Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on December 06, 2006, 01:07:32 PM
-
Seems a new act recently passed or about to be passed by our legislature is taking away ALL our freedom in the name of fighting terroiest................
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/12/06/military-commissions-act-a-precursor-to-tyranny/
hmmm......................... ...
Ron Paul is usually pretty much on target as to whats happening.
-
hmmm.....let me go check to see if I am free.
-
uhmm...ya. Still free. Thanks for the heads up though.
-
ROFL Yeager!
Now please return to your domicile. Your Government will call you if they require your presence outdoors again.
;)
RTR
-
What wolf? I don't see no wolf...
(http://static.flickr.com/22/33478046_1d6b7d1fef.jpg)
-
let me put it this way: the justice system in my city is working, the justice system in my county is working, the justice system in my state is working and the justice system in my nation is working.
Once I hear people start talking about concentration camps being readied to hold millions of americans in, then I simply throw the switch and shut that conversation down, I have no time for such damaging idiotic paranoia.
-
While it doesn't surprise me, I am not going to take an editorial seriously. Ever.
Much less from a liberal. I quickly figured out what he was from these six words:
or what good is a gun?”
He obviously doesn't know what a gun is for.
-
ron paul, harrison ford's, long lost twin brother?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
He obviously doesn't know what a gun is for.
The government has bigger guns.
This just in.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
While it doesn't surprise me, I am not going to take an editorial seriously. Ever.
Much less from a liberal.
how 'bout this one then, from Congressional Quarterly... http://public.cq.com/public/20061201_homeland.html
-
yep.. they do. that can be fixed tho. even if you don't get some of theirs... there is allways a certain quality to quantity.
I allways find it funny to see the guys who think 300,000 of the American people couldn't defeat a tyranical governemt control but somehow see no problem in a few thousand 3rd worlders defeating the American army.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Yeager
uhmm...ya. Still free. Thanks for the heads up though.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Yeager
let me put it this way: the justice system in my city is working, the justice system in my county is working, the justice system in my state is working and the justice system in my nation is working.
that's the funniest thing I've heard all week :lol even most of the hard-core conservatives I know admit that the "justice system" in this country is seriously whacked. I'll bet Kathryn Johnston doesn't think it's working all that well. Or Cory Maye, Xavier Bennett, James Hoskins or Sal Culosi...
Once I hear people start talking about concentration camps being readied to hold millions of americans in, then I simply throw the switch and shut that conversation down, I have no time for such damaging idiotic paranoia.
yeah, because every sentiment that goes contrary to your "everything's just peachy!" outlook is just "idiotic paranoia"... what exactly is so paranoid about not wanting any detention camps in the US? what do you thing they're there for, to hold pajama parties for the GOP faithful?
-
For what its worth, we've already established concentration camps...they're called "inner cities" and those on welfare with tv don't mind it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I allways find it funny to see the guys who think 300,000 of the American people couldn't defeat a tyranical governemt control but somehow see no problem in a few thousand 3rd worlders defeating the American army.
lazs
Tagline material right there
-
Originally posted by Yeager
let me put it this way: the justice system in my city is working,
What the hell country you live in?
I wanna move there!
-
Hey Rip....do you think Skuzzy'll mind if we hijack this thread?
Just askin'.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
how 'bout this one then, from Congressional Quarterly... http://public.cq.com/public/20061201_homeland.html
Oh the hypocrisy! IT'S HILARIOUS! :rofl
The liberals all yelled at Bush when he wasn't allowed to go into the katrina disaster area and fix the problem.
But suddenly they get their panties in a twist when the whole of congress gives him the power to do so?
:rofl
Wait. :huh
Ok.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Here's a handy product:
http://www.uncommongoods.com/item/item.jsp?source=related&itemId=13857
-
What could concentration camps capable of holding millions possibly be used for in a free society?
-
And where are these "concetration camps" at?? Someone please tell me, I'd like to go and take a look at one.
Seriously, anyone who actually believes this stuff needs to get thicker tin foil for their heads. Something is obviously getting in there and damaging brain cells.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
What could concentration camps capable of holding millions possibly be used for in a free society?
for unconstitutionally confining a minority that politicians convinced the majority were enough of a threat to warrant said unconstitutionality. Lincoln, Wilson and FDR have unconstitutionaly "detained" american citizens, and to my knowledge all were rebuked for it. That's no help to those whose rights were violated, however. I don't think the numbers ever approached "millions" though, even if all three of thier numbers were combined.
The "Happy Camps" they used have mostly been torn down. None remaining are usable. Haliburton is taking care of that for us... :mad:
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
And where are these "concetration camps" at?? Someone please tell me, I'd like to go and take a look at one.
Seriously, anyone who actually believes this stuff needs to get thicker tin foil for their heads. Something is obviously getting in there and damaging brain cells.
like everyone else, terrorist are getting much much fatter (i heard they are eating extra heavily for their new in flight flatulence terror campaign:O :O :O :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid)
if (terrorists are bigger) {
prison camps must be enlarged;
}
-
This just in.................
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
And this.............
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/
More info.
A friend on another BBS replied with these sites.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
And where are these "concetration camps" at?? Someone please tell me, I'd like to go and take a look at one.
Seriously, anyone who actually believes this stuff needs to get thicker tin foil for their heads. Something is obviously getting in there and damaging brain cells.
took a while for me to find this, most links to it are dead... :noid: I wanted to find a source that couldn't be written off/ignored.
http://www.halliburton.com/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/news.jsp?newsurl=/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/press_release/2006/kbrnws_012406.html
of course, the official line is that they're just for "an emergency influx of immigrants", among other relatively benign sounding things. The fact they they exist bothers me.
Actually spending some time reading and not just listening to the propaganda revealed this: "The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." I'll break that down for ya...
"The contract, which is effective immediately, " -- ok...
"provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities" -- there's your detention centers.
"to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities" -- hrmmm, ICE? begins with an "I", must be immigration something or other... (we'll get back to that...)
"in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S.," -- ahhh, they're only after the immigrants. I'm safe... :D
"or to support the rapid development of new programs." -- say what?
The press release continues: "The contingency support contract provides for planning and, if required, initiation of specific engineering, construction and logistics support tasks to establish, operate and maintain one or more expansion facilities." -- I'm not sure if that applies to the "new programs" or what, but at least it clarifies that the previous mention of "capabilities" includes building and running "facilities".
Further down a bit, ICE is revealed: "ICE was established in March 2003 as the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security." -- Immigration my you know what. Why Homeland Security if it's an immigration issue? What the heck does their investigative arm have to do with an "emergency influx of immigrants"?
Call me paranoid, but this doesn't smell right to me.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
While it doesn't surprise me, I am not going to take an editorial seriously. Ever.
Much less from a liberal. I quickly figured out what he was from these six words:
He obviously doesn't know what a gun is for.
Ron Paul a liberal? :rofl he is anything but a liberal, you need to check his history.
shamus
-
maybe he was thinking of ru paul:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :p
-
if you guys really think the justice system in the US is broken then go rob a bank armed with a weapon and see what happens.
:rolleyes:
-
LOL yeager
-
Originally posted by Yeager
if you guys really think the justice system in the US is broken then go rob a bank armed with a weapon and see what happens.
:rolleyes:
Twice today, you've made me spew water on keyboard (SWOK)
:rofl
-
The article is long on accusations and slander, short on any actual verbiage of the bill(s) he is talking about.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
if you guys really think the justice system in the US is broken then go rob a bank armed with a weapon and see what happens.
:rolleyes:
never implied it wasn't effective, simply misused all too often.
edit: I take that back. it's been terribly ineffective at "winning" the drug war, argueably at even putting a dent in overall drug usage. all they've done, for the most part, is fill our prisons with non-violent "criminals". sure, there's some hardcore bangers in there too, but there's a lot of peaceful folk who's only "crime" was to posess a plant. Not to mention the violence that springs from the unavoidable involvement of the black market in the sale of any prohibited substance.
sure, they can still catch bank robbers. usually... murderers? probably. find a stolen car? not likely... find a missing white girl? of course, but what about a missing black girl?
In the name of the first the war on drugs, and now the war on terror, the system has been horribly compromized. By system I mean everything from the methods used by the cop on the beat, to prosecutors being influenced by politics and not justice, to judges legislating from the bench and pushing a "living constitution", to jury's being misinformed regarding their rights and obligations as a jury. Not to mention the side effects, like problems that can arise from diverting resources into investigating/prosecuting victimless and/or avoidable "crimes", and the innocent victims caught in the crossfire of the War on the Users of Some Drugs.
but yeah, overall everythings just peachy! :aok
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Ron Paul a liberal? :rofl he is anything but a liberal, you need to check his history.
shamus
I'm sorry, you're all socialists to me. I thought you knew that.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
sure, there's some hardcore bangers in there too, but there's a lot of peaceful folk who's only "crime" was to posess a plant.
oh i see where this is going this is all your round about way to get pot legalized
-
Originally posted by nickf620
oh i see where this is going this is all your round about way to get pot legalized
I'm a libertarian, duh... j/k, that is a common misconception though, libertarians just being pot smokers who want to be left alone. I simply used that as the most benign example of a waste of a correctional sentance I could think of. I'm against the war on drugs for many reasons, not the least of which is that I don't think it's the governments job to tell a grown man what he can do with his own body. It really boils down to the fact that I own me, not the government.
Just lately the Libertarian Party's official platform was altered a bit, one of the changes was backing down from this, more principled stance and making it more of a harm-reduction and economic issue. Not that those aren't valid factors to consider, but to me it boils down to self-ownership/responsibility.
-
lol, C'mon guys! Government taking your freedom??? You will lose your freedom anyway, as soon as you say "I DO"!
-
hahaha bone
And USA< as free as it gets
so get used to it
lol
-
while I agree with most of the libertarian parties ideals...
they are the party of egghead do nothings. they talk and talk and talk and do nothing. The ACLU has fewer members and is a force to be reconed with... Various pro second amendment groups do more.
The direction the libertarian party needs to go is legal... a libertarian version of the ACLU taking on cases that Americans really care about like no knock laws and second amendment rights. Talk talk talk isn't going to win any converts and running for offices that they have zero chance (at this time) of winning is stupid.
So you join the libertarian party? so what? Do you get even a "I wasted my vote on a libertarian" button to wear? Nope...
Better you take $35 and join the NRA or write letters to the ACLU and tell the commies how you feel and what rights you want em to defend.
lazs
-
I'll vote how my conscience dictates I vote, thank you very much. Maybe if the R's get back to embracing Reagan conservatism there might be some of them worth voting for, but there's no way in heck an authoritarian neo-con will ever get my vote. They're NO BETTER than the socialist D's in my book.
-
If ya dont like whats going on the move! I have supported this country for 26 years now what ever happens happens thers now way to stop it or make it turn around so all we can do is just hide and watch.
I dont have choppers flying over my house yet or tanks rolling down the street. I havent been stoped by a M.P. in the street yet. When all that happens then it happens.
-
socialist, facist... makes no real difference in the long run... both are in favor of all controlling big government and no freedom. In the end.. it is not the type of large all encompassing government you get but the simple fact that large government of any kind is the problem.
But... you want to think it over.. the democrats embrace socialism a lot more enthusiasicaly than the republicans embrace facism..
What this means in practicle terms is that... you are gonna lose your essential freedoms (grow government) a lot faster with democrats in power.
I am pragmatic. I vote republican whenever it will be close or there is a chance for the republican to lose. I vote libertarian when the republican is a shoe in or has absolutely no chance...
To me... this is voting my concience. My concience won't allow me to let a democrat in simply to protest.
I also give money to groups that support my rights like the NRA/ILA and I give to charities not associated with the government.
-
Pattern recognition.
There has been a pattern within our government for over 30 years.
One party wants a new law passed. Usually it's the party in power. The other party blocks it. Usually it's the party not in power. When the party that isn't in power does finally get in power the law the other party wanted gets passed.
Even though a party isn't in power it frequently has just enough votes to block the other.
As we have been often warned. Government grows beyond it's scope and siezes powers it was never intended to have.
The Johnson administration was one of the worst for this. So many things that are bad for this country came out of that administration. The Bush administration both the previous one and this one compare with the Johnson Administration. Interesting that all 3 came out of Texas?
This is my opinion, and I realize it doesn't make it true for others.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'm sorry, you're all socialists to me. I thought you knew that.
Hey Shamus Don't you know, He is waiting for the anarchist version of Fidel Castro to lead him in a glorious revolution...
-
red... you are correct... those things aren't happening... too often.
We do have roadblocks with police checking drivers and cars. We do have feds unlawfully searching citizens at airports... we do have masked secret police breaking into citizens homes in the middle of the night and killing them.. We have agencies of the government burning down churches while women and children are in them in order to "save them" we have police snipers killing women and children because their husband might have sold a shotgun with a barrel that was 1/8" maybe too short.
we don't have tooooooo many of these things happening but... what is disturbing to me is that not much happens when these things do happen. No one dares to protest.
durring all this... there is a large socialist party that wants to dissarm everyone except the government forces. I would say that being armed is about our only hope when things finaly get to be too much... I would say that the socialist democrats know that and that is why they are so adamant in attacking our 2nd amendment rights.
lazs
-
The war on drugs is political slang generated under the reagan admin. It is pure political rhetoric. Having said that Im guessing a few hunderd thousand people have died and millions have been incarcerated in the US since laws were passed aimed at curbing the cultural ingestion of certain prohibited intoxicants. Sounds sort of like a war. Also, how do you know that the drug problems would not have ended up being a hundred times worse than they are now if no effort had been made to stop the flow and use of illicit drugs? Your guessing when you say its been a dismal failure.
And booze is a tool of teh devil :D
-
But... you want to think it over.. the democrats embrace socialism a lot more enthusiasicaly than the republicans embrace facism..
Misconception.
Extreme left wingedness is Socialism.
Extreme right wingedness is NOT fascism.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Misconception.
Extreme left wingedness is Socialism.
Extreme right wingedness is NOT fascism.
I AGREE.
Both the above are forms of communism. One is more to the left of that which is communism and the other is more to the right of that which is communism.
The way both parties SEEM to be going is towards ..................
anyone wanna take a stab at it??????
BTW Laz thinkin the Liberatarians aren't using the legal system very well and I agree they SHOULD!
If they would get off their butts and get with the fight to retain our rights I'd probably join em.
Thing is about the time the pols realized that people were voting for that party they would probably leave the Dems or Reps and join up to continue in power. Then manuver like crazy to get control of the party and we would still be dealing with the same people?
Seem to recall some within the Libertarian party claiming that was already starting to happen???
-
Originally posted by lazs2
socialist, facist... makes no real difference in the long run... both are in favor of all controlling big government and no freedom. In the end.. it is not the type of large all encompassing government you get but the simple fact that large government of any kind is the problem.
agree 100%
But... you want to think it over.. the democrats embrace socialism a lot more enthusiasicaly than the republicans embrace facism..
What this means in practicle terms is that... you are gonna lose your essential freedoms (grow government) a lot faster with democrats in power.
in the short run yeah, the D's are marginally worse for liberty lovers than the R's are. I'm personally hoping that a good dose of D's in power will shock the R's into returning to their conservative roots. Either that or shock the nation into realizing that neither the D's or the R's are truely interested in protecting the Constitution and make them realize that the only way to "get America right" again is thru third parties. Maybe I'm being naive... what can I say, I'm an idealist.
-
Not quite wrag.
Though very similar, and damn near the same in practice, it's the reasoning behind it that is different.
Socialism believes that the person is incapable of anything, and that the collective is more important. Because of this, rights and powers are legislated away from the individual, and given to the collective. But the collective is more often then not a governing body who say that are doing something for the Common Good, or Public Welfare.
Fascism is the drive to totalitarianism. It has nothing to do with what the people do or do not believe, but the drive to give the governing body more and more control, until they have all control over everything. The best way to do this is to legislate away power and rights from the individual.
them realize that the only way to "get America right" again is thru third parties.
Like someone said earlier, anytime a third party comes up with a popular idea, the idea is sucked up into one of the major parties, and the third party again becomes useless. In time, the idea is eventually phased out, returning the party to it's roots.
Trust me, the only solution left is revolution.
-
exteme right wing thinking also leads to socialism.. that is true but it has to pass through a form a facism first.
All big government roads lead to socialism if you want to get real simplistic about it. That I agree with..
The democrats won't "shakeup" anything... they will simply lead us down the road to socialism while destroying our second amendment rights and...
the right will see that we shunned them and elected democrats soooo.. when the run again they will be mc cains... they will think we want more socialism and go that direction in order to get elected... maybe I am a pessimist.
One thing for sure tho... you never vote for a party that is trying to destroy the second amendment... in the end.... that is the one amendment that will protect all the others... really... the only one that can. All the founders knew this and would consider our firearms laws the beggining of the end.
As for presidents.... Lincoln was the beggining of tyrany and the worst was FDR followed by the second worst... LBJ Bush is nothing like "the great society" guy nowhere near as bad.
The best pres we ever had was Jefferson followed closely by teddy roosevelt. If we could find another TR we would probly turn things around.
the libertarians? an effete impotent group of eggheads with a glorified discussion group. They are mostly right of course but.... who cares?
And you can tell em for me that is how I feel.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So you join the libertarian party? so what? Do you get even a "I wasted my vote on a libertarian" button to wear? Nope...
lazs
I dont vote for any particular party.
I vote for whom I think will do the best job
This past election I actually wrote in my sons name for congress.
Wasted Vote?
I dont think so.
No more wasted then if I wasted it on either of the other two clowns running for either of the two major parties
Made a mockery of the election process?
Naaa
The Dems and Reps already made the a mockery of the elections a long time before I set foot in the booth
the way I see it is this.
Even if whom I vote for has no chance of winning because of this foolish nonsence that people beleive they are stuck with only 1 of the two majors.
Its still a vote that neither get
the poligods are always looking someplace they can get more votes from.
Look at the 2000 elections how close it was.
dont you think that those that voted outside the major parties might have swing the elections difinitevly one way or the other?
Enough people vote outside the big two. and the big two will be forced to look as where those votes are going.
Now those third party candidates may not have a chance to win.
But the more people that vote for them the greater the message that is sent to the big two that we no longer want what they are offering.
Personally I think if they could just get their act together 08 presents the best chance of one of the thirds and the libritarians in general to make a significant splash.
Neither party has anyone to offer that any reasonable critical thinking person can really stand up and beat a drum about
-
Originally posted by lazs2
One thing for sure tho... you never vote for a party that is trying to destroy the second amendment... in the end.... that is the one amendment that will protect all the others... really... the only one that can. All the founders knew this and would consider our firearms laws the beggining of the end.
hrmmm, wasn't New Orleans proof enough that Bush (and the neo-cons) are no more a friend of the Right to Bear Arms than the Dems are? what about the fact that Bush appointed a known supporter of gun control to the SCOTUS? (EDIT: AG, not SCOTUS) That would be Gonzales, who has admitted that gun control is a "heart-felt position of his own.", and who supports a federal BAN on all semi-automatic firearms. Sure, the R's might spew some pro-gun rhetoric when it's campaign season, but do you really see them going to the mat to protect that right? I haven't...
-
Call me Rip VanWinkle, but did I miss the AG's appointment to the supreme court?
shamus
-
heh, yeah... Attorney General, not SCOTUS. my bad...
-
hrmmm, wasn't New Orleans proof enough that Bush
What the **** are you talking about? There is no way in hell you can connect those two.
Btw, Lazs, it's not that extreme right wingedness leads to socialism, but the idea that you have the right to tell other people what to do.
-
You have no rights, only those others allow you to have.
-
Lasersailor, I think he was referring to the fact that the government was confiscating legally owned firearms from civilians in NOLA during "the crisis". It also turns out that all the stories about helicopters being shot at were not true, but of course confiscating the arms was "for everyone's safety".
How to control the population:
IN THE OLD DAYS
Religion - "God sez do this"
MODERN DAY
"It's for your own good" + "Don't be soft on crime/terrorism" + "What kind of american are you?"
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
You have no rights, only those others allow you to have.
Rights are God given. Man can only take them away.
-
I was wondering exactly what constitutional rights we Americans have lost recently?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lasersailor, I think he was referring to the fact that the government was confiscating legally owned firearms from civilians in NOLA during "the crisis".
yup.
Originally posted by Gunthr
I was wondering exactly what constitutional rights we Americans have lost recently?
http://flyaceshigh.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=2231579#post2231579
heh, feeling lazy tonight... that's a link to a thread from a few weeks back where the same question came up.
My list was:
right to privacy
right to freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures.
right to due process (must've been tired, that's the same as the one above)
right to bear arms
right to free speech
right to travel freely
and again I reiterate, this list is by no means exhaustive...
-
Chairboy, it was the democrats who did that. I jumped at BSDaddict because he said it was Bush that did it.
Rights are God given. Man can only take them away.
God gave us the ability to have rights. He didn't give them to us.
It's up to us to make sure we keep them.
-
It won't "legally" happen again (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5441.ENR:/)
H.R.5441
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Enrolled as
Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
42 U.S.C. SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.
(a) PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS- No officer or employee
of the United States (including any member of the uniformed
services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal
law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal
official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or
other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster
or emergency, may-
(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any
firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal,
State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with
Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;
(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not
required by Federal, State, or local law;
(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule,
regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any
place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise
prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or
(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise
authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law,
solely because such person is operating under the direction, control,
or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the
major disaster or emergency.
(b) LIMITATION- Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary
surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of
transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster
or emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered firearm is
returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation.
(c) PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION-
(1) IN GENERAL- Any individual aggrieved by a violation of this
section may seek relief in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress against any person who subjects such
individual, or causes such individual to be subjected, to the
deprivation of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by this section.
(2) REMEDIES- In addition to any existing remedy in law or equity,
under any law, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation
of a firearm in violation of this section may bring an action for
return of such firearm in the United States district court in the
district in which that individual resides or in which such firearm
may be found.
(3) ATTORNEY FEES- In any action or proceeding to enforce this
section, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the
United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.'.
--
Note: H.R.5441 was signed into Law by President G. W. Bush on 4
October, 2006
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
How to control the population:
IN THE OLD DAYS
Religion - "God sez do this"
MODERN DAY
"It's for your own good" + "Don't be soft on crime/terrorism" + "What kind of american are you?"
You forgot to invoke the children. As in, "But what about the children?" or "Don't you care about the children?" or "This will keep you children safe. Don't you want your children to be safe?"
-
After reading that I'm happy to say I'm not suspect of being a terrorist, nor am I wanted in any state or locality, nor am i currently breaking any city state or federal laws. And I do not say anything over the phone that can be considered a terrorist act.
-
Don't worry, dmf. That just makes you a moving target, they like a challenge. :D
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Chairboy, it was the democrats who did that. I jumped at BSDaddict because he said it was Bush that did it.
God gave us the ability to have rights. He didn't give them to us.
not according to the Declaration of Independance
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
God gave us the ability to have rights. He didn't give them to us.
I, and the founding fathers, might disagree.
didn't get to Dreds post, thanks, my point exactly
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Also, how do you know that the drug problems would not have ended up being a hundred times worse than they are now if no effort had been made to stop the flow and use of illicit drugs? Your guessing when you say its been a dismal failure.
And booze is a tool of teh devil :D
Because if you want illegal drugs, you can get them. Anywhere in the USA, illegal drugs are easily aquired if you seek them. Therefore, the war on drugs is a big waste of money and a dismal failure.
-
1-right to privacy
2-right to due process
3-right to bear arms
4-right to free speech
5-right to travel freely
1- There is no one in my buissnes taping my phone and that kind of stuff.
2- No one has took my door down and searched my home.
3- I have all my wepons including my CHL so Im still good there.
4- I can still go down town and protest if need be ((AS long as its a peacefull protest)) and I can still type on here. And type on my E-mail talk on the phone and thats fine by me.
5- Ive been running around for years no one has stoped me exept for a traffic violation because no front licencs plate.
I dont worrie about this stuff because I'm not doing anything wrong. The only People that have to worrie about this is the people that have a reason to. Dont do things that will get you in trouble and you will be ok.:aok
-
Originally posted by red26
The only People that have to worrie about this is the people that have a reason to. Dont do things that will get you in trouble and you will be ok.:aok
Well intentioned naivety has rarely had a better spokesman.
Our rights are not contingent on our behavior or motivation, they are inalienable. Mobsters have exactly the same constitutional protections that you do, and the reverse is equally true. That might make you cluck disapprovingly, but our founding fathers knew that any system that allowed some folks to be more equal than others would inevitably be abused.
That is why our constitution explicitly FORBIDS well intentioned people from holding others down. It is not a list of "good ideas" or "we suggest that...", it is a statement of purpose as to the nature of humanity and his/her essential liberties. There is no wiggle room with these.
Evil is what happens when good men fail to act. Good men usually fail to act when they can rationalize that the evil has, at its root, good intentions. Accept one, and you necessarily embrace the other.
-
bsaddict... the mayor and gov of la/No were democrats and they are the ons who confiscated weapons... worse.. the mayor refused to give em back... even worse.. they kept no record of the heists and now are saying that anyone who wants their legal gun back needs to show a reciept for these guns... some of which are a hundred or more years old and in the family for years.
Bush appointed 2 SC justices that are pro constitution and 2nd amendment... Bush allowed the "assault weapon" ban to sunset... Bush signed the protection of comerce bill for firearms manufacturers.. Bush just sighned the bill that was stated above to protect people from firearms seisures....
All these bills and efforts were aided by pro gun rights republicans with the support of the NRA. If you don't belong to the NRA then you have no right to whine.
Wake up... the NRA rates politicians... about 5% of the republicans get failing grades on gun rights and about 90% of the democrats do.
As for libertarians and a "message"... the libertarians help republicans lose in a close race just as peace and freedom or the green party helps the democrats lose in an election.. they siphon off votes.
Neither the democrats or republicans are gonna get any "message" from the greens or the libertarians because they are tiny. Both parties know that they can't cater to these groups or they will lose bigger more important blocks of votes.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Chairboy, it was the democrats who did that. I jumped at BSDaddict because he said it was Bush that did it.
lol, keep telling yourself that... last I checked the Dems didn't have the authority to order BATF agents into the field, nor were they in a position to issues orders to the National Guard during that crisis. (they had been federalized at that point, IIRC) Even if Bush didn't issue the disarmament order directly, he could have stopped it. He didn't.
-
Originally posted by VOR
It won't "legally" happen again (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5441.ENR:/)
knew about this, glad they got something right.
-
Originally posted by red26
1-right to privacy
2-right to due process
3-right to bear arms
4-right to free speech
5-right to travel freely
1- There is no one in my buissnes taping my phone and that kind of stuff.
2- No one has took my door down and searched my home.
3- I have all my wepons including my CHL so Im still good there.
4- I can still go down town and protest if need be ((AS long as its a peacefull protest)) and I can still type on here. And type on my E-mail talk on the phone and thats fine by me.
5- Ive been running around for years no one has stoped me exept for a traffic violation because no front licencs plate.
I dont worrie about this stuff because I'm not doing anything wrong. The only People that have to worrie about this is the people that have a reason to. Dont do things that will get you in trouble and you will be ok.:aok
this is basically the same reply mace made in that other thread... basically you're saying that unless a particular law is applied to you directly, then it's all good. I'm saying that the fact that laws are on the books allowing one thing or another, that's just as bad as if I'm directly affected.
1 - How do you know noones tapping your phone? They don't have to tell you.
2 - Your door may not have been broken down, but the doors of some of your fellow citizens have been. But hey, so long as they're not breaking down YOUR door...
3 - You've got your weapons, sure. But they've got bigger ones.
4 - Have you ever stood on a public sidewalk near a building where Bush was talking, peacefully just standing there holding a sign, had police show up and herd you into a "Free Speech Zone"? I have.
5 - unable to fly if I don't submit. that's not freedom.
Seriously though, why the need to prove how I specifically have had my rights violated? I don't get it. If a Federal mandate came down tomorrow ordering all firearms to be collected and destroyed, are the rights of the non-firearm owners being violated as well? As far as I'm concerned the answer is yes. When the rights of my fellow citizens are being violated, under color of law, THEN IT COULD HAPPEN TO ME AS WELL!!! The simple fact that it may not have happened to me yet is not a factor.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
lol, keep telling yourself that... last I checked the Dems didn't have the authority to order BATF agents into the field, nor were they in a position to issues orders to the National Guard during that crisis. (they had been federalized at that point, IIRC) Even if Bush didn't issue the disarmament order directly, he could have stopped it. He didn't.
Just a point here,
The so called disarmament act was done at the city level, by nagin and his pet chief of police. The Feds were not involved. Bush has no authority over local agencies.
Please note I am definitely not in favor of what happened by any means, just not going to blame Bush for something he had no authority over. The responsible people were the mayor and his "most corrupt PD in the nation" run by a chief who likely should be up on multiple felony counts.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
when these things do happen. No one dares to protest.
lazs
When people do protest, they get called anti-american, anti- (fill in the blakk) or anything else that implies less-than.
To speak out in protest these days, gives the government and its minions free license to de-americanize, dehumanize, and then export any legislation or use of force on you at their leisure.
Or, just get labeled as a studmuffin-loving god hatng liberal
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Just a point here,
The so called disarmament act was done at the city level, by nagin and his pet chief of police. The Feds were not involved. Bush has no authority over local agencies.
To say that Nagin and his police chief issued the order would be accurate. To say the Feds weren't involved isn't. The ATF and the National Guard participated in the confiscations. This link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090802089.html) even indicated the US Marshals confiscated some. Federal resources weren't Nagin's to command. Someone allowed them to be there.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well intentioned naivety has rarely had a better spokesman.
Our rights are not contingent on our behavior or motivation, they are inalienable. Mobsters have exactly the same constitutional protections that you do, and the reverse is equally true. That might make you cluck disapprovingly, but our founding fathers knew that any system that allowed some folks to be more equal than others would inevitably be abused.
That is why our constitution explicitly FORBIDS well intentioned people from holding others down. It is not a list of "good ideas" or "we suggest that...", it is a statement of purpose as to the nature of humanity and his/her essential liberties. There is no wiggle room with these.
Evil is what happens when good men fail to act. Good men usually fail to act when they can rationalize that the evil has, at its root, good intentions. Accept one, and you necessarily embrace the other.
UH OH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I find myself VERY in agreement with Chair!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
And well said Sir.
-
you just figured out that they think your just a pupet?
the south called them federalist and they been trying for 200 yrs to take the states power away. now adays we call them selfish pigs.
-
Originally posted by red26
1-right to privacy
2-right to due process
3-right to bear arms
4-right to free speech
5-right to travel freely
1- There is no one in my buissnes taping my phone and that kind of stuff.
2- No one has took my door down and searched my home.
3- I have all my wepons including my CHL so Im still good there.
4- I can still go down town and protest if need be ((AS long as its a peacefull protest)) and I can still type on here. And type on my E-mail talk on the phone and thats fine by me.
5- Ive been running around for years no one has stoped me exept for a traffic violation because no front licencs plate.
I dont worrie about this stuff because I'm not doing anything wrong. The only People that have to worrie about this is the people that have a reason to. Dont do things that will get you in trouble and you will be ok.:aok
1
everything you do on the net is logged and ready for anyone in the federal goverment to take a peek at if they want. say the wrong words on your phone and the goverment will know about it you just won't know they know.
2 they can if they want. it's called a sneak and peak and is in the patriactic act and even tho people think this is only for terriost activity the goverment has the right to do it if they even think you are responsible or involved in any of a couple dozen so called crimes against national security.
3 for how much longer. remeber they have a list of of every legally owned gun in this country.
4 as long as you regeister and have thier permission to do so.
5
how about the so called safty checks. or the so called red light cameras. some cities have cameras all over the place and if you think the fed's don't have ascess to these your sadly mistaken
this is the attitude they want you to have do as your told and everything will be alright till one day you wake up and find it was all a fantasy.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
When people do protest, they get called anti-american, anti- (fill in the blakk) or anything else that implies less-than.
To speak out in protest these days, gives the government and its minions free license to de-americanize, dehumanize, and then export any legislation or use of force on you at their leisure.
Or, just get labeled as a studmuffin-loving god hatng liberal
Try not to sound so victimised. Grow some thicker skin and do what you think is right.
-
bsaddict you are talking about two different things.. the federal marshall disarmed people who were evacuated and who had no permit to carry. wrong as I feel that is.... no one should ever be disarmed... it is pretty standard everywhere.
The guard ordered by the democrats were the ones who went door to door disarming the people in their own homes... that is a huge difference.
as for freedoms...
red26... so you don't mind roadblocks to search your car and you don't mind being searched at airports? You believe that a no knock warrant couldn't possibly affect you? Are you saying that they never get the wrong address?
red bottom... being a whiny liberal has to do with what you protest. You don't have a right to health care or a job or affirmative action for instance. You don't have a right to live off others money or have an unfair advantage over others based on gender or skin color.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I was wondering exactly what constitutional rights we Americans have lost recently?
"Fruit from the poison tree" = 1 step close to the grave.
Hudson v. Michigan - Now if the police violate your rights during the execution of a search warrant, evidence can still be used against you. In the past ALL evidence, no matter how bad, was thrown out on a bad warrant.
If the .gov violates your rights, its not "unreasonable" anymore.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Don't worry, dmf. That just makes you a moving target, they like a challenge. :D
Well I hope they like a good moving target cause I'm an American, not a terrorist, if they want to come in my appt and look around, and they don't have a warrant, I have a baseball bat, and I rally don't care who it is either. They need to keep looking for terrorists cells here in America instead of screwing around with my freedoms that are protected by the United States Constitution. I have way more important things to do that associate with terrorists.
If they'd just drop nuke on somebody over there maybe they, and the rest of them, would get the idea that the US is done playing around.
-
ok... when we get womens suffrage repealed Dmf can still vote.
lazs
-
Originally posted by dmf
Well I hope they like a good moving target cause I'm an American, not a terrorist, if they want to come in my appt and look around, and they don't have a warrant, I have a baseball bat, and I rally don't care who it is either. They need to keep looking for terrorists cells here in America instead of screwing around with my freedoms that are protected by the United States Constitution. I have way more important things to do that associate with terrorists.
If they'd just drop nuke on somebody over there maybe they, and the rest of them, would get the idea that the US is done playing around.
not a terroist
Untill the right people call you one.
shamus