances and mimicks everything they

tell him to...

just like that crash-test dummy they use in new york - cuomo.

TRAINED DUMMIES.... TOOLS.

***///

Edited January 17, 2013 by SgtFuryUSCZ

[TonyDownTheShore]

Do you feel the same for all articles of the constitution or just those that support your argument?

The second amendment to the US constitution was written by James Madison, who became a member of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was presented to the House of Representatives in Congress on 8 June 1789 and ratified in 15 december 1791.. It was one of a total of 10 amendments drafted by Madison, who is thus often known as the "father of the Bill of Rights" as well as being called "the father of the constitution" for his work on this (with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.)

The second amendment is famous for its enshrinement of the right of citizens to bear arms, a right which is still being hotly debated in the US today, regarding whether it refers to individuals or a specially appointed militia.

I only have problem with this one, this was written in1791, this was perfect for 200 years ago because people needed to protect their family and lands, but you have to agree that we don't live like they did in the 1700's or 1800's things have changed and we need to make it for today's living, I'm not saying to throw it in the garbage but they need to ammend it.

Edited January 17, 2013 by TonyDownTheShore

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

We need all the help we're legally entitled to in order to

protect ourselves from a government gone awry!

Our right to bear arms is an integral part of that help -

should it ever become necessary.

This was by design.

And STILL as important today as it ever was.

[TonyDownTheShore]

The main purpose of the Second Amendment was so the people, mainly the anti-federalists, had a final check on the power of government. If the contract of the Constitution was violated and someone tried to seize power like a King or to withhold the rights of the people, another armed revolution would be possible.

If the government was aware of this right, and knew that the population was armed, then they felt the government would be much less likely to take undemocratic actions for fear of popular revolt and overthrow.

We are a gun culture, and a very well armed society, with estimates of over 250 million guns in private hands, in a country of 310 million people. You can do the math on that one. The 2nd Amendment is both controversial and beloved by American citizens, who still defend it ardently, and support the National Rifle Association which is designed to do just that, to the extreme even.

Some people believe that, since we have a democratic tradition dating back over 200 years, and a military that would defend the Constitution before any individual President, that the 2nd Amendment should not be taken so literally. This view, of course, is also controversial.

http://www.enotes.com/law/discuss/why-was-second-amendment-written-why-still-77617

[Shabibilicious]

I personally don't think I've come across one person on DV that says get rid of the 2nd Amendment. I certainly don't want to. We are essentially debating the tweaking of it......and tempers flare. It is a contentious issue.

GO RV, then BV

[TonyDownTheShore]

I personally don't think I've come across one person on DV that says get rid of the 2nd Amendment. I certainly don't want to. We are essentially debating the tweaking of it......and tempers flare. It is a contentious issue.

GO RV, then BV

I agree 100%.

[caz1104]

The second amendment to the US constitution was written by James Madison, who became a member of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was presented to the House of Representatives in Congress on 8 June 1789 and ratified in 15 december 1791.. It was one of a total of 10 amendments drafted by Madison, who is thus often known as the "father of the Bill of Rights" as well as being called "the father of the constitution" for his work on this (with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.)

The second amendment is famous for its enshrinement of the right of citizens to bear arms, a right which is still being hotly debated in the US today, regarding whether it refers to individuals or a specially appointed militia.

I only have problem with this one, this was written in1791, this was perfect for 200 years ago because people needed to protect their family and lands, but you have to agree that we don't live like they did in the 1700's or 1800's things have changed and we need to make it for today's living, I'm not saying to throw it in the garbage but they need to ammend it.

I do agree things have changed! Our kids are'nt safe to play outside by themselves anymore even in their own yard. You can't leave ANYTHING unlocked without fear. You dare not brake down on the side of the road somewhere unfamilar. You can't go to the ATM without looking over your shoulder....................the list goes on and on. The world is not a safe place and we can't expect the Gov/local police to be able to protect us. They can react but to protect doubtfull. To reduce ones ability to protect is not the answer today. If the gov/police can't protect us who do you propose will? If someone/someones brakes into my house and threatens my family in ANY way I WILL PROTECT THEM,and then wait for the police to respond not the other way arround. Until we(people) as a society change(doubtfull) a strong deterent is our only choice-peace

Why would you want to "tweak" something that would favor the criminal in the majority of cases? And weaken lawabiding citizens ability to protect in a way that they see fit? How about we strengthen the penalties on criminals to create a deterent as opposed to penalizing the innocent.

[R2D2]

An example of dumbing down of our society is someone who would call our president a Marxist.

For those that see the world through a libtard eye piece. You are a prime example of one of the things that I have grown to dislike. That would be a person that is allowed to vote and have an opinion with out any qualifing education. JjjjjEEEeZzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Dude you just don't understant the defnision. No other way to put it!

[TonyDownTheShore]

I do agree things have changed! Our kids are'nt safe to play outside by themselves anymore even in their own yard. You can't leave ANYTHING unlocked without fear. You dare not brake down on the side of the road somewhere unfamilar. You can't go to the ATM without looking over your shoulder....................the list goes on and on. The world is not a safe place and we can't expect the Gov/local police to be able to protect us. They can react but to protect doubtfull. To reduce ones ability to protect is not the answer today. If the gov/police can't protect us who do you propose will? If someone/someones brakes into my house and threatens my family in ANY way I WILL PROTECT THEM,and then wait for the police to respond not the other way arround. Until we(people) as a society change(doubtfull) a strong deterent is our only choice-peace

Why would you want to "tweak" something that would favor the criminal in the majority of cases? And weaken lawabiding citizens ability to protect in a way that they see fit? How about we strengthen the penalties on criminals to create a deterent as opposed to penalizing the innocent.

First thing, how many times has someone broken into your home? they usually break in when you're not there, second thing, the government doesn't want to take your gun, they want to make sure you own it legally, if you're are a lawabiding citizen you have nothing to worry about.

most of the people today see a need for change in the over 200 year old law, and this change is for the best interest of all of us.

Now they're talking about making it a stiff penalty for having a gun ilegally, that should deter a lot of people that shouldn't have them.

There are about 10 to 12 thousand people killed by gun shot every year, but one thing is for sure, there will always be people shot don't matter what, but if we can cut it by half or 2/3 or even one death by gun shot it's worth it, the one person that can be saved could be you or me or one of our family member.

[sxsess]

An example of dumbing down of our society is someone who would call our president a Marxist.

That would be your president. He is not mine!

[ocdude]

For those that see the world through a libtard eye piece. You are a prime example of one of the things that I have grown to dislike. That would be a person that is allowed to vote and have an opinion with out any qualifing education. JjjjjEEEeZzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Dude you just don't understant the defnision. No other way to put it! :rolleyes:/>

Why YES, I DO "understant" the "defnision" and after that post I would say that my "qualifing" education was far greater than yours.

That would be your president. He is not mine!

Oh, I didn't realize that you were not an American.

[caz1104]

1st thing I have been a victim of a house brake in and my triple pump remington handed down to me by my grandfather was a deterent. I now own double barrell,and (2)38 revolvers along with said remington. 2nd most people as you state do not agree(according to majority of surveys I've seen) that our 200 year old constitution needs to be tweaked in favor of the criminal. What most me included do agree with you is the laws should be more stringent towards the criminal.

[dog53]

Ok if we cant call him a Marxist or socialist or communist.

I suppose

COMMIE PINKO RED S.O.B !!!!!!

is definitly out of the question .