It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


non-flame questions to liberal americans

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in


posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by harvib

I didnt misunderstand you at all. It could be that you mis spoke - but i didnt understand anything that you put into words.

I love telling stories, so let me use a story as an example

All things considered equal, we'll use "the lefts" and "the rights" because its easier to spell. I am in no way insinuating left or right wing ideology into this example, i am just using these terms as a means of example

Problem: Irans president, Ahamenijad (ill never get that spelling right) has just declared war on Israel. Israel and Iran battle it out for months with no interference from either side's allies.

Then, out of no where, Pakistan decides to invade israel while their backs are turned.

The united states, being a very close ally of Israel decides it is time to take action.

The lefts say "lets talk to them"
the rights say "lets kick their (3 letter word of a butt)"

The problem does not change despite the two differnt options for a solution. The dillema is, talking to Pakistan will only waste time. They knew what they were getting themselves into when they chose to enter the war. America has a responsiblity to intervene and do something, as israel is our friend and ally.

So now the matter goes to congress and the president. "ZOMG WHAT SHOULD WE DO ????" is the general panic mode

We debate and each side offers reasons why they are right and why they are wrong, because each side feels feverishly that their way will be best for all invovled.

Ultimately a decision is made, and that decision was made because of the information provided. had there been no debate, then how could there have been a decision?

And im spent.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:48 PM
reply to post by ybab hsur

You have clearly misunderstood my points. I understand the value of a debate on issues although I do appreciate you taking the time to give me an analogy over its value. What I fail to understand is the partisan labels that result in bickering over not the issues but over but nonsensical rhetoric. If I am missing the value of partisan labels by all means please enlighten me.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:50 PM
There are 27 million people (although some put the number as high as 200 million) in slavery today.

Free the Slaves claims that present-day slaves have been sold for as little as US$40, in Mali, for young adult male laborers, or as much as US$1,000 in Thailand for HIV-free, young females, suitable for work in brothels.

Although outlawed in most countries today slavery is practised secretly in many parts of the world — with outright enslavement still taking place in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. In June and July 2007, 570 people who had been enslaved by brick manufacturers in Shanxi and Henan were freed by the Chinese government. Of those rescued, 69 of them were children. In response, the Chinese government assembled a force of 35,000 police to check northern Chinese brick kilns for slaves, sent dozens of kiln supervisors to prison, punished 95 officials in Shanxi province for dereliction of duty, and sentenced one kiln foreman to death for killing an enslaved worker.

In Mauritania alone, it is estimated that up to 600,000 men, women and children, or 20% of the population, are enslaved, many of them used as bonded labour. Slavery in Mauritania was criminalized in August 2007. In Niger, slavery is also a current phenomenon. A Nigerian study has found that more than 800,000 people are enslaved, almost 8% of the population. Child slavery has commonly been used in the production of cash crops and mining. According to the U.S. Department of State, more than 109,000 children were working on cocoa farms alone in Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) in 'the worst forms of child labor' in 2002.

In November 2006, the International Labour Organization announced it will be seeking "to prosecute members of the ruling Myanmar junta for crimes against humanity". According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), an estimated 800,000 people are subject to forced labour in Myanmar.

Trafficking in human beings, sometimes called human trafficking, or sex trafficking (as the majority of victims are women or children forced into prostitution), is not the same as people smuggling. A smuggler will facilitate illegal entry into a country for a fee, but on arrival at their destination, the smuggled person is free; the trafficking victim is enslaved. Victims do not agree to be trafficked: they are tricked, lured by false promises, or forced into it. Traffickers use coercive tactics including deception, fraud, intimidation, isolation, threat and use of physical force, debt bondage or even force-feeding with drugs of abuse to control their victims. Whilst the majority of victims are women, and sometimes children, forced into prostitution, other victims include men, women and children forced into manual labour. Due to the illegal nature of trafficking, the exact extent is unknown. A US Government report published in 2003, estimates that 800,000-900,000 people worldwide are trafficked across borders each year. This figure does not include those who are trafficked internally.

Wage slavery often occurs in underdeveloped areas, where employers can afford to employ people at low wages, knowing they can't afford to risk their employment. Most child laborers for example, can be considered to be wage slaves.

Contract slaves are generally poor, often illiterate, people who have been tricked into signing contracts they do not understand.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:50 PM

Slavery in its traditional sense is still very active; only its activities are carried out underground. Actual slavery is still carried out much the same way it has been for centuries: people, often women and children, are abducted (usually from underdeveloped countries such as those in the Middle East, South America, Asia, Africa and the former Soviet Bloc countries), loaded aboard a ship and smuggled to a foreign country (usually Asia or the Middle East) and they are sold, the men and male children sold for labor, while the women and girls for domestic slavery or to work as unwilling prostitutes primarily in Asia and the West.

Although slave ownership by private individuals and businesses has been illegal in the United States since 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically exempts the judiciary, permitting the enslavement of individuals "as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted".

The United States Department of Labor occasionally prosecutes cases against people for false imprisonment and involuntary servitude. These cases often involve illegal immigrants who are forced to work as slaves in factories to pay off a debt claimed by the people who transported them into the United States. Other cases have involved domestic workers.

Reports of child sexual slavery and on the business of working children in organized criminal businesses as well as in legitimate businesses and trading sexual favours for contracts and business in the United States under both inhuman and human conditions exist.

In 2002, the U.S. Department of State repeated an earlier CIA estimate that each year, about 50,000 women and children are brought against their will to the United States for sexual exploitation. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that "Here and abroad, the victims of trafficking toil under inhuman conditions -- in brothels, sweatshops, fields and even in private homes."

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by amazed

someone has done their homework.

So ill play your game for a moment
If the Civil war did not defeat the idea of slavery as it were

then what is THE solution?

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 06:12 PM
reply to post by jsobecky

"So pointing to instances of sex slavery in the US means nothing."

Man, this is the kind of attitude that is so prevalent among so called "conservatives" slavery means nothing because we have laws against it???....hardened hearts. Just beggars the imagination...

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 06:47 PM

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by AceWombat04

Until then, remmeber :

No matter how much you disagree, you should never flame America. All you do in this case is further our enemy's agenda and embolden them further.

I would NEVER flame the Red, White and Blue. Disagreeing with the current administrations thug like polices, isn't a flame against the US. Just wanted to clear that up.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 07:15 PM

Originally posted by ybab hsur
On the CIA topic

The CIA now reports that Al Qaeda is near defeat

Are they wrong, you silly liberals

[edit on 30-5-2008 by ybab hsur]

Here's my question?
Who started this thread? Do you happen to know?

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 07:19 PM

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by realshanti

Originally posted by realshanti
And just in case you don't bother to read the links - Slavery does exist in the United States - about 10,000 give or take a few thousand since it isn't a widely reported crime due to the difficulty of locating traffickers and their victims...many of whom are children sold for the illegal sex trade...

[edit on 30-5-2008 by realshanti]

Links like those you posted are really irrelevant in the case of the US. Why? Because slavery has been outlawed and is illegal in the US.

It would be one thing if our laws permitted slavery, but they do not. So pointing to instances of sex slavery in the US means nothing. You could just as well point to instances of murder, or burglary, or assault or any other crime. Just because they occur doesn't mean we condone them or that they are legal.

The fact that we have outlawed them, and actively prosecute instances of them, is the important point.

I believe the whole slavery in the US topic started with the ops insistence that it does not exist. Recent US funded investigations show that over 50,000 slaves are trafficked through/into the US each year. Some human rights organizations believe the numbers to be closer to 100,000 per year.

I just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in to try and straighten out the origin of the topic on this thread.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 07:25 PM

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by ybab hsur


i cannot believe you docked me 1000 points because you don't agree with my opinion.

Maybe i was wrong about this place?

Were you saving up for a new car???

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by jfj123

No, i wasnt saving up, i jsut find it HILAROUS that because someone disagrees with me, they nitpick to find ways to punish me for it. Thats all.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by realshanti

Originally posted by realshanti
reply to post by jsobecky

"So pointing to instances of sex slavery in the US means nothing."

Man, this is the kind of attitude that is so prevalent among so called "conservatives" slavery means nothing because we have laws against it???....hardened hearts. Just beggars the imagination...

Could you possibly twist the meaning of my words more? I don't think so.

You go on with your knee-jerk reactionary type of thinking, realshanti. I think you need it to keep your mind from imploding.:shk:

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 11:44 PM
reply to post by jsobecky

Oh, come on. So you've had to take your shoes off. Big deal. Blame those responsible - Richard Reid and al Qaeda, not those who are chartered with the safety of several hundred passengers, if it bothers you so much.

I take my shoes off at Japanese restaurants, not a big deal.

What I object to is the illusion of security and the farce that surrounds the whole process - airlines are NO SAFER than they were before 9/11, excepting those that have had the cockpit doors reinforced. But air travelers have to jump through more and more hoops, all of it a charade, and it serves nobody except the contractors who profit, and the government that reaps the benefits of our pathetic, mewling terror.

It used to be they had to deal with thinking voters, now they only have to contend with button-pushing hamsters, essentially.

Have you seen the statistics on how many guns/bombs/knives can be snuck onto planes, during the security tests? It's obscene how insecure we all still are, but that doesn't stop the rent-a-cops from treating us like cattle, invading our personal belongings, our friggin' body cavities...

Citizens of this ostensibly free country are being treated like serfs by these barely-educated wage slave enforcers, and it makes me physically ill to watch it, nevermind participate.

How can people not realize they're being lowered and insulted by this silly, pointless little dance called 'increased security' - watch the bottle of water being confiscated from the elderly traveler, watch the 6-year old child taking off his shoes because there are tiny lights in them, watch the computer programmer get taken out of line and interrogated for four hours because his itinerary takes him through Pakistan - can you see these things and not be offended by the ludicrous suggestion that this country is free?

If nothing else, we have ensured that we will never be free from fear.

Excuse my hyperbole, but I'm sick to death of the slight-of-hand on the issue of terrorism.

As much as the next guy, I'd like to be safe from religious extremists who mean to do me harm, but WE ARE NOT SAFE, and we never will be. The best we can hope to be is sensible and that we most certainly are not.

If terrorists want to hijack planes, we can stop them by sealing off the cockpit. If they want to blow planes up, we can screen for bombs. If they want to take to the streets and start shooting people, we can stay in our homes and deploy law enforcement to round them up.

If terrorists really wanted to hurt this country though, instead of just shock it, they would hit any number of soft infrastructure targets like the electrical grid, the water supply, or the fuel supplies - but they haven't. You know why they haven't? Because there simply are not millions of boogeymen hiding in the seams of our country, it's nonsensical to think that.

Talk about blowing things out of proportion..more people are killed by aspirin every year. But do you think a president could rise to power on the platform of preventing prescription drug deaths? Of course not...

No, why? Is there a list of checkpoints in there?

The report recommends nationwide checkpoints and a national ID card, in a nutshell.

Good, I say. There is nothing illegal about them, and they existed long before Bush 43 or 9/11.

That's the problem, isn't it? For every citizen like myself, who would gladly take the risk if it would preserve liberty, there are six like yourself, who are only too eager to sacrifice their freedoms for the illusion of safety.

Let me say it again, you are not safe from random acts of terror, none of us are. It's a farce. Would you still feel good about giving up your liberties (and mine!) if you saw for a fact that the 'protections' of your government were paper mache?

Bah..I'm tired.

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:32 AM
reply to post by WyrdeOne

I fail to see any liberties that have been given up.

i can still come here and write, and say whatever i want, as long as certain moderators dont see it

I took a trip to new york not too long ago, and guess what?

Nobody flipped open my laptop (there was someone else recently who posted they are now checking laptops for pirated mp3's, rofl)
I took my shoes off, i went through the metal detectors, big deal.

The only thing, as far as i can tell, that is different is the warrantless wiretapping. But as i've already tried to make abundantly clear

Your civil rights, your bill of rights, protects your privacy to the government.
AT&T, Sprint, SBC
They are not govt entitites. They are private sector businesses. Im telling you - if you whip out your user agreements, its in there that they can do whatever they want.

If they wish to cooperate in matters of national security - they can. It's their phone network. Niether you nor the government can deny them to do with their network what they want.

Its not different from ISPs forbidding their customers from accessing P2P networks for file sharing. Giants like comcast have, so far, resisted the urge. But its a matter of time before big govt is stuffing the pockets of some fat money hungry prick in the comcast rankings to ensure P2P's demise.

Im not saying what happens there is moral ethical. Im saying that, like many other things in this wacky system, there are ways to go about it, and make it legal.

personally - if someone wants to spend time listening to my conversations, go ahead. They'll find nothing incriminating. And even if they do - and it doesnt relate to a terrorist activity - there's not a dang thing they can do about it

I mean, what are they gona say?
"we caught ybab talking about killing someone"
and my lawyer says "oh, and how did you do that?"

..oh...well uhhhhhhh....we found a loophole in the legal system to allow us to listen to his phone calls, even though we never suspected him of terrorist activity....

They're going after terrorists, not Americans. I only hope you can see the reason. I agree that, to some degree, you can make the argument that "terrorists arent using landlines, they're using those pay as you go phones"

For the most part i agree

but - why not limit them as much as we can?

If there was a nuclear attack on this country, and we found out that the call came from a landline, we'd all feel pretty stupid for having complained about the phone lines being monitored on specially detailed people (aka terrorists)

[edit on 31-5-2008 by ybab hsur]

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:51 AM

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by WyrdeOne

I fail to see any liberties that have been given up.

There have been several as I sited in an earlier post... All in the name of national security.

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:55 AM
reply to post by harvib

well with all due respect, i dont remember which you cited. Can you maybe u2u me a direct link for the page its on, its really late, im really tired, but i'd love to pick apart some more nonsensical discussions about lost 'liberties'

but you have to agree that, once i do said activity, that you concede and give the man his dues.

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:10 AM

reply to post by ybab hsur

1.) Give me ample examples of which rights of yours have been stripped by bush since 9/11

It takes more then the president to strip rights away however understanding the context of your question... Through bills passed since 9/11 and there ambiguity exercising freedom of speech may result in prosecution. The right to peaceful protest. Right of protection against improper search and seizure. Right of trial by jury. Right to a speedy trial. Right to civil trial by jury. Prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.

These rights are the rights prescribed in the bill of rights. To understand how these rights have been stripped or modified please refer to the patriot act, HR 1955, Military Commission’s Act of 2006, the military tribunals bill S.3930, H.RES.1054, H.R.6054, H.R.6166, S.3861, S.3886, S.3901, S.3929, just to name a few.

Here you go...

[edit on 31-5-2008 by harvib]

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:11 AM
reply to post by harvib

Believe me or not, i never seen this up until now.

lets discet this shall we

The right to peaceful protest. Right of protection against improper search and seizure. Right of trial by jury. Right to a speedy trial. Right to civil trial by jury. Prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.

The right to peaceful protest? Well now, lets see here, oh yes, i do have experience from this. Right here in my very town, we had a anti-war protest on a busy street in the business district. usually, i roll up my windows when i drive by an anti-war protest, because its always full of blabber and lies and some dork handing out yellow fliers that say "this war is crap because bush hates gays" or something that has no basis for debate. If you wanna debate the war, fine, but do so in a meaningful way.

Anyways - during one particular trip through the business district, i got caught at a red light (happens at the same stinkin light...every dang time) at this light, a protestor was handing out those stupid yellow fliers (why is it always yellow?) And saw my back window sticker. My back window sticker says
"Life is a (insert word for a female dog) So why vote for one?" and has a picture of hillary clinton. next to it.

So this guy walks past me. The next thing i know, i have a concrete chunk thrown through my rear passenger side window, and i notice this guy running and screaming at me.

If you really don't believe me, i have a copy of the police report, i have a copy of the car repair and everything, i only wish i had it on video. So .. peaceful protest? I think not.

Right to speedy trian and by jury, etc etc etc, all of those apply to american citizens. I say this because i assume you're talking about war criminals. War criminals are not american citizens, and thus are not good enough to become subject to our rights. If you are not refering to american citizens, then do please share with me one example that is clearly the doing of the Bush admin.

Prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Not really sure what you're talking about here? If you're talking about guantanomo and those "degrading" pictures, pahlease. That wasnt bush, that was a few "off their rocker" marines who thought they were being funny. Those war criminals murdered, raped, pillaged, and stole. They were lower than the feces on the dirt. They deserve no right to their "dignity" because they left that at the door when they joined the terror cell they were a part of.

Although not as significant and certainly not prescribed in the bill of rights I am no longer able to play online poker in the name of protection against terrorism You cannot play online poker because the credit card companies have the right to tell you how you can use that card. Why would the bush admin. seriously prohibit you from spending money.

we have already discussed your next point, about the facism, slavery, etc, you know where i stand, and i know where you stand

I believe it is a mistake to identify one self as a liberal or conservative it results in partisan debates such as this. Let’s identify ourselves as humanitarians and strive to improve the quality of life all. BTW isn’t a certain amount of criticism appropriate regarding the misinformation of WMD considering the amount of lives lost?

I agree with your first sentance to an extent. I think we've talked about this alreayd (?). As for the misinformation of WMDs, fine, lets play it your way - but you have to pass the blame around. The entire freggin world believed he had them, and it wasnt because BUSH SAID SO. Everyone thought this country was a joke before this, and they think its a joke afterwards. So why would they believe Bush if they think he's a joke? They had their own intelligence agencies looking into it, and came to their own conclusions. Are you so bold as to say they lack the technology or the know-how to deny them that?

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:34 AM
reply to post by ybab hsur

I posted the bills that were passed that modified these civil rights. I appreciate your story regarding the incedent you had while driving through a protest however the debate was not should the right to protest be removed. In reviewing the cited bills and acts of congress you will see that these bills all apply to American citizens not 'war criminals'. The fact that someone is still debating the fact that civil liberties have been removed or modified is surprising to me. The debates recently have been around is it appropriate.

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:44 AM
I'm guessing since the points I made haven't been responded to, I'm right and you didn't want to deal with that.

Oh and way to turn your own thread into a flame off.

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in