It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ybab hsur
blah blah blah blah
not actual answers, just the same excuses.
Oh - and to the guy who said Mexicans are slaves...omfg you made my day. "We dont give them the same rights as merican workers"
no kidding??????WOW what a novel thought
maybe because they....oh....ARENT AMERICAN CITIZENS
Where's your bleeding #ing heart for the americans who dont have a job because of these illegal imigrants?
Case in point - slavery does not exist. if you think it does, then you are just arguing with me because im conservative and if you agreed with me, your world would come tumbling to an end.
im done with this topic, i did it to prove to myself and the ppl on my friends list that no liberal could actually answer my questions.
you people crack me up.
See ya later. Im going back to a place where things make sense.
Originally posted by ybab hsur
how dare you insinuate otherwise you racist pig, ill flame you on that one, beucase you make a dispicable statement.
The Proclamation of 1625 ordered that Irish political prisoners be transported overseas and sold as laborers to English planters, who were settling the islands of the West Indies, officially establishing a policy that was to continue for two centuries. In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.
Originally posted by ybab hsur
i fail to see how they are. They are criminals, yes. They desrve to go home. yes. But slaves? You distort the true meaning on the word slave.
Originally posted by ybab hsur
A slave is someone who is 100% under the control of a slave owner. I have not misquoted you - you have mis spoke. you found your flaws and you are just pissed that i pointed them out
but to anyone with 1/2 a brain stem, you are as see through as a glass of water.
[edit on 29-5-2008 by ybab hsur]
Originally posted by ybab hsur
Okay, ill take your advice and concentrate on one.
What im absolutely flabergasted by is this "slavery is still alive in the united states" because i'd really love to hear it, im not opposed to it, but i've never heard anyone say it before, even coming from discussions with black people about race.
according to the U.S. State Department, during 2001, at least 700,000 and potentially as many as 4 million men, women and children worldwide were bought, sold, transported and held against their will in slave-like conditions.
While the report focuses on person-trafficking in eighty-nine other countries, Secretary Powell reported that some 50,000 women and children are trafficked annually for sexual exploitation into the United States. "Here and abroad," said Powell, "the victims of trafficking toil under inhuman conditions -- in brothels, sweatshops, fields and even in private homes."
Oh - and no - you dont have a constitutional right to a private phone call. As i said, the phone companies are not owned by the govt, and if you actually read your disclosure rights in your agreement with your phone company - it expresses that clause in there.
Originally posted by ybab hsur
oh, and, why cant you answer more than 1 question?
They are not hard questions what so ever.
Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by ybab hsur
about the phone company - it does not explicity say "the govt can spy on you" but it does say that they will comply to the full extent with law officials. That means "IF YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW"
Basically it goes like this
They wiretap you using these clauses in phone company contracts. Dont like it? Dont use the phone company. Mostly landlines, btw.
This is part of the illegal warrantless wiretap program. Legally, it doesn't happen this way.
If they find you are doing terrorist activity - they seek a warrant to wiretap you to appease the liberals who hate america. Simple as that.
If you are hiding nothing then why are you opposed to this?
I really cannot grasp that concept - i am not flaming - i am seriously appauled that people would be opposed to safety.
you are not loosing "freedom"
you are no more free to a non-monitored phone call than you are to walk in the street and not have someone eavesdrop on your conversation.
Perfect example:
i can remember when i was a kid, and the cordless phones were the "thing of the future" you could pickup on your nieghbors phone calls with your cordless phone, if they too, had a cordless
There was no outcry about that.
Look, i see what you're saying. I see that you believe you have the right to an unmonitored phone call. But how can you say that you would allow the terrorists to exploit that "right" and endanger us?
So why are you so against finding them before they kill us?
[edit on 28-5-2008 by ybab hsur]
Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by drwizardphd
and there is not a descendant of black slavery who should not want to beat you down for comparing what mexicans put themselves into, and what blacks were forced into
how dare you insinuate otherwise you racist pig, ill flame you on that one, beucase you make a dispicable statement.
Once again - answering my question with a question of your own. Another person earlier in page 1 says that Ahmenijad has the right to speak this way. Wow. I think we need to start suspicioning him Seriously though - if Bush were to make an Anti-Britian speech and say "the revolutionary war never happened, lets kill Britian" .... that'd be the same thing as Iran's president, but you would have aproblem with Bush.
Is it any different than Bush slapping the Axis of Evil lable on them? Are you saying. At anyrate what make say Chavez any different? Should we invade his country too?
I agree with you that we bankrupted them. But, to quote a very cheesy movie "Ask anyone here, it doesnt matter if you win by an inch or a mile, a win is a win". It was great that we defeated communism without military force. But why do you feel compelled to deny america that victory???? Also - what about our economy is going bankrupt?
We did not win in an actualy war over Communism rather we bankrupted them in an arms race. Now the irony is we are tanking our economy by engaging in a pointless war that is now bankruption our economy
This is a legit answer, but i disagree because of this: Liberals are all one in the same in the sense that they'll believe anyone who fits their agenda. When the CIA is giving useful information to Bush, you're against the CIA. When the CIA is blasting Bush, you're for the CIA. Now - to apply the same logic of your response to another situation - What if the Bush Administration got it right about Iran? Are you going to refuse to consider that? Or, 10 years from now, when Iran nukes Israel off this planet, will you say "it was bush's fault" ?
Perhaps the CIA is being a bit more objective now? And we are seeing the real data not the post Cheney Rummy embelishments.
If i had nothing to hide, and i hate the entire world screaming for me to do so - you bet your ass i would. I would not want my country to suffer for my ignorance. But if i had weapons i didnt want the world to know about, i would deny them entrance and stretch it out as far as i could. Here's another example of liberal ideology. You support then UN when they're against Bush, but cast them out when they are on his side. Unbelievable.
So you as absolute dictator of country X would simply allow the UN to prance about your country? How come Isreal does not let them in?
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
reply to post by ybab hsur
I am a conservative..
What does that mean? Do you mean to say that you agree with the Republicans in power, or do you mean to say that you are a textbook conservative.
Lemme tell you, I was raised by a conservative family, and I couldn't agree less with what this administration has been doing.
Fiscally conservative Republicans who believe in small government are a fading memory. Few people alive today can even recall a Republican during their lifetime who ACTUALLY FOLLOWED the party rhetoric on these fronts.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Big government has never been bigger, and if these so-called conservatives (or neo-conservatives) are anything but Hawk Democrats playing bait and switch with middle America, I'll be a monkey's uncle.
1.) Give me ample examples of which rights of yours have been stripped by bush since 9/11
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I can't ride a train or fly on an airplane without being searched in the absence of probable cause.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The FBI has released bulletins asking local law enforcement to be on the lookout for terrorists in the guise of tourists, artists, students, and homeless people. Tell me that the rights of these people to fair and equal treatment has not been violated...
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Thought crime is now a reality - anyone whose words can be construed as support for terrorism can legally be charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism - even if they never amass weapons or make material preparations. Simply commenting on the need for a domestic regime change could, under the current legal language, be construed as the modern version of sedition...
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The right of citizens to travel freely has been infringed by random roadblocks and checkpoints. This is expected in territories ruled over by warlords or dictators, but it is not par for the course in a free country.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The right to privacy has been thoroughly compromised thanks to warrant-less wiretaps and surveillance.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
How about the right to assemble peacefully? How about the right to vote (still in effect in non-swing states, admittedly)? How about the rights of the states to regulate their own affairs without the intrusion of the federal government?