99%? Who wants to be a part of the 100%?

reply to post by projectvxn


That wasn't the question. If I don't agree with the constitution am I free to disregard it?

reply to post by daskakik


are you seriously sitting there saying you do not agree with the us constitution and you want a big goverment?

a smaller less powerful less instrusive government means for freedom and more money for you and everyone in this country.

seriously with that? you cant be.

reply to post by daskakik


You're not free to violate the rights of others. You are not free to attempt to overthrow the government. But you are free to try and have the Constitution changed through the proper channels.

reply to post by projectvxn


reply to post by neo96


So the answer is no. I am not free to disregard it. I am not given that choice.

Then how is it that I am freer with it than without it? Not comparing it to any other government but compared to freedom from any government.

reply to post by daskakik


You cannot OVERTHROW a constitutional government.

You CAN ignore the constitution if you want to, but if you violate the rights of others, or if you attempt an armed insurgency then you have to deal with LEO or the military respectively.

Personal liberty does not mean you get to impose on others. The wonderful thing about how the Country works and functions is that if you do not like it you can 1 leave, 2 you can live in the middle of nowhere in a commune with people you share ideals with, 3 you can actively, PEACEABLY and LEGALLY try to change it to your liking.

reply to post by projectvxn

Again, that wasn't the question.

The question is how am I more free living under the constitution that the forefathers forced upon us than without it?

The answer is I'm not. That is why I don't see much difference between being forced to live in a constitutional collective or a manifiesto collective when my options in both are are accept it, leave, hide or try to change it.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Again, that wasn't the question.

The question is how am I more free living under the constitution that the forefathers forced upon us than without it?

The answer is I'm not. That is why I don't see much difference between being forced to live in a constitutional collective or a manifiesto collective when my options in both are are accept it, leave, hide or try to change it.

Well, in a Constitutional government, ours in particular you have the right to express yourself as you see fit, you have the right to PEACEABLY assemble, you have the right to petition government for redress of grievances, you have the right to religious expression of your choosing.

You have the right to not be killed without due process of the law, or even searched or have property seized. You have the right to defend yourself in a court of law, you have the right to not incriminate yourself, you have the right to not be punished for your crimes beyond what is reasonable and conscientious. You have the right to move about as you see fit without having to produce papers. You have the right to make as much or as little money as you see fit and comfortable to your sensibilities. You have the right to keep and bear arms. To defend your life and property in a manner that is most befitting to you.

If you don't like any of this, then I recommend tyranny. These are enumerated NEGATIVE rights. Why are they negative? Because it restrains GOVERNMENT from imposing upon you so that you can live your life in liberty free to pursue happiness in accordance to your beliefs.

If you don't like it, you can go somewhere else. It is not making you less free because it is there. It would make you less free if it weren't.

alrightie someone is here forcing me to live without a constitution which sole purpose was as protection from government and the people themselves which no other governance has ever accomplished.

the problem here is the bastardization of the constiitution where some people think it doesnt apply to them.

in a constitutional republic such as this nation was founded as your rights will never superceed anothers rights.

Originally posted by projectvxn
If you don't like any of this, then I recommend tyranny. These are enumerated NEGATIVE rights. Why are they negative? Because it restrains GOVERNMENT from imposing upon you so that you can live your life in liberty free to pursue happiness in accordance to your beliefs.

If you don't like it, you can go somewhere else. It is not make you less free because it is there. It would make you less free if it weren't.

I see your point but it was in comparison to "no government" so that point is moot.

Individual freedoms if compared to oppressive forms of government looks good but it doesn't mean that the ideaology wasn't forced upon the individual. No matter how good of an idea there is still coercion. Much like the borg meme thrown at the left minded people on here.

Originally posted by projectvxn


Personal liberty does not mean you get to impose on others.

Exactly...

But personal liberty does not mean that corporations and banks can use the conceit of freedom
to subvert a nation. Exactly why the banks and elites have a friend in the conservative right.
You guys fight for them and ignore the basic ideas of ethics which is the foundation of freedom.
Freedom cannot be sustained in an unethical environment...

reply to post by mastahunta


You see, you're new here. And maybe you're not aware of how to read the posts of other members. So let me help you:

Here read these:

Recent posts I made on banks

I am far more aware than most of the people in OWS about what the banks are and are not. How they function and why.

I also know how to constrain them. And calling for the end of capitalism to impose some form of socialism or communist rule in the United States is the exact wrong way to go.

By the way, I'm only conservative when it comes to fiscal issues. I am otherwise a libertarian.

Originally posted by projectvxn

I am far more aware than most of the people in OWS about what the banks are and are not. How they function and why.

I also know how to constrain them. And calling for the end of capitalism to impose some form of socialism or communist rule in the United States is the exact wrong way to go.

By the way, I'm only conservative when it comes to fiscal issues. I am otherwise a libertarian.

How are you far more aware???

Communists comprise is a very small minority of OWS people. Have you even been to an event???

If you were aware, you would realize that the same machine that keeps the two party system in place

is making this about communism. The communist party in America is very small... Did the few in the

TEA PARTY who desired armed revolution make the entire movement a terrorist organization?

If you can't see that the same tactic is going on, you are blind.

reply to post by daskakik


So freedom is being forced on people now?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The whole point of American notions of Federalism and Constitutional governance is that one is NOT being forced or coerced.

If liberty is something you find forceful and coercive then there is much you have yet to learn.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by daskakik

 

So freedom is being forced on people now?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The whole point of American notions of Federalism and Constitutional governance is that one is NOT being forced or coerced.

You guys are forcing the sane people to accept the banks as they are, regardless of what they do to
America.

reply to post by mastahunta


Then why are the organizers using communist and socialist propaganda?

Why are the protesters holding signs saying END CAPITALISM?

Did you miss this post:

Link to post

That's socialist and communist imagery.

These people want revolution not constitutional governance. They want to tear down the American way of life not help it. And they have hordes of folks, like yourself, calling everyone who disagrees with that message "bank shills" or "fascists" or whatever you want to use on me.

I've been following and covering the banks for nearly 6 years. I am well aware, more than most, of what they have done and how they did it. I am also aware of how government helped them do it.

When I hear "down with capitalism" and see ISO and CPUSA propaganda spread all over a movement I avoid it and stand against it. Why? Because socialism and communism isn't what will fix the problems we have.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by daskakik

 

So freedom is being forced on people now?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The whole point of American notions of Federalism and Constitutional governance is that one is NOT being forced or coerced.

You guys are forcing the sane people to accept the banks as they are, regardless of what they do to
America.

edit on 9-10-2011 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

I guess you didn't even bother to read the posts I linked. You're just repeating and repeating and repeating your BS.

reply to post by projectvxn

How does government equal freedom?

Liberty isn't forceful or coercive having to accept the constitution and the power that it gives the government over the individual is.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by projectvxn

 

How does government equal freedom?

Liberty isn't forceful or coercive having to accept the constitution and the power that it gives the government over the individual is.

The Constitution restrains government from imposing on the individual.

But you wouldn't know that since apparently you've never read it.

reply to post by mastahunta


Here I'll post this again so you can get a clue of where I stand when it comes to banks:

Recent posts I made on banks

reply to post by projectvxn


I know exactly the purpose and scope of the constitution.

That still doesn't change the fact that it is forced upon the individual in the same way as any other form of government. You are not given a choice.