Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The NAU

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic

Originally posted by seridium
So besides the lack of the second ammendment,which doesn't seem to affect law abbiding Canadians from obtaining guns,where's the difference?


seridium,

1st, on this website, are these the actual rights that Canadians have? ..True and correct as correlated by Canadian Parliament?

2nd, this website article is completely ludicrous and is not argueable due to it's headline, "CANADIAN GUN CONTROL: SHOULD THE UNITED STATES LOOK NORTH FOR A SOLUTION TO ITS FIREARMS PROBLEM?"..... because, as I stated before, there is no problem with firearms in the United States... which I provided my input in this post.



I greatly anticipate your written reply.

Info.


I never intended to debate US or Canadian gun control with that article.I used that article to reply to your belief there are no similarities between the US and Canada,which seridium seems to have understood.Sorry for not clarifiying my intensions with the article.Despite the article's title,I thought the first paragraph should open some eyes with the statistic that Canadians own almost as many rifles per capita as the US, and have one of the worlds highest gun ownership rates.

As for asking "are these the actual rights that Canadians have? ..True and correct as correlated by Canadian Parliament?"

I could ask you the same question about the US.




posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Shooter:

You posted two quotes of mine where you think I am lending credibility to this administration. I lent credibility because I accused Info of trying to convince people their government is out to hurt them... where did I lend credibility? Second quote is just as confusing... Again, I WOULD like to believe my government is not out to hurt me. Where's the credibility?

"When the govt continues down a path against the peoples will I believe that "is hurting" them. "

I am part of the "people" in "people's will". You don't represent me nor anyone I know (who share my same views... more or less). I am all for security, and if it means giving up certain luxuries, then so be it. You seriously think it's a right you have to tote a firearm, say what you want about your leadership or read what you want to read? To me all that is a luxury.

"Polls? seriously polls? I will bet right now fox news has a poll showing pres bush is doing a great job. You keep believing the polls bub. "

I never mentioned FOX... lol, why would I? Well you may choose to disregard those polls, but I believe there is some truth to them. Hell, I would hear people talk with my own ears about making Iraq into a crater and things of that nature. Most people I talked to wanted that war (Don't be misled in thinking I talked to hundreds of people, but I did strike conversations with random people to get their opinions).

"A testiment to the fact we WON those wars and kept our freedoms. And as I said before ALL those lives lost would be in vain if we stand by idly and allow our freedoms to be revoked. Am is supposed to be sad we won? Sorry I am glad we won. I am glad we are dominant. I intend to do eveything in my power to keep it that way. When the rest of the world catches up and grants liberty and freedom to their people perhaps I will change my mind."

That comment just shows off your selfish attitude. You don't care that at MINIMUM 4350,000 NON-AMERICAN lives were lost to make this the country what it is. Forget the genocide of the Native Americans, right? Who cares?! We got "freedoms"... you're more sheltered than I thought. LMAO "grants liberty and freedom to their people perhaps I will change my mind." Grant is an excellent choice of word! They ALLOW you to have these so-called "rights" and "freedoms". It can ALL be changed with the wave of a pen. Thing is, most Americans (as well as some I knew), have become spoiled in regards to these luxuries... so when there is any talk of maybe amending them or taking them away, they throw fits like children and make up lies (not all lies) to further their call for things to stay the way they are.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
I never intended to debate US or Canadian gun control with that article.I used that article to reply to your belief there are no similarities between the US and Canada,which seridium seems to have understood.Sorry for not clarifiying my intensions with the article.Despite the article's title,I thought the first paragraph should open some eyes with the statistic that Canadians own almost as many rifles per capita as the US, and have one of the worlds highest gun ownership rates.

As for asking "are these the actual rights that Canadians have? ..True and correct as correlated by Canadian Parliament?"

I could ask you the same question about the US.

If you never intended to debate the similarities of US and Canadian gun control, then why use it in the first place?

Posting that article to disprove my belief that Canada and the US are not alike... bad choice of articles.

As the opening comment states... Canada has one of the highest rates per capita blah blah blah... but that doesn't make a hill of beans, because the "rights" by the Canadians depend solely on the Magistrates, as is the opposite as is written by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You could ask me the same, and I can provide you legitimate links to prove it, as in actual law school links, which are the same as governmental links. Here's two:

www.law.cornell.edu... - Cornell Law School

and.....

www.loc.gov... - Library of Congress


Besides providing an extremely misleading source for your link to the Canadian Bill of Rights, can you provide anything nearly as substantiating as I have?




Originally posted by SBDAL
I am part of the "people" in "people's will". You don't represent me nor anyone I know (who share my same views... more or less). I am all for security, and if it means giving up certain luxuries, then so be it. You seriously think it's a right you have to tote a firearm, say what you want about your leadership or read what you want to read? To me all that is a luxury.

You obviously don't represent any single American. You've made that very clear.

Read my signature... a quote from one of those brave men that helped to form this great Nation...


Originally spoken by Benjamin Franklin
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


You, SBDAL, are now advocating giving up rights to purchase a false sense of security... a means of security afforded to all people, by God. Not by the government. :shk:

And... absolutely positively yes... those are rights that we have that the government cannot take away... under any circumstance.


Originally posted by SBDAL
That comment just shows off your selfish attitude. You don't care that at MINIMUM 4350,000 NON-AMERICAN lives were lost to make this the country what it is. Forget the genocide of the Native Americans, right? Who cares?! We got "freedoms"... you're more sheltered than I thought. LMAO "grants liberty and freedom to their people perhaps I will change my mind." Grant is an excellent choice of word! They ALLOW you to have these so-called "rights" and "freedoms". It can ALL be changed with the wave of a pen. Thing is, most Americans (as well as some I knew), have become spoiled in regards to these luxuries... so when there is any talk of maybe amending them or taking them away, they throw fits like children and make up lies (not all lies) to further their call for things to stay the way they are.


Again, you are advocating that people just simply forget about the lives lost to gain said freedoms from whatever source.... you are advocating that those lives lost would have been lost in vain. You, of all people on this thread, are showing selfishness by not being concerned with those lives lost, for whatever reason.

As provide by the linked source from FreeSpeaker, those rights that Canadians cherish are (in black and white no less) "granted by the government"... meaning, if they choose to give you those "rights" then you may have them. The way the US government (not the administration) is set up... those rights are granted by God, and cannot be taken away by anyone... even the government (administration).

Acting like children and throwing a fit or crying? The Supreme Law of the United States (means highest level of authority) says the federal government cannot take these rights away... no one can. So if we stand up to the corrupt federal administration, we're acting like children? How dumb is that!? That's called patriotism. That's called nationalism. That's also called a democratic republic. Which that's called something that you apparently have no conceptual knowledge of.

[edit on 3/20/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   


I am part of the "people" in "people's will". You don't represent me nor anyone I know (who share my same views... more or less). I am all for security, and if it means giving up certain luxuries, then so be it. You seriously think it's a right you have to tote a firearm, say what you want about your leadership or read what you want to read? To me all that is a luxury.

Wow...Just wow...
The Constitution of the United States does not contain "luxuries". All the RIGHTS are equally important or none are. If the govt is allowed to remove one RIGHT then they can remove them all. I do not know what your refering to with the "leadership" comment. I lead no one. I have made far too many mistakes in my life to lead anyone.
As far as me seriously thinking I have a right to own a firearm...
www.law.cornell.edu...
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And I can "tote" a firearm in my state as my state issues concealed carry permits.



That comment just shows off your selfish attitude.

Gee my statement was ALL the lives lost would be in vain. Not just the loss on the U.S. side. Your statement equating the rights of all Americans stated in the Bill of Rights to luxuries shows your selfish disreguard for those lives lost and your fellow Americans. The fact that you would hand over your rights in the name of 'security' equates you to stupid germans circa 1933. By gladly handing over your rights you are deficating on the graves of ALL lives lost in ALL conflicts America has been involved in. You have no concept of responsibility and show a me first attitude as only your security is important.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Info:

"The way the US government (not the administration) is set up... those rights are granted by God, and cannot be taken away by anyone... even the government (administration). "

Well, God's will IS powerful to those who believe in him/her/it. I, personally, do not. Who's to say there are some in government positions who feel the same way I do? They wouldn't hesitate to have you relinquish your rights for the safety of our country. In addition, even if I did believe in a God, then where has he been? LOL... I mean, look at the world around us and tell me there's a God. Religion is a means of control and without it societies would fall into anarchy (just a personal opinion).

"you are advocating that those lives lost would have been lost in vain. You, of all people on this thread, are showing selfishness by not being concerned with those lives lost, for whatever reason. "

Well I would say according to your view of our government, that they have. I am showing selfeshness? Why? By willing to relinquish my, what I call luxuries, so that my fellow North Americans could/would be safer from attacks? Or is it because I am disgusted with the many lives lost at the hands of the US military machine (for land and/or resources... which makes it even harder to stomach)? Which is it, because I am confused? I am against the death of ANY soldier (ours or theirs) and ANY civilian (ours or theirs) in times of war and/or peace, which is why I am willing to SACRIFICE (not a selfish act, I think) my "rights" for the well being of others.

" The Supreme Law of the United States (means highest level of authority) says the federal government cannot take these rights away... no one can. So if we stand up to the corrupt federal administration, we're acting like children?"

Times change, you got rid of your bellbottoms and afro, right? This is a dynamic, ever changing world... governments must act accordingly. Ideals and beliefs set 200+ years ago, to me, are invalid today. Stand up to the government? Like a child would rebel against their parent? Tell me Info, what are you doing to "stand up" to the government. Which corners are you protesting at? Which WEBSITES (where's the link, buddy?) are you putting up for the world to see? With all the research you're doing, why not put out a book?

"Which that's called something that you apparently have no conceptual knowledge of. "

ZING!



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Shooter:

"As far as me seriously thinking I have a right to own a firearm... And I can "tote" a firearm in my state as my state issues concealed carry permits."

Cool. Still doesn't prove that it couldn't be taken away from you if they deemed it necessary. If it was a God given right, as Info put it, then why can't everyone in the world have them? I'm sure the world would be great then (I suddenly remember when Homer joined the NRA). You believe it's a right because the government said so... the same government you say is lying to us on SPP's website? So you pick and choose what you want to believe from the government. They tell you it's a right because it sounds a hell of a lot better than a luxury.

"Gee my statement was ALL the lives lost would be in vain. Not just the loss on the U.S. side."

So you feel if you do nothing... the 200,000 or so Japanese civilians killed in WWII... would have died in vain? Check these links out:
www.m-w.com...
dictionary.reference.com...
What effect or result were 200,000 dead Japanese civilians supposed to accomplish? Why would they have even wanted to die for the rights of another country? It is ridiculous to think that they haven't already died in vain.

"Your statement equating the rights of all Americans stated in the Bill of Rights to luxuries shows your selfish disreguard for those lives lost and your fellow Americans."

Selfish disregard? What is so selfish about my comment? I have much regard for my fellow Americans, as well as humanity.

"The fact that you would hand over your rights in the name of 'security' equates you to stupid germans circa 1933. By gladly handing over your rights you are deficating on the graves of ALL lives lost in ALL conflicts America has been involved in."

Stupid Germans... okay. If you wish to believe I am deficating on their graves, then so be it. I feel I'm not. At the expense of being offensive (which is not my intent) and rude, I will say this... these lives (American) lost in the name of your rights and freedoms are just that, lost. I am worried about the living... the here and now, and their safety. "Only the dead have seen the end of war" (forgot who said that), unfortunately, the living have not. I feel governments need to do what is necessary to ensure the security of their citizens.

"You have no concept of responsibility and show a me first attitude as only your security is important."

LOL, are we reading the same posts? My concern is not only the safety and well being of my fellow Americans, but every human worldwide.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   


Cool. Still doesn't prove that it couldn't be taken away from you if they deemed it necessary. If it was a God given right, as Info put it, then why can't everyone in the world have them? I'm sure the world would be great then (I suddenly remember when Homer joined the NRA). You believe it's a right because the government said so... the same government you say is lying to us on SPP's website? So you pick and choose what you want to believe from the government. They tell you it's a right because it sounds a hell of a lot better than a luxury.

Every one in the world is not protected by the Constitution of the United States,only United States Citizens.
I do not say it is a right because the "government" says so; it is a right because the Constitution of the United States says so. The Constitution was written to frame the government. The Constitution did not give rights it defined rights; it also defined and separated the powers of the government. Sure the Constitution can be ammended,but it is a long process which still invloves a vote from the people. So government in and of itself can't do squat to take away Americans rights as defined in the Constitution.


What effect or result were 200,000 dead Japanese civilians supposed to accomplish? Why would they have even wanted to die for the rights of another country? It is ridiculous to think that they haven't already died in vain.

The result of 200,000 dead japanese caused the japanese government to surrender; winning the war for the U.S. and preserving the American way of life. Hense the lost lives of Americans and others, no matter which side of the war they were on, were lost to guarentee me my Constitutional rights. So to me to give up said rights makes ALL the loss in vain.


Selfish disregard? What is so selfish about my comment? I have much regard for my fellow Americans, as well as humanity

So much regard that a few lines later you stated....


At the expense of being offensive (which is not my intent) and rude, I will say this... these lives (American) lost in the name of your rights and freedoms are just that, lost.

That is some regard. Americans who died to preserve your way of life are lives just lost. Your statement speaks volumes about your selfishness.




I am worried about the living... the here and now, and their safety. "Only the dead have seen the end of war" (forgot who said that), unfortunately, the living have not. I feel governments need to do what is necessary to ensure the security of their citizens.

Safety...lets chat about that term shall we.
Since 2001 about 3000 people died in America because of terrorist acts.
www.car-accidents.com...


Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

You being so concerned about safety and security of Americans I would think you would petition the govt. to outlaw cars. A little more than 14 times the amount of people died as a result of autos.

Since 2001 3000 people died in America because of terrorist acts.
www.medicalnewstoday.com...


About 3,000 fewer people died from cancer between 2003 and 2004 compared with the previous year. This is small compared to the total annual death toll of more than 500,000, but it could signify the start of a most welcome reversal.

Since you so value safety and security would you petition the govt to ban cancer? Over 166 times more people in the US were killed by cancer than by terrorists. Does your "regard for humanity" extend to these peoples safety and security?

Gee when you look at just the numbers, terrorism in the USA is almost not worth mentioning. Are you still so willing to give up your rights?



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SBDAL
Well, God's will IS powerful to those who believe in him/her/it. I, personally, do not. Who's to say there are some in government positions who feel the same way I do? They wouldn't hesitate to have you relinquish your rights for the safety of our country. In addition, even if I did believe in a God, then where has he been? LOL... I mean, look at the world around us and tell me there's a God. Religion is a means of control and without it societies would fall into anarchy (just a personal opinion).

Your personal religious belief is not in question in this thread. The belief of those that took the necessary action to form this nation isn't even in question. The only thing that is in question in this thread is the formation of the North American Union... which is unconstitutional. Period.

Those that are in governmental seats today, simply because they might have a different religious belief... do not have the ability to bring about the demise of the Constitution. There's provisions to prevent that.

Where is God? Beats me. But he/she/it's got their own plan for us all. And if God provided for my rights, liberties, and freedoms... I'm not going to just give them up for no other reason than a belief in the "bogeyman".

"Your personal opinion" is the only thing you've been able to share in this thread. Absolutely nothing has been concrete.


Originally posted by SBDAL
Well I would say according to your view of our government, that they have. I am showing selfeshness? Why? By willing to relinquish my, what I call luxuries, so that my fellow North Americans could/would be safer from attacks? Or is it because I am disgusted with the many lives lost at the hands of the US military machine (for land and/or resources... which makes it even harder to stomach)? Which is it, because I am confused? I am against the death of ANY soldier (ours or theirs) and ANY civilian (ours or theirs) in times of war and/or peace, which is why I am willing to SACRIFICE (not a selfish act, I think) my "rights" for the well being of others.

Relinquishing your rights, freedoms, liberties, or "luxuries" as you so put it... for any reason... is pure stupidity. I'm sorry, but that's the only way to explain it. How can you justify giving up your rights, simply because another nation doesn't have the ability to support itself, or buying a false sense of security, or any other hair brained reason?

The lives being lost as you are pointing out, are from the direct order of the administration... the one that you so blindly wish to give your freedoms up to for that false sense of security. Don't be so quick to point the finger at the boots on the ground.


Originally posted by SBDAL
Times change, you got rid of your bellbottoms and afro, right? This is a dynamic, ever changing world... governments must act accordingly. Ideals and beliefs set 200+ years ago, to me, are invalid today. Stand up to the government? Like a child would rebel against their parent? Tell me Info, what are you doing to "stand up" to the government. Which corners are you protesting at? Which WEBSITES (where's the link, buddy?) are you putting up for the world to see? With all the research you're doing, why not put out a book?

Changing my hairstyle or clothing is nothing remotely close to relinquishing my freedoms, due to the advancement of the human race. Which orifice did you say you pulled that comment out of?

"Oh my God! We've got to pass a new law to prevent bell bottoms from coming back into style! Run for the hills!!!" :shk:

Governments are not a form of control... government is a form of representation of it's people... or at least it is in America.

Sorry, but those ideals and beliefs set 200+ years ago are very much alive today. There's just not as many people taking an active part in today's government as there should be.

Obviously you don't have children, and you don't remember being told no by your parents. Were you an orphan, by chance?

www.mkcaf.us... (very much incomplete)

Actually, I have considered a book already. But thanks for the tip.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Shooter:

"it is a right because the Constitution of the United States says so. The Constitution was written to frame the government. The Constitution did not give rights it defined rights; it also defined and separated the powers of the government. "

You speak of the constitution as if it is untouchable. It's a document written by men... anything man-made is bound to crumble.

"The result of 200,000 dead japanese caused the japanese government to surrender; winning the war for the U.S. and preserving the American way of life."

Right... at their expense. Do you even think they voluntarily gave their lives for your freedom?!

"That is some regard. Americans who died to preserve your way of life are lives just lost. Your statement speaks volumes about your selfishness. "

How can we dwell on the past like that? That is why the US has memorials dedicated to these soldiers. For now, however, we need to be more concerned with the living population. It's not that I don't have any regard for the men and women who died for this country, because I do.

"Since 2001 about 3000 people died in America because of terrorist acts. "

That's alot of people. 3,000+ families disrupted and destroyed. It trickles down... many, many lives changed because of that. I wouldn't dare say only 3,000 lives were affected in 2001.

"You being so concerned about safety and security of Americans I would think you would petition the govt. to outlaw cars. A little more than 14 times the amount of people died as a result of autos."

Well I wouldn't go so far as to outlaw cars. What I WOULD do, if I had any type of power, is make cars safer, drivers more aware and tougher DUI laws. Changing the way vehicles are designed would help. Why, if the fastest law will allow me to travel is maybe 70 mph, would car companies design automobiles that travel at 110-120 mph on average? You add teenage drivers into the mix and it's a deadly accident waiting to happen. I find it appauling that parents would buy their 16 year old child a Mustang. I say the age limit should be raised to 21.

"Since you so value safety and security would you petition the govt to ban cancer? Over 166 times more people in the US were killed by cancer than by terrorists. Does your "regard for humanity" extend to these peoples safety and security?"

Can you even ban cancer? If what you meant is ban cancerous products, then yes. Many of the products you find at your grocery store contain these cancerous substances. Hydrogenated oil is a major concern of mine, as it is in alot of the food we eat. I would also petition for the ban of cigarettes. They do no good and serve no purpose. To answer your question... yes... my regard for humanity does extend to their safety and security. Why protect civilians just from hostile attacks on our soil? Their health should be protected as well.

"Gee when you look at just the numbers, terrorism in the USA is almost not worth mentioning. Are you still so willing to give up your rights?"

Okay... if you look at it YOUR way. Way I look at it is this... terrorism is murder, flat out. People make a conscious decision to light up that cigarette every day or to eat unhealthy food. Death by terrorism isn't a voluntary act (unless, of course, you're a suicide bomber).



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Info:

"And if God provided for my rights, liberties, and freedoms... I'm not going to just give them up for no other reason than a belief in the "bogeyman". "

I respect your faith, but I do not believe in a God. That is why it would be easier for me to relinquish rights for safety, and knowing my family is safe.

""Your personal opinion" is the only thing you've been able to share in this thread. Absolutely nothing has been concrete."

What would I need to be concrete? I'm not trying to convince you to believe anything. I am sharing my opinions and explaining why I feel that way, that's all. Just because I don't see eye to eye with you doesn't make me wrong for my opinions. You're a die hard American... cool! I get it. You're probably even religious... cool! Just don't act like your opinion is the only one that's valid. Afterall, don't you believe NAU will happen? If so, you should be providing me with something that's concrete.

"How can you justify giving up your rights, simply because another nation doesn't have the ability to support itself, or buying a false sense of security, or any other hair brained reason?"

Exactly which rights, besides my right to own a firearm, am I giving up if this supposed NAU were to become a reality? I don't even own a gun, so I have NO PROBLEM with that.

"The lives being lost as you are pointing out, are from the direct order of the administration... the one that you so blindly wish to give your freedoms up to for that false sense of security. Don't be so quick to point the finger at the boots on the ground"

What did I say to lead you to believe I was laying blame on ANY soldier? I am not blindly giving up my rights. Respond to my question before last. Why would it be a false sense of security? Do you have anything concrete?

"Changing my hairstyle or clothing is nothing remotely close to relinquishing my freedoms, due to the advancement of the human race. Which orifice did you say you pulled that comment out of?"

It was said to show things change, not you should give up your rights. Please read more carefully next time. Advancement of the human race is just it. With the advancement of technology and weaponry this is a much more dangerous world than what George Washington experienced. If we have powerful tools, such as phone tapping, why wouldn't we use it to catch terrorists on our soil. As I've said, I have nothing to hide and don't think the government is interested in listening in on my mundane conversations. I am quite certain there are terrorists in our country now. Our government knows this and are doing everything they can to stop another tragedy like September 11th, which is why they have decided to tap phones in the US.

""Oh my God! We've got to pass a new law to prevent bell bottoms from coming back into style! Run for the hills!!!" "

Not funny.

"Governments are not a form of control... government is a form of representation of it's people... or at least it is in America."

It's both.

"Sorry, but those ideals and beliefs set 200+ years ago are very much alive today. There's just not as many people taking an active part in today's government as there should be."

I said TO ME they are invalid. Again, which is why it would be easier for me to yadda yadda yadda.... I guess it is a dying ideal, soon to be dead. If 200+ years ago there was a fervor for this ideal and today, according to you, is not as active as it should be, what does that tell you? To me that says more and more people realize this is a vastly different world.

"Obviously you don't have children, and you don't remember being told no by your parents. Were you an orphan, by chance?"

Spare me your psychoanalysis.

"Actually, I have considered a book already. But thanks for the tip."

Be sure to send me your first copy. Signed, please.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SBDAL
I respect your faith, but I do not believe in a God. That is why it would be easier for me to relinquish rights for safety, and knowing my family is safe.

I honestly don't think that your religious beliefs should have anything to do with your personal safety. Are you implying that you are willing and happy to be a slave? I don't know about you, but I really enjoy being a free person.


Originally posted by SBDAL
What would I need to be concrete? I'm not trying to convince you to believe anything. I am sharing my opinions and explaining why I feel that way, that's all. Just because I don't see eye to eye with you doesn't make me wrong for my opinions. You're a die hard American... cool! I get it. You're probably even religious... cool! Just don't act like your opinion is the only one that's valid. Afterall, don't you believe NAU will happen? If so, you should be providing me with something that's concrete.

Any type of proof to prove your theory of the NAU being a good thing. As I've asked about 3 pages ago.

I hope you enjoy sharing your opinions now (protected right by the 1st Amendment, I might add), because if the NAU were to happen, you won't be able to publicly speak out against "anyone".

I haven't been here to debate if it is going to happen... I've debated the information available to show that it "could" happen. If it were to happen, I've already shown that it is unconstitutional, therefore, illegal.



Originally posted by SBDAL
Exactly which rights, besides my right to own a firearm, am I giving up if this supposed NAU were to become a reality? I don't even own a gun, so I have NO PROBLEM with that.

Oh good grief.



Originally posted by SBDAL
What did I say to lead you to believe I was laying blame on ANY soldier? I am not blindly giving up my rights. Respond to my question before last. Why would it be a false sense of security? Do you have anything concrete?

Umm.... maybe this...

Or is it because I am disgusted with the many lives lost at the hands of the US military machine (for land and/or resources... which makes it even harder to stomach)?

Do you think it's the president that's killing people? or is it those under his direct order?


Originally posted by SBDAL
It was said to show things change, not you should give up your rights. Please read more carefully next time. Advancement of the human race is just it. With the advancement of technology and weaponry this is a much more dangerous world than what George Washington experienced. If we have powerful tools, such as phone tapping, why wouldn't we use it to catch terrorists on our soil. As I've said, I have nothing to hide and don't think the government is interested in listening in on my mundane conversations. I am quite certain there are terrorists in our country now. Our government knows this and are doing everything they can to stop another tragedy like September 11th, which is why they have decided to tap phones in the US.

If that's the case... it was a piss poor example to use.

Which is why they have decided to break the laws that protect the American people.

I don't believe the government tried to stop 9/11... but we can talk about that in another thread.


Originally posted by SBDAL
Not funny.

About as funny as your reasoning that the government must make adaptive changes.


Originally posted by SBDAL
It's both.

True... however, the government must be a representation of it's people, 1st. Otherwise, it's called a dictatorship/tyranny/slavery/whatever you want to call it.


Originally posted by SBDAL
I said TO ME they are invalid. Again, which is why it would be easier for me to yadda yadda yadda.... I guess it is a dying ideal, soon to be dead. If 200+ years ago there was a fervor for this ideal and today, according to you, is not as active as it should be, what does that tell you? To me that says more and more people realize this is a vastly different world.

I hope you enjoy exercising the freedoms that were provided by said "invalid" argument.


Originally posted by SBDAL
Spare me your psychoanalysis.

Would you like to lay on my couch? You really do entertain me. Why do you think I've continued with this discussion?



Originally posted by SBDAL
Be sure to send me your first copy. Signed, please.

Sure. For $29.95 plus shipping and handling.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Info:

"Are you implying that you are willing and happy to be a slave? I don't know about you, but I really enjoy being a free person."

No, not at all. I enjoy my freedom as well, I just value the safety of me and my family more.

"Any type of proof to prove your theory of the NAU being a good thing. As I've asked about 3 pages ago."

If it is my opinion (not theory), NAU will be beneficial, then I don't need proof. LOL, all of a sudden I need to PROVE myself to you.

"I hope you enjoy sharing your opinions now (protected right by the 1st Amendment, I might add), because if the NAU were to happen, you won't be able to publicly speak out against "anyone"."

I didn't see anything (maybe I missed it) you posted that would lead me to believe my freedom of speech would be in danger following a unification of North America.

"I haven't been here to debate if it is going to happen... I've debated the information available to show that it "could" happen. If it were to happen, I've already shown that it is unconstitutional, therefore, illegal. "

It COULD happen, true. Anything COULD happen.

"Do you think it's the president that's killing people? or is it those under his direct order?"

I'll retract that statement. I am disgusted at the lives lost to ANY military in ANY war in ANY country of the world. President Bush and those before him have killed many indirectly by giving orders, soldiers merely carry out the request. To answer your question, it's both in my eyes.


"If that's the case... it was a piss poor example to use. "

To you.

"About as funny as your reasoning that the government must make adaptive changes."

Yeah, I know, it's not funny. Governments should make adaptive changes.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SBDAL
No, not at all. I enjoy my freedom as well, I just value the safety of me and my family more.
Which will you choose to have? A false sense of security afforded by being a slave to a dictatorship/tyranny, or freedom? You know you can't "have your cake and eat it, too". You can't be free by giving up your rights.


Originally posted by SBDAL
If it is my opinion (not theory), NAU will be beneficial, then I don't need proof. LOL, all of a sudden I need to PROVE myself to you.

Again, for the umpteenth time, please provide something credible besides a "Cause I said so" opinion.


Originally posted by SBDAL
I didn't see anything (maybe I missed it) you posted that would lead me to believe my freedom of speech would be in danger following a unification of North America.

Reread the link to the New States Constitution. Hell, reread the Canadian Bill of Rights or whatever it is that they call it. They are very similar in their construct. Both of those would be providing that false sense of security that you so cherish. When a "right" is granted by the government *with stipulations*, then it really isn't a "right" at all.


Originally posted by SBDAL
It COULD happen, true. Anything COULD happen.

dee dee dee


Originally posted by SBDAL
I'll retract that statement. I am disgusted at the lives lost to ANY military in ANY war in ANY country of the world. President Bush and those before him have killed many indirectly by giving orders, soldiers merely carry out the request. To answer your question, it's both in my eyes.

I don't buy that answer.


Originally posted by SBDAL
To you.

I'm not the one trying to compare how a government needs to "change with the times" as to "clothing style changes".


Originally posted by SBDAL
Yeah, I know, it's not funny. Governments should make adaptive changes.

Adaptive as within the representation of the people... not of their own will.



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   


You speak of the constitution as if it is untouchable. It's a document written by men... anything man-made is bound to crumble.

It is "untouchable".


www.law.cornell.edu...



We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It says WE THE PEOPLE; not we the government, or we who are in power,
WE THE PEOPLE.
The Constitution will only crumble if the people of the USA stand by idly and allow it to crumble.



Right... at their expense. Do you even think they voluntarily gave their lives for your freedom?!

They "voluntarily" followed a regime that declared war on the USA. I don't care if it was voluntary or not those lives were lost. Those people were killed in a struggle that resulted in me,and people in my country, being able to live my life in a free society. Do you think the same would be true if the axis powers would have won? So, to me, those lives were not lost in vain. Those lost lives paid in blood for the freedoms I,and all Americans, enjoy today. To stand by and allow the govt to infringe on those freedoms is to show no respect for ALL lives lost.


How can we dwell on the past like that? That is why the US has memorials dedicated to these soldiers.

A quote from George Santayana


“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

It is not dwelling on the past, I am asking you to think of all the lives lost so we in the USA can live freely. Our freedom was paid for in blood.
Those RIGHTS you choose to view as luxuries were paid for with human lives, both on the winning side and the losing side. The absolute least respect you can show them is to try to keep those rights intact.





That's alot of people. 3,000+ families disrupted and destroyed. It trickles down... many, many lives changed because of that. I wouldn't dare say only 3,000 lives were affected in 2001.

You miss my point completely. If the US govt was concerned in the least bit about your safety and security, 20% of the national budget would not be spent to save 3000 lives(and attain a false sense of security) it would be spent to save 500,000 lives.
9-11 was cold blooded murder. How is spending any less to save 500,000 lives from disease any less murder? If this country can send a man to the moon in a decade with the technolgical advances we enjoy today we would end cancer if it was a priority. Your security and safety is not paramount to this govt;if it was programs to end cancer or auto crashes would get equal, or more as to proportion, attention.




Death by terrorism isn't a voluntary act (unless, of course, you're a suicide bomber).

If we have a FREE society one will always be able to trade their own life for the lives of others. That is the price for having a FREE society. We have a FREE society which is why you DO NOT see suicide bombers in our society. We have the right to change our govt through non-violent actions. If we trade our RIGHTS for security we will not have the abilty to do so. No one RIGHT is favored over any other in the Constitution so if we lose one we can lose them all.

[edit on 23/3/2007 by shooterbrody]



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   
You too can have your own puppet!!!



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Shooter:

"It is "untouchable"".

"The Constitution will only crumble if the people of the USA stand by idly and allow it to crumble."

You contradicted yourself. You're admitting it is untouchable AND vulnerable to collapse. It's a man made document. You can't realisticly tell me you expect it to last forever, unchanged?

"They "voluntarily" followed a regime that declared war on the USA."

I'd consider that half true. Some might have opposed that government, but had no means to seek a home elsewhere. You're born where you're born. I'm sure there are a large number of people born in Cuba that wish they were citizens of another country.

"I don't care if it was voluntary or not those lives were lost."

So you don't care they died against their will? That 200,000 people were slaughtered by a weapon that is inhumane? How about the ones that didn't die? The ones who developed tumors and diseases? No compassion for them?

"Those people were killed in a struggle that resulted in me,and people in my country, being able to live my life in a free society"

They could've cared less about our struggle to remain free. Would you and 199,999 of your fellow Americans sacrifice yourselves for another nation's struggle for freedom? I'll assume the answer is no.

" Those lost lives paid in blood for the freedoms I,and all Americans, enjoy today. To stand by and allow the govt to infringe on those freedoms is to show no respect for ALL lives lost."

Have you thought about future lives that could be lost if we were not to secure our nation better? Seems as if you're more concerned with lives that already have been lost as opposed to lives that would be lost if we do nothing to secure our nation.

"A quote from George Santayana
quote:
“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Right... which is why we have memorials to remember fallen soldiers in PAST wars.

"The absolute least respect you can show them is to try to keep those rights intact. "

You think the Native American's and Japanese's dying requests were for our nation to always remain free? If anything they probably wish we burn in hell. I would respect it if they had even had a chance.

"20% of the national budget would not be spent to save 3000 lives(and attain a false sense of security) it would be spent to save 500,000 lives."

Who's to say next time it won't be 5,000? or 10,000? Would you consider their lost lives to be for your struggle, thus excusable? As I have said in a pervious post of mine, smokers and people who eat fast food religiously, make a conscious decision to smoke or eat unhealthy food. I would spend 20% of our budget too if it would save the lives of AT LEAST 3,000 people from MURDER.
www.youthact.org...
These 400,000 people who die each year from cigarette related deaths made the conscious decision to buy that pack of cigarettes and smoke each and every one. Many people have quit smoking, including myself. If I or many others can do it, why not them?

www.rense.com...
300,000 people die per year from obesity, which stems mainly from fast or unhealthy food. They also made that conscious decision to drive to McDoanlds or eat bacon everyday.

Government spending, or lack thereof, on diseases does not equate to murder. There are warning lables on packs of cigarettes. McDonalds now has nutritional facts on their food containers (although this is inefficient as you do not see the facts until AFTER you have bought your meal!)... others have followed suit as well. The message is being put out there for people to read/hear. If they choose to (since we are a free country) they can scarf it down anyways. This is a nation of instant gratification. We want our food fast and want to be able to get it without even stepping one foot outside our vehicle.



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
(continued)

" If this country can send a man to the moon in a decade with the technolgical advances we enjoy today we would end cancer if it was a priority."

You're right, we could. There is no money involved in a cure. I'm not saying this government is perfect, because we all know it is not.

"No one RIGHT is favored over any other in the Constitution so if we lose one we can lose them all. "

Can is the key word in your statement. Can doesn't necessarily translate into will.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   


You contradicted yourself. You're admitting it is untouchable AND vulnerable to collapse. It's a man made document. You can't realisticly tell me you expect it to last forever, unchanged?

It is untouchable by the govt alone. You had stated the rights we have depended on the govt allowing us to have those rights. The govt does not give or take away rights.
I do expect the Constitution to remain unchanged. The ideas in the Constitution are timeless; they are just as valid today as they were the day they were put on paper.




I'd consider that half true. Some might have opposed that government, but had no means to seek a home elsewhere. You're born where you're born. I'm sure there are a large number of people born in Cuba that wish they were citizens of another country.

People in various parts of the world have risen up against govts for the sake of freedom. Just because those in question did not doesn't mean they couldn't have. Freedom requires sacrifice and some are not willing to make that sacrifice.




So you don't care they died against their will? That 200,000 people were slaughtered by a weapon that is inhumane? How about the ones that didn't die? The ones who developed tumors and diseases? No compassion for them?



They could've cared less about our struggle to remain free. Would you and 199,999 of your fellow Americans sacrifice yourselves for another nation's struggle for freedom? I'll assume the answer is no.

The japanese people you speak of were the same japanese that declared war on the US. I guess it depends on your definition of the word humane. Would it have been more humane to stage a land war to obtain surrender? Estimates of loss of American soldiers were in excess of 1 million in such a conflict.
Again ALL those lives were lost. I just have a differing opinion on how to honor those losses.



Have you thought about future lives that could be lost if we were not to secure our nation better? Seems as if you're more concerned with lives that already have been lost as opposed to lives that would be lost if we do nothing to secure our nation.

And now we can return to the topic of the nau. I would think securing this nation would begin at the borders. Outsourcing our border security to canada and mexico is not my idea of secure. If "free" trade flow is allowed,as called for in nafta and the spp, that is exactily what will happen. You being so keen on your own personal security, what do you think of letting canada or mexico secure our border?




Who's to say next time it won't be 5,000? or 10,000?

Who is to say it will happen again? Agents from the fbi and cia had info about 9-11 before 9-11; the only thing that stopped them from moving on that info was the govt. Agents spoke of this on the tv program 60 min,and in newspapers and magazines.

See that is the rub about a free society; in a free society one will always be able to trade his life for the lives of others. To make it otherwise you would not have a free society. All freedom costs; if we allow our lives to be fundamentally changed because of 9-11 then the terrorists win. Every infringement on individual freedom since 9-11 is a victory for the terrorists.
The nau will be a huge blow to individual freedom in the US.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
This is a long thread. I want to read the whole thing but I don't have the time right now. I hope nobody has posted this link in here yet. If so, disregard this post. I just read this one recently and thought it was... Well... Go ahead and read it yourself.


Canada Free Press
If you believe there should be no borders marking a specific entity called the United States of America, then a North American Union will not concern you. If you believe nationalism, meaning love and pride of country, is a bad thing, then a North American Union will not concern you. If you believe government control of the market, of health care, and of energy policy is a positive force, then a North American Union will not concern you. If you believe anyone should be allowed to enter our nation, even illegally, obtain work, taxpayer-paid social programs, and owe no allegiance to the U.S., then a North American Union will not concern you.


If nothing else it's a good read.

[edit on 24-3-2007 by LostSailor]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Nice article lostsailor!
Shows what is going on all in one place. The sad part of this is when one of my state senators was written about this he denied it all. The more this info gets out, the less likely this will happen.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join