Syria- Thoughts

[autocrossn]

Hundreds of innocent woman and children were murdered. By toxic gasses. CONCRETE PROOF.

www.youtube.com/embed/O5bM8kTOsOk

Do we not have any morals?

If you saw a little girl run out of your neighbors house wearing erotic clothing with a guy chasing after her would you not call the cops? Or saw a domestic happening.

Same goes for Syria..

And people complain about there tired of war.

How many of us has the war directly affected? Most people going around not caring or even think about it.

Many people are very ignorant in this country and don't know what there talking about. Dont flame me about saying that either my Dad was in the Vietnam war and was in contact with agent orange. He now has PTSD and and a couple diseases that he is completely disabled.

HE DID WHAT HE NEEDED TO DO. WHAT WAS RIGHT. We have it so much better than any-other country QUIT being so god **** selfish.

This is kind of like world war 2 we stayed out till the last minute. When Europe was completely over thrown besides the UK. When if we had went in right away we could have prevented the death of over 50 million people.

100k have already died in syria.... How many will it take?

Would you want other countries to help us if we were getting gassed by our own government?

Click to read more...

 

[matt_bennett05 10+ year member]

In all honesty (think whatever you want) my opinion is that we need to let the current diplomatic approach proceed. If they're willing to work with us then we shouldn't start treading water against everyone who isn't on our side. IF they aren't willing to cooperate, well we need to get things lined up to strike quick, fast, and in a hurry to stop it before it happens again. I know that this is a HORRIBLE 50/50 shot seeing as we won't know until it happens but if we're able to get this resolved peacefully we should. BUT, Syria's leader is to blame and should be brought in front of the UN (not the US) to pay for his actions. Also, we know what Russia has done but we don't know what they HAVEN'T done so put them in the gray area.

Edit : Also, I'm not saying give them two weeks to figure out what they want to do. I'm saying give them until Friday to realize this is eminent and one way or another this is being handled. The waiting game won't get us anywhere, but we need to let this brew into harsh reality for them first.

 

[autocrossn]

In all honesty (think whatever you want) my opinion is that we need to let the current diplomatic approach proceed. If they're willing to work with us then we shouldn't start treading water against everyone who isn't on our side. IF they aren't willing to cooperate, well we need to get things lined up to strike quick, fast, and in a hurry to stop it before it happens again. I know that this is a HORRIBLE 50/50 shot seeing as we won't know until it happens but if we're able to get this resolved peacefully we should. BUT, Syria's leader is to blame and should be brought in front of the UN (not the US) to pay for his actions. Also, we know what Russia has done but we don't know what they HAVEN'T done so put them in the gray area.
Edit : Also, I'm not saying give them two weeks to figure out what they want to do. I'm saying give them until Friday to realize this is eminent and one way or another this is being handled. The waiting game won't get us anywhere, but we need to let this brew into harsh reality for them first.

That is the number one thing is there leader needs to pay for the crimes against humanity (Genocide).

 

[Charlie001]

Unfortunately the UN is a joke. I don't even know why the world has that. The US ultimately makes or persuades the decisions the affect pretty much any third world country on earth. There are many things wrong in the Middle East. Why do we spend billions and billions of taxpayer dollars for foreign aid sent to countries that hate the US and would not think twice about killing every single one of us if they could? That pisses me off more than anything. Take Pakistan for example. Many countries like them put up a front and act nice so they can get our aid but they harbor terrorists like bin laden and then get mad when we go kill him. Then they give the parts of the stealth chopper that we wrecked to China. WTF is up with that? But then again that might all be bs that the awesome media we have in this country like to print because they ran out of kardashian and Cyrus pics to show everyone. I don't really care about anyone over there as long as my family, friends and fellow REAL Americans are safe here. I will say this though, if we do go bomb Syria, we need to completely level the whole effing Middle East to dust. I'm talking Iran Iraq Afghanistan Eygpt Pakistan Lybia Syria and any other country that harbors or breeds terrorists knowingly and willingly. Then after the dust settles plant a big f u c k I n g American flag in the soil, rename the whole area to the United States of America along with our current country and start to colonize and get this **** delt with once and for all. Any of our so called "allies" cry about? Well **** them too. They ain't doing anything about it. I'm sick and tired of every body saying the US is a big bully and needs to stay away from everywhere when we are the ones that always have to help any little problem get solved with these idiots. I guarantee if we stayed out of it and didn't do a **** thing then people would be pissed at us for not doing anything about it. That's why I say we just take over the whole **** thing. Thank you or your time......

 

[bbeljefe]

I don't think anyone with a modicum of human empathy would argue that people who are being oppressed by their governments don't deserve help. But the thing is that the US government doesn't help the innocent victims of tyranny, it adds to their numbers.

Vietnam wasn't a peace mission, it was a political mission. As was WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Gulf War, the Afghan War, the Iraq War and every other war or "police action" the Us ruling class has had their filthy, sadistic and self serving hands in.

If there were actually a humanitarian element to these wars, the US ruling class wouldn't send its own children to murder and be murdered by the innocent victims of other tyrannical nations.... it would perform surgical assassinations against the offending tyrants and then let the people of the nation decide how they want to be governed... if at all. Instead, the military industrial complex rakes in billions upon billions of dollars every time some sociopathic megalomaniacal president decides to make a name for himself and the real victims of those actions aren't the politicians who start these war and often they're not even the politicians who rule the attacked countries. They're innocent men, women and children who either die from weaponry or who lose their lives slowly and painfully through the after affects of the chemicals the US military dumps all over them and their land. Moreover, the money printed to fund these wars robs unborn generations of wealth they're yet to earn through the tax of inflation.

No one ever wins a war and no one is ever saved by war. In the past decade, the US has murdered some 30% of the population of Iraq in the name of saving them from a despot. Well, that despot is long dead now and the US military is still in Iraq. What's even worse, the half life of the uranium waste the US military has dumped all over Iraq is 4 billion years. That's how old this planet is. So for the lifespan of the entire planet, Iraqi's will be plagued by cancers and other fatal and crippling diseases all because a zealous sociopath named George Bush wanted to get back at a despot who got one over on his Daddy.

If you want to actually understand the breadth of the destruction the United States ruling class has caused just in Iraq, take a few minutes to watch this and pay close attention to the facts presented. This isn't made up information, it is readily available to anyone who wants to find it and much of it is official US government records. But.. the state ******* toadies in the media won't share this, because to do so would jeopardize the gravy train upon which they ride...

 

[Braindead]

Truthfully, we should stay out of it. Assisting rebels who associate with Al Qaeda is against what we've been fighting for these past couple decades, also these rebels have committed war crimes. If Obama really wants to intervene, I say take out Al Assad then let them fight their civil war, and allow the people of Syria to resolve it themselves. We have enough issues here at home.

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

Kill 'em all!

 

[Jeffdachef 5,000+ posts]

there's really no right answer, everyone gets fked no matter what the decision.

1: we go in, they hate us, we waste resources on a lost cause most likely not going to change the dicktator's mind.

2: we dont go in, the whole terrorist/middle east/north korea will think we're pushovers and will do whatever the fk they want in the future to cause more headaches.

 

[Bohemian 10+ year member]

Hundreds of innocent woman and children were murdered. By toxic gasses. CONCRETE PROOF.
www.youtube.com/embed/O5bM8kTOsOk

Do we not have any morals?

If you saw a little girl run out of your neighbors house wearing erotic clothing with a guy chasing after her would you not call the cops? Or saw a domestic happening.

Same goes for Syria..

And people complain about there tired of war.

How many of us has the war directly affected? Most people going around not caring or even think about it.

Many people are very ignorant in this country and don't know what there talking about. Dont flame me about saying that either my Dad was in the Vietnam war and was in contact with agent orange. He now has PTSD and and a couple diseases that he is completely disabled.

HE DID WHAT HE NEEDED TO DO. WHAT WAS RIGHT. We have it so much better than any-other country QUIT being so god **** selfish.

This is kind of like world war 2 we stayed out till the last minute. When Europe was completely over thrown besides the UK. When if we had went in right away we could have prevented the death of over 50 million people.

100k have already died in syria.... How many will it take?

Would you want other countries to help us if we were getting gassed by our own government?

No one denies it happened, but there is not concrete proof that it was the Syrian regime. Second, do you really want to aid the rebels of which many are our current enemies? Last but not least, how is killing for killing going to really solve anything? Last but not least . . .


















WHO THE **** CARES?

 

[hispls 5,000+ posts]

And people complain about there tired of war

They're

Please point out where the US federal government has the authority to enforce their will on ANY other sovereign nation? Where does it authorize the president to pick a side in every third world ********'s civil wars?

Perhaps you were stoned or sleeping through Civics 101 (and likely English as well), but outside of Washington DC, Puerto Rico, certain government buildings and naval bases, and other territories as enumerated, the federal government pretty much only exists to: 1. Coin and regulate the value of money. 2. Maintain a NAVY and defend our borders from invasion. 3. Regulate interstate commerce.

Of course in the open-air asylum we have created here (with the help of the terminally dumbed down and uninformed masses) they are completely failing to do the first two of their duties and using the pretext of the third to pass laws to intrude on every facet of the lives of what should be the sovereign states and their citizens (subjects?).

If you feel so passionately about Syria's civil war, nobody is stopping you from buying a flight over there and lending a hand on whichever side of their revolution you want to support.

Seems that our collective definition of "genocide" that we should be outraged about varies greatly depending on the political and religious leaning of the country in question. Nobody raised an eyebrow when the Bolsheviks and then Stalin slaughtered over 60 MILLION of their own people. Your socialist media, teachers and "leaders" don't really seem to mind the 45 MILLION high score of Chairman Mao. So where DO we draw the line? I assure you the pablum spoon-fed to you by the media or the Kenyan in the white house has nothing to do with the reasons we will or will not get involved.

I can also assure you that public opinion has NOTHING to do with the outcome anyway. I'd wager the outcome is already planned and we're just watching the stage show now.

If you want to be a UN citizen, go move to UN-istan of wherever their "country" is. How about take a look at the UN charter and see that it grants absolutely NO individual rights and was largely borrowed directly from Marx.

In short, Go to night school and get a remedial education. Learn to read and communicate, then read some books and try to develop the ability for critical thinking. Weak kneed liberal/progressive (communist) types ninny about how dangerous guns are and how we should need a license to exercise a God given right, but they'd have every illiterate breeder voting without even proving their identity. I ask you all, which is more dangerous, a gun in the hands of a responsible citizen, or a ballot in the hands of the uneducated? (Protip, the "right" to vote is NOT among those rights given by God, and guaranteed by ANY of our original founding documents)

That is the number one thing is there leader needs to pay for the crimes against humanity (Genocide).

But when Israel does it, or we do it, it's called "freedom" and is OK. None of our business whatsoever.

Truthfully, we should stay out of it. Assisting rebels who associate with Al Qaeda is against what we've been fighting for these past couple decades, also these rebels have committed war crimes. If Obama really wants to intervene, I say take out Al Assad then let them fight their civil war, and allow the people of Syria to resolve it themselves. We have enough issues here at home.

We created them in the first place when we recruited, trained, and funded OBL in the 80's. Watch the movie Rambo 3.... the Afghani "insurgents" were "freedom fighters". It's amazing what a little media brainwashing and changing words will accomplish.

there's really no right answer, everyone gets fked no matter what the decision.
1: we go in, they hate us, we waste resources on a lost cause most likely not going to change the dicktator's mind.

2: we dont go in, the whole terrorist/middle east/north korea will think we're pushovers and will do whatever the fk they want in the future to cause more headaches.

So butting out of internal affairs of other sovereign nations is a sign of weakness?

 

[whatitdo84]

why not

 

[bbeljefe]

They're
Please point out where the US federal government has the authority to enforce their will on ANY other sovereign nation? Where does it authorize the president to pick a side in every third world ********'s civil wars?

Perhaps you were stoned or sleeping through Civics 101 (and likely English as well), but outside of Washington DC, Puerto Rico, certain government buildings and naval bases, and other territories as enumerated, the federal government pretty much only exists to: 1. Coin and regulate the value of money. 2. Maintain a NAVY and defend our borders from invasion. 3. Regulate interstate commerce.

Of course in the open-air asylum we have created here (with the help of the terminally dumbed down and uninformed masses) they are completely failing to do the first two of their duties and using the pretext of the third to pass laws to intrude on every facet of the lives of what should be the sovereign states and their citizens (subjects?).

If you feel so passionately about Syria's civil war, nobody is stopping you from buying a flight over there and lending a hand on whichever side of their revolution you want to support.

Seems that our collective definition of "genocide" that we should be outraged about varies greatly depending on the political and religious leaning of the country in question. Nobody raised an eyebrow when the Bolsheviks and then Stalin slaughtered over 60 MILLION of their own people. Your socialist media, teachers and "leaders" don't really seem to mind the 45 MILLION high score of Chairman Mao. So where DO we draw the line? I assure you the pablum spoon-fed to you by the media or the Kenyan in the white house has nothing to do with the reasons we will or will not get involved.

I can also assure you that public opinion has NOTHING to do with the outcome anyway. I'd wager the outcome is already planned and we're just watching the stage show now.

If you want to be a UN citizen, go move to UN-istan of wherever their "country" is. How about take a look at the UN charter and see that it grants absolutely NO individual rights and was largely borrowed directly from Marx.

In short, Go to night school and get a remedial education. Learn to read and communicate, then read some books and try to develop the ability for critical thinking. Weak kneed liberal/progressive (communist) types ninny about how dangerous guns are and how we should need a license to exercise a God given right, but they'd have every illiterate breeder voting without even proving their identity. I ask you all, which is more dangerous, a gun in the hands of a responsible citizen, or a ballot in the hands of the uneducated? (Protip, the "right" to vote is NOT among those rights given by God, and guaranteed by ANY of our original founding documents)

But when Israel does it, or we do it, it's called "freedom" and is OK. None of our business whatsoever.

We created them in the first place when we recruited, trained, and funded OBL in the 80's. Watch the movie Rambo 3.... the Afghani "insurgents" were "freedom fighters". It's amazing what a little media brainwashing and changing words will accomplish.

So butting out of internal affairs of other sovereign nations is a sign of weakness?

That was pretty well said, albeit just as collectivist as the collectivism you argued against... but in another way.

And in the first paragraph by "Where does it authorize", I presume you mean the US constitution. To which, I would ask... have you signed it? I haven't and wouldn't. In fact, who has signed it in the past 200 odd years? To my knowledge, not one man, woman or child has been given the opportunity to sign and legally bind themselves to that document since the original signatories signed it in private, without so much as offering blacks, women or white men under 21 or whom did not own property to read and sign it.

Check out Lysander Spooner's tome, Constitution of No Authority. I think you'll appreciate the critical thought he put into the notion that a band of self described rulers could somehow create a contract document that affects every man, woman and child born in an arbitrarily decided upon area in perpetuity... with not one of them ever being afforded the opportunity to voluntarily enter into it or, more importantly, refrain from abiding its dictates.

 

[Braindead]

They're
Please point out where the US federal government has the authority to enforce their will on ANY other sovereign nation? Where does it authorize the president to pick a side in every third world ********'s civil wars?

Perhaps you were stoned or sleeping through Civics 101 (and likely English as well), but outside of Washington DC, Puerto Rico, certain government buildings and naval bases, and other territories as enumerated, the federal government pretty much only exists to: 1. Coin and regulate the value of money. 2. Maintain a NAVY and defend our borders from invasion. 3. Regulate interstate commerce.

Of course in the open-air asylum we have created here (with the help of the terminally dumbed down and uninformed masses) they are completely failing to do the first two of their duties and using the pretext of the third to pass laws to intrude on every facet of the lives of what should be the sovereign states and their citizens (subjects?).

If you feel so passionately about Syria's civil war, nobody is stopping you from buying a flight over there and lending a hand on whichever side of their revolution you want to support.

Seems that our collective definition of "genocide" that we should be outraged about varies greatly depending on the political and religious leaning of the country in question. Nobody raised an eyebrow when the Bolsheviks and then Stalin slaughtered over 60 MILLION of their own people. Your socialist media, teachers and "leaders" don't really seem to mind the 45 MILLION high score of Chairman Mao. So where DO we draw the line? I assure you the pablum spoon-fed to you by the media or the Kenyan in the white house has nothing to do with the reasons we will or will not get involved.

I can also assure you that public opinion has NOTHING to do with the outcome anyway. I'd wager the outcome is already planned and we're just watching the stage show now.

If you want to be a UN citizen, go move to UN-istan of wherever their "country" is. How about take a look at the UN charter and see that it grants absolutely NO individual rights and was largely borrowed directly from Marx.

In short, Go to night school and get a remedial education. Learn to read and communicate, then read some books and try to develop the ability for critical thinking. Weak kneed liberal/progressive (communist) types ninny about how dangerous guns are and how we should need a license to exercise a God given right, but they'd have every illiterate breeder voting without even proving their identity. I ask you all, which is more dangerous, a gun in the hands of a responsible citizen, or a ballot in the hands of the uneducated? (Protip, the "right" to vote is NOT among those rights given by God, and guaranteed by ANY of our original founding documents)

But when Israel does it, or we do it, it's called "freedom" and is OK. None of our business whatsoever.

We created them in the first place when we recruited, trained, and funded OBL in the 80's. Watch the movie Rambo 3.... the Afghani "insurgents" were "freedom fighters". It's amazing what a little media brainwashing and changing words will accomplish.

So butting out of internal affairs of other sovereign nations is a sign of weakness?

Haha, I wasn't around in the 80's

 

[hispls 5,000+ posts]

That was pretty well said, albeit just as collectivist as the collectivism you argued against... but in another way.
And in the first paragraph by "Where does it authorize", I presume you mean the US constitution. To which, I would ask... have you signed it? I haven't and wouldn't. In fact, who has signed it in the past 200 odd years? To my knowledge, not one man, woman or child has been given the opportunity to sign and legally bind themselves to that document since the original signatories signed it in private, without so much as offering blacks, women or white men under 21 or whom did not own property to read and sign it.

Check out Lysander Spooner's tome, Constitution of No Authority. I think you'll appreciate the critical thought he put into the notion that a band of self described rulers could somehow create a contract document that affects every man, woman and child born in an arbitrarily decided upon area in perpetuity... with not one of them ever being afforded the opportunity to voluntarily enter into it or, more importantly, refrain from abiding its dictates.

For the record, what did I say that you could possibly read as collectivist?

The Constitution for the United States was ratified by representatives of each of the several states. I think you are confusing a REPUBLIC with DEMOCRACY. Democracy always turns to socialism/communism/despotism when the mob realizes they can vote themselves a free lunch. Democracy would also allow the 51% to vote away the rights of the other 49%.

Here's a quote from a time when people were a bit better educated and before we had newspeak:

"Democracy, n.:- A government of the masses. - Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. - Results in mobocracy. - Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights. - Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice,and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. - Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, [chaos]."

source: U. S. Army Training Manual No. 2000-25

This is precisely the 'democracy' of the New Order that we are working so hard to create through our imperialism. "One man, one vote" is NOT part of the founding principals of the United States, but is straight from the communist manifesto.

Again, there is no "right" to vote, and if it were up to me I'd be all for a poll tax, mandatory civics classes and proficiency test, IQ tests, literacy tests, and other restrictions before people are allowed to engage in such a potentially dangerous activity. Restricting the ability to vote to only taxpayers is also a fine idea. After all they're the ones footing the bill.

Like it or lump it, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It has specific methods included for changes as needed and they're quite difficult (specifically for the point of not allowing "democracy"). At the end of the day it's the only document in the history of the world that actually set men free and made them masters of their own government. Nobody alive has actually lived in a time where it was actually adhered to, so I'd strongly suggest RETURNING to it before trying to change it or scrap it. I assure you, when they do scrap it, you will not like what rises from the ashes.

Do you really think that if every dope alive had to agree to the terms of this "contract" we would be better off? Have you even read the constitution? Primarily it is concerned with establishing the form of government, limiting the powers thereof, and guaranteeing certain inalienable rights to the people against government restriction. I'm not sure what you really need to dispute about this since the way it's laid out the Federal Government has jurisdiction over your life almost never. Furthermore, you're more than welcome to opt out and emigrate to any socialist utopia of your choice if you're not happy with the way things are set up.

Also the civil war was probably the worst outcome for the freedom of Americans. (inb4 slavery.... Confederacy had planned to outlaw it anyway). This was precisely about a state being able to opt out of the union if they weren't happy with usurpations of federal power. OF course you could make a credible argument that balkanizing North America into a bunch of several states wouldn't leave us in nearly the position of power we are today.... then you could also make the argument that it's not doing the common man much good anyway.

 

[bbeljefe]

For the record, what did I say that you could possibly read as collectivist?
The Constitution for the United States was ratified by representatives of each of the several states. I think you are confusing a REPUBLIC with DEMOCRACY. Democracy always turns to socialism/communism/despotism when the mob realizes they can vote themselves a free lunch. Democracy would also allow the 51% to vote away the rights of the other 49%.

Here's a quote from a time when people were a bit better educated and before we had newspeak:

This is precisely the 'democracy' of the New Order that we are working so hard to create through our imperialism. "One man, one vote" is NOT part of the founding principals of the United States, but is straight from the communist manifesto.

Again, there is no "right" to vote, and if it were up to me I'd be all for a poll tax, mandatory civics classes and proficiency test, IQ tests, literacy tests, and other restrictions before people are allowed to engage in such a potentially dangerous activity. Restricting the ability to vote to only taxpayers is also a fine idea. After all they're the ones footing the bill.

Like it or lump it, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It has specific methods included for changes as needed and they're quite difficult (specifically for the point of not allowing "democracy"). At the end of the day it's the only document in the history of the world that actually set men free and made them masters of their own government. Nobody alive has actually lived in a time where it was actually adhered to, so I'd strongly suggest RETURNING to it before trying to change it or scrap it. I assure you, when they do scrap it, you will not like what rises from the ashes.

Do you really think that if every dope alive had to agree to the terms of this "contract" we would be better off? Have you even read the constitution? Primarily it is concerned with establishing the form of government, limiting the powers thereof, and guaranteeing certain inalienable rights to the people against government restriction. I'm not sure what you really need to dispute about this since the way it's laid out the Federal Government has jurisdiction over your life almost never. Furthermore, you're more than welcome to opt out and emigrate to any socialist utopia of your choice if you're not happy with the way things are set up.

Also the civil war was probably the worst outcome for the freedom of Americans. (inb4 slavery.... Confederacy had planned to outlaw it anyway). This was precisely about a state being able to opt out of the union if they weren't happy with usurpations of federal power. OF course you could make a credible argument that balkanizing North America into a bunch of several states wouldn't leave us in nearly the position of power we are today.... then you could also make the argument that it's not doing the common man much good anyway.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

 

[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...