Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US

page: 29
23
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mal1970
 


For the last time im not interpreting your rights. I asked the question to highlight the lack of knowledge. The issue with life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a prime example. The people who invoke it didnt know where to find it. When I responded to people with no, ill bet dollars to donuts that the bulk really did think its spelled out in the constitution. To touch on your and a couple others people comments on this, whether or not something is listed directly is irrelevent. Its the fact that when you ask them how its a right, they cant explain it - They will claim it, but they cant explain it.

Its bad joojoo playing that game because eventually someone will call the bluff and the person is not ognna see whats coming dwon the road at them.

I can rattle of the 27 amendments, and we can teach almost anyone to do the same. Whats missing is understanding those rights. Another example - Someone brought up the COG (continuity of government) and claimed it as being illegal. What the person overlooked is the 25th amendment. That only covers the office of the President and nothing else. You would need to refer back to the Natioanl security act of 1947 to see where the COG came from.

What good is it to be able to recite them when one doesnt understand them? What good does it do when we fixate on the small things that really arent issues at all, like COG?

How do we fix education? We pass a bill that allocates 10 times the defense budget (all of it) for edcation only. It should be free, our teachers should be up to the task, and for Gods sake we nust take it off the Agrarian calender. People never understood why they get summers off. Many just assume because its the summer. Its actually because of the students needing to help bring in the harvest on the farm.

Does it make much sense that schools in New York city are on the agrarian school schedule? Yet the people are silent.




posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Not sure why you keep coming back to the rights question since it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


Umm, because it was you thread title and OP.



Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US
edit on 19-10-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


Not quite the intention behind the post. I explained that to you that it has nothing to do with what rights are lost and which ones arent, and more to do with how they work and how the government works. If we dont have the basics down... well, look where we are at.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Wrong again.. They were answered.


You know what?I feel generous,you have one more chance to go and copy paste your original answers (i'm not holding my breath).No,this time you can't toss the whole thing and say "here's your answers",copy paste them one by one.You did great with brand new answers,what's wrong with the old ones?



I can't reply right now to each piece seperately because i'm a bit tired so i'll go ahead and argue about the people not doing anything.
I've explained to you why it's wrong to blame the people fully.In my previous post i typed some of the things that either trouble the people or distract them from the things they should actually focus on and many of those things are meant to be there.
While all of us are a part of our own societies the truth is that most of the time we can't,for instance,change the laws or make new ones.The few times that we can we have to go through a living hell to achieve it.In the other hand,governments can make or reform laws in the blink of an eye."Don't vote em again." you say but some times things are not that simple.Remember how Obama got elected?The people we're too desperate to get rid of Bush,they were focused on his actions and they fell into Obama's lap.At those times,i too was hoping for the S.O.B. to be elected allthough i don't even live there.Why?Because of the chaos Bush had created!

As far as this argument goes this might be my last reply since this wont lead anywhere.Oh well.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Oceanborn
 


So then our government doesnt derive its authority from the consent of the people? Government does what government does because we allow it.

You cant lay the blame on government because the people put the government in place. When the government decided to go all Stalin on the people, the people allowed it.

As ive said, it takes an understanding of government, rights, etc to fix the government. People can find time to watch american idle, go to a sports event, gamblke, vacation, yet cant find an hour or 2 a month t go to city council meetings? school board meetings? Contact their reps and give feedback? vote?





At the end of the day, its we the peoples problem.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You and JPZ are reading way to far into this. You, He and I are on the same page and have the same positions. I am pointing out, again, that people dont have an adequate grasp of the constitution, their rights etc.

Anyone cant state they are being deprived the right to drink raw milk, or stating the Patriot Act violates rights. Asking that person to identify in the Constitution that extends that protection (being able to) is whats being called into question.


I do not feel I am reading too much into this and I have to disagree with your position that "we are on the same page". When you say that you are asking a person to identify in the Constitution that extends that protection you are viewing the Constitution as a document aimed at the People, when it is not. This has been the countless explanations from me, JPZ and other posters that have taken the time to explain; yet you just pass over them.

Here. Consider this from Federalist Papers No. 84


But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.


He continues on with the following warning; a warning in which has come to pass. It highlights exactly your argument and view of the Constitution. It is why JPZ and I have on numerous occasions gone to great lengths to educate you on.


[T]hat bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?


That is straight from the horse's mouth. It is a Constitution of Government not a document on how to live. Are you telling me Hamilton (possibly Madison; that is contended by some scholars) has it backwards?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo
 


You don't have to fly and you wont be subjected to probes. This is not a loss of any rights though. Just an inconvenience.
I flew from Virginia to Vegas. The only valid ID I had was my voter regestration card and and expired driver license. I got through just fine with only an explaination that this was all the ID I had. The voter card helped as it is state issued. I didnt feel violated in any sense. This is what we need to do these days to ensure safety in the skies.
I still have freedom of speech. I have freedom of the press. I can worship or not any god I please. I can live where ever I want as long as I can afford it. I can own a gun. I can vote for my choice of representation. Basically my life has not changed due to 9/11. Except for being disenchanted in my countires ability to protect me nothing is different for me personally.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by morder1
I used to like playing poker online for a few bucks(5-10 at a time)

But now I cant... FBI shut down all the poker sites 5-6 months back...

I lost the money I did have invested, well I didnt lose it, it was stolen from me and never given back... nor was my player points that I earned


Yeah but what "right" was lost through this. Your right to gamble? You can still do that. Go to Las Vegas or Atlantic City or Delaware. Online poker is not a right.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
Yeah but what "right" was lost through this. Your right to gamble? You can still do that. Go to Las Vegas or Atlantic City or Delaware. Online poker is not a right.


True that gambling, the activity itself, is not a right. What is a right though is that of private property. If two consenting individuals wish to gamble their private property I fail to see why the State takes interest in outlawing/banning such a practice.

Ultimately though this comes down to, as does many of the rights people have listed here in this thread, is State and local Governments typically impose such regulations and laws. In that effect, I find nothing wrong with that practice of a local community wishing to not have gambling establishments in their town and regulating the business of it; but not the private practice of it.

What I do find wrong is why are people so interested in what goes on in another person's home?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


That depends on which rights you are referring to.

Constitutional rights, Civil rights, or (my favorite) Unalienable rights?

Depending on your answer it could be a very very long list.
edit on 19-10-2011 by I Want To Believe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I've lost the right to choose whether or not I want to wear my seatbelt without getting pulled over and being extorted (fined). All for what, my safety? You can ride a motorcycle without a helmet, that's okay, but I have to wear a seatbelt? Whatever; they found a new way to fundraise, that's all it boils down to is money. I don't fly for the obvious reasons. Pat downs, etc. If I really thought long and hard I'd come up with a very long list but that's off the top of my head.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


You guys are though. The question I asked was not to highlight issues with rights. It was to highlight the level of the lack of knowledge people ahve about their rights, where they are at, what they mean, how they are applied in addition to how the government works at all levels and a citizens responsibility in all of it.

I could ask the question whats 2 + 2, and we would get peple answering that question. Its entirely possible though that the question is not designed for people who know the answer, but rather those who dont know the answer.

It is geared at those who can give the answer yet not able to explain how they arrived at the right answer.

As I said, any person can recite information however that doesnt do any good when they dont understand the info itself.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


If a suicidal person goes to their neighbor and asks their neighbor to kill him because he doesnt want to live anymore, and that neighbor agrees and takes the suicidal guy into the basement and kills him, is he responsible?

It occured in private, on private property, between consenting adults.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by I Want To Believe
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


That depends on which rights you are referring to.

Constitutional rights, Civil rights, or (my favorite) Unalienable rights?

Depending on your answer it could be a very very long list.
edit on 19-10-2011 by I Want To Believe because: (no reason given)


Agreed.. The intent of my op and question though was not to have people list their rights. It was designed to highlight the lack of knowledge people have about their rights, how the government works, their place in that government etc etc etc.

To give a more refined example -
If you accuse the government of infringing on your right, and you sue the government for it, the judge is going to want an argument that makes the case. The person will have to walk to judge from point A to point Z, laying out the actions of the government, the rights that were infringed / taken away and a compelling argument that would counter the governments arguemnt point by point.

Simply walking into court and saying the government took / infringed on this, without being able to make your case or offer any information to support your case, chances are you wont win. We can take it one step further now, since the person lost the case, that ruling now becomes case law / sets a precedence.

That ruling could then be used in courts across the country, all because of a lack of knowledge.

We all know about the slippery slope argument. In this case though we would be the ones who not only pushed the argument down the slope, but supercharged it.




posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenofsheba
I've lost the right to choose whether or not I want to wear my seatbelt without getting pulled over and being extorted (fined). All for what, my safety? You can ride a motorcycle without a helmet, that's okay, but I have to wear a seatbelt? Whatever; they found a new way to fundraise, that's all it boils down to is money. I don't fly for the obvious reasons. Pat downs, etc. If I really thought long and hard I'd come up with a very long list but that's off the top of my head.


Wearing a seatbelt is not federal, its local / state.
Wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is not Federal, its local / state.

Both of which can be repealed if the voters participated in government.

Why do you think those laws are in place?


Also, I noticed you use the term patdown. Congrats on that because that is exactly what occurs at the airports. People use the violation of the 4th amendment in that regards. A patdown is not a search, and their are fundamental differences between the 2.

A patdown is not a violation of the 4th. Even if it were, you are still voluntarily going through the security check point, therby consenting to to security process. My point though was we need to be familiar with our rights, what they are how they work how our government works at all levels, and how we fit into all of that.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You didn't answer my question. In order for me to accurately repond to your original post I have to know what the parameters are. For instance which rights you are referring to? There are many rights we have. Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution or the Civil Rights Act are among some of the right we Americans have but you have to be specific in order for me to answer your question. A general term such as "Rights Americans have" isnt very specific.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by I Want To Believe
 


Actually I asked the question to demonstrate people have a lack of knowledge and understanding of their rights, what they are, where they are located, how they apply and how the government works. If someone is going to state the government took something from them, they should at least have a basic understanding of the situation.

Its going to be hard for people to fix the government when they dont understand how it works.

People must take part in government, at all levels, and must be knowledgeable



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by kalamatas
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You skipped over my post on pg. 10 about GMO's and food rights etc. I'm waiting for the rebuttal.


then I refer you to the state of minnesoata, who smacked Monsanto back down.


Okay, now I think I get what you're saying. But the crazy thing is why in a free country are we having to battle laws etc. and actions that are so absurdly anti-freedom? The fact is no one should be having to fight against their government and the special interests to keep our freedoms. The government is supposed to protect them, right?

I'm not in Minnesota, and I was referring to the GMO labeling as the big issue personally effecting me. While I hope with the awareness of others and us standing up attain this right the situation changes. But we shouldn't be having to fight something so ludicrously anti-freedom to begin with. Obama made a campaign promise to require GMO labeling. He did not do so, and rather made the road clear for Monsanto's GE garbage to continue to be hidden in the majority of packaged foods. GMO's are not the same a natural crops, and with his campaign promise he knew the issue. I have personally been effected by this, as have you and everyone else in this country. This isn't just a matter of freedom, this is a matter of deceit by people who are supposed to be protecting our freedoms.

I get your point (I think) that we still have the right to stand up for our freedoms, but when every attempt is being made to take them away or redefine them, how can we still call this a free country? While it may be somewhere in between at this point, the fact that government and corporations are knowing working against even basic inherent rights is a clear indicator of the slow attempt at erosion of them.

Which brings me to the question, what is the point of this thread? I understand that we still have to ability to stand up for our rights, but the fundamental problem of those who are supposed to be working for us actually working against us is not what a free country should look like. I understand as a free society it is our obligation to take responsibility for preserving our freedom, but to the extent that people are having to not just preserve, but fight and sometimes regain rights has become scary.

In the grand scheme of things no one should have to fight for rights.
edit on 20-10-2011 by kalamatas because: typos
edit on 20-10-2011 by kalamatas because: typo



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by kalamatas
 


Fighting for rights is the point behind Democracy and Freedom. The point behind the thread was not so much to have people try and list their rights. It was to highlight that lack of knowledge and understanding of those rights, what documents they are in, how they apply, and how the government works.

People are constantly stating the government is taking rights away, yet they dont follow it up. Its just a blanket statement. How does a person fight a blanket statement? - with facts.

Its one thing for a person to state life, liberty and the puruist of happiness is a right. Its something else entirely when they cant say what document you can find that line. Its one thing for a person to claim a 4th amendment violation, and its something else entirely when they dont understand how the right works and is applied, and who its applied to.

If people are to make the argument in defense of their rights, dont you think they should be familiar with those rights? Its hard to challenge the government and its actions when one doesnt understand the argument.

My point is for people to learn, to educate themselves not only about their rights, but how government works and to participate in that government. We are in the position we are in because of apathy. For to long people have either not cared or just assume other people will do the right thing.

Because of that the government we have is a disgrace - across all party lines. That wont change until the people decide to act. When you walk into a court and tell the judge the government took this from me, and the judge asks you questions to support that argument, and you cant give him one, then what? That challenge just beame a double edged sword.

Why should we have to fight for this?

When our government was being put together, a person asked on of the delegates what kind of government did we get?

That person responded by saying - A Republic - if they can keep it.
edit on 21-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I gotcha and agree, but the problem isn't just apathy it's deceit as well. It's a two way street. Sure people have become too comfortable with things and don't bother to educate themselves so the lies more easily just slip by. But when I asked "why should we have to fight" I guess I'm simply pointing out the insanity that there exists people and institutions so morally corrupt. I'm all for doing my part to stand up for my rights and will be doing with participating in the attempt at gaining a ballot initiative in California to require GMO labeling.

But this is just the pull back and forth in a tug of that is becoming insanely unbalanced, not solely because of apathy but equally and possibly more so because of lies, deceit, corruption etc. as evidenced in this new thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obviously the more people that wake up and band together the better, but people would have to dedicate their lives to seeking out and uprooting the corruption to keep any sort of hold on the decline of freedom that's happening. Where's the freedom and prosperity in that? To have to spend you life in vigilant guard against it because of not only ever present, but unseen and monstrous threat? Is that what we were put on this earth to do? Always be at the precipice of a war? When the attempt to scoot by laws without anyone noticing, not just on a national level but global level are a constant, who gets to taste their freedom if their life becomes that of a watchdog? The attempts at removing our fundamental rights are one too many and go beyond just the walls of our country.

I agree apathy is a problem a very big one, but it is not the Goliath of the situation.
edit on 21-10-2011 by kalamatas because: typo
edit on 21-10-2011 by kalamatas because: typo



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I can't stand on a soap box and rant my head off.

Yes, you can


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I can't slap a gun on my hip and travel freely.

Yes you can.


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I can't grow and harvest a plant.

Show me where this is a guarnateed indiviual right


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I can't repair my roof.

Show me where this is a guaranteed individual right?



Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I can't freely trade my property.

Yes you can


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I can't freely trade my time.

Shoe me where this is an individual right



Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
To start.


keep going
Are you kidding me? you are one strange cat or sheep for that matter.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join