Syria- Thoughts

[Full Tilt 10+ year member]

Damn, and I was afraid I wouldn't have anything to do for the evening.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/popcorn.gif.32dd9e22fd77e77bc3c907062768fcd2.gif

 

[whatitdo84]

i am tired of the united states of america being the worlds police. the full collapse of our dollar will happen. silver and gold fell hard back in April this year. right before what happen in boston, false flags people...

 

[hispls 5,000+ posts]

The mere fact that you're agitating for the legitimacy of a document that allows a minority to inflict it's will on the majority is collectivist. What you're saying in your argument against democracy and for your ideal republic (which, by the way, I never endorsed) is that a majority shouldn't be allowed to rule over a minority but, an elite minority should be allowed to rule over a majority.

col·lec·tiv·ism

/kəˈlektəˌvizəm/

noun: collectivism

1. the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

So, the minority "imposing it's will" on the majority is NOT collectivist. Furthermore, the constitution is designed specifically to protect the rights of the individual so that neither the mob, nor the "elite" minority can impose their will on anybody. Congress has almost dictatorial powers over those who live in DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, and other territories and Federal owned land, but otherwise, if the constitution were being obeyed has virtually no authority to "rule over" you, or mandate that you do anything, provided you're not engaged in interstate commerce, counterfeiting money, or engaged in treason. READ IT!

I am a voluntarist or, individualist if you like, which means that I do not seek to inflict my will on anyone who does no harm to another individual. Collectivists, on the other hand, would impose sanctions on the liberties of those who do not meet their particular idea of "right". This is why we have laws against victimless crimes and, it is why you would impose a litany of rules and regulations on every individual in order that that individual be afforded the "right" to make some (lame) attempt at affecting how his own property is managed through the act of voting. Which, by the by, is no different than gambling, regardless of whether you attach the labels "republic" or "democracy" to the wager.

Let me reiterate. The actual scope of the constitution does NOT give congress the power to legislate morals, or behavior, and specifically enumerates rights which may never be infringed. If you are eluding to zoning ordinances and the like, those are controlled on a local level, and your beef may be with your town or county.

I would also maintain, that many zoning laws or rules about what you can do with your property exist to protect your neighbors rights. Do you have a right to use your yard for a toilet? Possibly, but your neighbor certainly has the right to enjoy his land without your corn rockets sliding over onto his property when it rains.

Furthermore, it is my belief that there is some chicanery going on with property "ownership". Since we have no money anymore (in the last 100 years) nobody can truly own anything. You do not own your land unless you have a "patent". From what I understand you have far more rights and title to things you actually own. Ditto with a car for example. Do you have a "TITLE" or "CERTIFICATE OF TITLE"? If it's a "CERTIFICATE" who has the actual title? This is merely certifying that title exists. This is a whole other can of worms though, but the point is, if Congress was actually doing what they were constitutionally mandated to do (which seems to be the only things they aren't doing) we would have actual money and be able to truly own property.

Moreover, what your republic has achieved is, in no uncertain terms, the largest and most successful power grab in mankind's history. And here's why... when the US constitution was ratified by a minority of property owning men, it was indeed the smallest and least intrusive government known to man. However, the liberty afforded by that small government also caused the largest and most remarkable increase in wealth and technological advancement mankind had ever seen. And what happened as a result?

I'll tell you what happened. People got lazy and apathetic. They became ignorant and fat and went to sleep, forgetting the lessons of their forefathers and allowing many usurpations of power to go by without complaint.

The minority the constitution gives ruling authority to immediately began to conceive of ways to hoard that wealth for themselves.

NOBODY has "ruling authority" over you unless you live in DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, or certain military bases. Please read the constitution. NOWHERE in there does it give ANYBODY authority to "rule" over a citizen of one of the several states.

In a republican form of government the sovereign is the people and the members of government are "PUBLIC SERVENTS" not "RULERS".

Again, you are confusing a constitutional republic with democracy. Democracy is "choose your tyrant" or mob-ocracy/mob rule.

Thus, the US government has gone from the smallest and least intrusive government in history to the largest and most intrusive government in history... in less than 300 years.

Again, largely completely out of the bounds of the enumerated powers and largely grossly unconstitutional. Collectively we fell asleep at the wheel and allowed some outrageous things to happen. I would maintain that if the constitution were being followed and power (as it should) flowed from the local level up, much of this would never happen.

Hell.... at least the Magna Carta kept the British Monarchy at bay for ~800 years. And it probably would have been much longer, had the US empire not begun.

People have NEVER been truly free in England. The Magna Carta put certain limits on the King's power, but at the end of the day, the king was the only sovereign.

In the end, you cannot give any man authority over his fellow man and call yourself obtaining liberty for either. And when you do, you have established a collectivist society, regardless what you label it.

Again, READ the constitution. It gives virtually no power to exercise authority over an inhabitant of one of the several states. It has largely prevented collectivism for quite some time.

William Allen White said in short and simple terms... "Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others."

Our founders knew this. The "great American experiment" by my estimation was to see if man was fit to govern themselves. We were given a very limited government guaranteed rights, and all the means by which to keep them..... and all the means by which to trade that away for "security" or a free lunch at the expense of our fellows. It is likely our founders, knowing human nature as they did, knew we were bound to fail. While we still have a few outs, it's pretty much all over but the shouting, and the NEW WORLD ORDER is right around the corner. Rest assured, you're not going to like it.

Your constitution exists for the sole purpose of restricting the liberties of others and thus, it restricts the liberties of all who fall prey to its dictums. Even those who rule by them.

How can you say this? READ READ READ READ READ!!!!! Instead of reading some Marxist's vomit, read the damned document and quote any parts where it takes liberty from anybody. NOWHERE in the document does it mandate anything to the people and through all of the document it tells government what it can not do.

 

[™Caveman 10+ year member]

Just Heard a report on KNX 1070 LA

The Interviewer asked three Syrian soldiers if they were worried about a Attack from the us/un.

They all replied "no" it would spark ww3. Crept me out.

We need prayer

We need Divine Intervention

God Blessed our Country and then we turned out backs on Israel "Gods land"

What happens if our great country that was built and founded on biblical principal

Turns our back to God and then go into War?.

Get right With The Almighty Lord of Lords And king Of Kings

Jesus Christ! Without him were doomed.

Im concerned I ain't nuts.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[bbeljefe]

col·lec·tiv·ism/kəˈlektəˌvizəm/

noun: collectivism

1. the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

So, the minority "imposing it's will" on the majority is NOT collectivist. Furthermore, the constitution is designed specifically to protect the rights of the individual so that neither the mob, nor the "elite" minority can impose their will on anybody. Congress has almost dictatorial powers over those who live in DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, and other territories and Federal owned land, but otherwise, if the constitution were being obeyed has virtually no authority to "rule over" you, or mandate that you do anything, provided you're not engaged in interstate commerce, counterfeiting money, or engaged in treason. READ IT!....

Right, and the minority that rules this country is a group that has authority over the individuals in it.

Also... if the fox hadn't stopped to shite, he'd have caught supper. But he didn't. Likewise with the constitution.. If it were being followed, then things would be different.

I don't care about what the constitution says, I care about what it has allowed. The same goes for people... I don't care what you say, nor do I pay any attention to it. I only have concern with what you do.

So you can if then until you draw your last breath. But the bottom line is that we do not live in a free country and frankly, never have. Moreover, we will never live in a free country unless or until people finally decide to stop pointing guns at one another or, hiring henchmen to do it for them.

But you already know that, because almost everything you wrote could have come from the mouth of an anarchist... save all the bleating about the constitution nt being followed.

Of course it's not being followed. It was never meant to be followed and if you weren't blinded by this fantasy that using violence to get your way is somehow moral, you'd realize it. ;-)

Oh and, I've read the constitution ad nauseum. I used to keep about a dozen pocket sized copies of it on hand to give to people. But that was before I actually started looking at what people do instead of listening to what they say...

 

[hispls 5,000+ posts]

Right, and the minority that rules this country is a group that has authority over the individuals in it.
Also... if the fox hadn't stopped to shite, he'd have caught supper. But he didn't. Likewise with the constitution.. If it were being followed, then things would be different.

I don't care about what the constitution says, I care about what it has allowed. The same goes for people... I don't care what you say, nor do I pay any attention to it. I only have concern with what you do.

So you can if then until you draw your last breath. But the bottom line is that we do not live in a free country and frankly, never have. Moreover, we will never live in a free country unless or until people finally decide to stop pointing guns at one another or, hiring henchmen to do it for them.

But you already know that, because almost everything you wrote could have come from the mouth of an anarchist... save all the bleating about the constitution nt being followed.

Of course it's not being followed. It was never meant to be followed and if you weren't blinded by this fantasy that using violence to get your way is somehow moral, you'd realize it. ;-)

Oh and, I've read the constitution ad nauseum. I used to keep about a dozen pocket sized copies of it on hand to give to people. But that was before I actually started looking at what people do instead of listening to what they say...

In a nutshell, the constitution is bad because it has been ignored by the few and this has been allowed by the masses? Where do you get the idea that is was never meant to be followed?

Also a MINORITY having power over the masses is an oligarchy. I still don't think you grasp what a republic actually is nor what the constitution lays out.

I am not at all for anarchy, anarchy = barbarism (might makes right) very quickly.

Now how does the USA intervening in another sovereign nation's civil war enter into your worldview about morality?

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

Just Heard a report on KNX 1070 LA
The Interviewer asked three Syrian soldiers if they were worried about a Attack from the us/un.

They all replied "no" it would spark ww3. Crept me out.

We need prayer

We need Divine Intervention

God Blessed our Country and then we turned out backs on Israel "Gods land"

What happens if our great country that was built and founded on biblical principal

Turns our back to God and then go into War?.

Get right With The Almighty Lord of Lords And king Of Kings

Jesus Christ! Without him were doomed.

Im concerned I ain't nuts.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

wow //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/*******.gif.a649d21efc0d1fd4890a6428166586c1.gif