keep THEM out...or keep US in?

Okay, anyone who lives in the US (and hasn't lived in a cave or under a rock) and many of you outside the US have heard all about this whole "fortifying the US borders" thing that we have going on.

Now this is what I've been wondering...

If something major happens (like who knows what, use your imagination) and the US gov't decides that it's in the "nations best interest" to declare martial law, are the USs border fortifications designed to (seriously) keep illegal imigrants out, or to keep the "coralled sheep" in?

Seriously, think about it...

Is it truly in the USs "best interest" to have our borders turned into gestapo checkpoints?
Wouldn't that be like the old saying of shooting fish in a barrel?
(or locking the fox in the chicken coop? I think either/or would be appropriate.)

What do you people think?

I think that it's the latter, to keep you guys in while the government ''shoots the fish in the barrel''.

A scary thought, but also frigtheningly plausible, if marshall law were declared, I'm guessing many folks would rise up against it, with no way out, they wouldn't stand a chance.

Just another step.

I feel sort of like we are being scammed, and at the end we will have given up our freedom unless we change the direction we are headed. See, now it's Korea and missles, what freedom will we give up because of this, excuse me, I mean what "security" measure will take place because of this?

I'm was wondering tonight about exactly what I was celebrating on this 4th of July? I don't necessarily think I want to celebrate Bush's idea of America. If our freedom ends up taken, then how can we celebrate, unless we take back our freedom? It's like popping fireworks off for something we used to have.

I sat there listening to American songs and patriotism, but just what are many folks being patriotic to? I listened to the bugle, blown in respect for the dead soldiers, but what are the soldiers really fighting for nowadays? I know what they are told they are fighting for.

So much crap surrounds our own president, and I don't even know if I can trust him or not?

I'm a little off topic, but I just ended up there.

Troy

I believe the borders could,in theory be used to fit the situation.If things go one way...maybe they wanna keep us in.If ithey go another way.....maybe they'll want to keep others out.Best of both worlds.At least I'm sure as far as they're concerned.

Even if they were to put a 20' wall on both borders do you think this would stop people from escaping if they really wanted to? It's not like we are talking about the Berlin wall here. This wall would be thousands of miles long and there is no way, even with camaras, they could guard the whole thing.

Vas

This is rediculous and a waste of bandwidth. Go find Clinton's Executive Orders, then look at Bush's, and get back to me. Geez.......

ummm.....looking into my crystal ball here.....

ya, the vision is forming, I see the rest of the world using the US soil as a dumping ground for all their unwanteds....and the walls are there to keep us crazy americans contained.....they don't want us...

yep, that's it!!!

It would almost seem that the US is an experiment in social psychology.
See how much the elite can get away with all the while tricking the general populace into begging the gov't to take away our freedoms.

Originally posted by wu kung
It would almost seem that the US is an experiment in social psychology.
See how much the elite can get away with all the while tricking the general populace into begging the gov't to take away our freedoms.

REPLY: "...almost seem" are the operative words.

If you're in America, please list what freedoms you have lost.

Using the word "elite" gives you away.

Have you seen the soldiers walking around NYC with machine guns and giant sonic weapons?
(last time I was in Penn Station, I counted 30+ heavily armed soldiers, not police officers, actual ARMY soldiers with machine guns)
Random searches at airports, train stations and even on the streets on NYC (I've seen it with my own eyes, and no, it's not hype...)
Have you had your nail clippers confiscated at an airport?
Have you heard about cell phone companies just handing over records of call lists to the gov't?
Are you aware that banks are providing all of our personal info and spending records to the gov't?
Lower income earners being taxed harder than higher income earners.
National id cards?
(not to mention the food monopoly companies putting all sorts of chemicals into the foods)
Cameras everywhere, and even being considered being put into our cars (even the new Macs have built in cameras, you think that they won't be able to be remotely switched on?).
Cell phones that double as tracking devices.
Laws being set into place by corporations and not by the peoples' representitives.
Invading other countries under the guise of "national security" (and if you believe that, I'll sell you the Brooklyn bridge...)
Being told that if you're gay, you can't get married (and yeah, remember, people were actually trying to change the constitution to reflect this).
Drug companies lobbying to BAN (yes, an outright ban) vitamins and supplements because people taking these and getting healty might upset their (toxic) drug-dealing business.
FDA considering making (potentially toxic) flu vaccines MANDITORY (meaning: against our will); (and if you think that will help people, go get vaccinated and see how you feel; remember [or maybe you don't] the toxic effects of the MMR vaccines from the 40's & 50's?)

So what freedoms aren't we giving up?

[edit on 7/6/2006 by wu kung]

Originally posted by zappafan1

Originally posted by wu kung


Using the word "elite" gives you away.

What does that mean?
Gives what away?

quotes by wu kung

I asked about what "rights" you have lost, so let's get started:

Have you seen the soldiers walking around NYC with machine guns and giant sonic weapons? (last time I was in Penn Station, I counted 30+ heavily armed soldiers, not police officers, actual ARMY soldiers with machine guns), Random searches at airports, train stations and even on the streets on NYC

REPLY: What right(s) have you lost by those actions? Sonic weapons? The president, federal, state and local officials/law enforcement are under the obligation to protect it's citizens. You have the "right" to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, all of which are being protected by the actions you mentioned, above. "Rights" are defined as those enumerated in the Constitution/Bill of Rights. None of things restrict your freedom to move about as you wish.

Have you had your nail clippers confiscated at an airport?

REPLY: You have no "right" to carry them (most people don't "need" to carry them every day, since nails don't grow that fast, and is usually a hygenic option usually carried out at home. Airlines have the right, freedom and duty to protect their customers in any way they deem applicable.

Have you heard about cell phone companies just handing over records of call lists to the gov't?

REPLY: This depends on the "small print" in your phone contract, and has, in fact, prevented the attack on the Brooklyn Bridge. It also wasn't a list of everyone in America. You have the freedom to not use one.

Are you aware that banks are providing all of our personal info and spending records to the gov't?

REPLY: No.... not everyone, and not "all personal data." The government hardly has the resources to track and record all of that data. The logistics would be outrageous and cost prohibitive.

Lower income earners being taxed harder than higher income earners.

REPLY: While I don't have figures or extensive data on New York Taxes, I DO know that New York, being run by Liberals, tax you to an extreme extent, and if you choose to live there then don't complain. As to your general statement, it's blatantly false:

"Less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires."
The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.)
Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

"The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%)

The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%).

The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%).

The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%).

The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes of the bottom 50%!
And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%).

The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%).

The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%);

The top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income."

National id cards?

REPLY:We've had them for years, at least the "standard issue" one we have now; they're called "Social Security" cards. As for new ones being a possibility, considering the mass influx of illegals, I see no problem with them..... up to a point.

".... (not to mention the food monopoly companies putting all sorts of chemicals into the foods)...."

REPLY: Off-topic and irrelevant. You would rather buy spoiled food? You have the freedom to eat, or not eat, whatever you choose.

Cameras everywhere, and even being considered being put into our cars (even the new Macs have built in cameras, you think that they won't be able to be remotely switched on?).

REPLY: Many major cities have them. True, sometimes it's s bit overboard, but crime IS an issue in many areas where they are used. In cars? never heard it. However, ever hear of black electrical tape.... over the lens? No, as a PC teck for 14 years, if cameras are hooked up correctly, they can't turn them on remotely. However, see the tape idea, above.

Cell phones that double as tracking devices.

REPLY: Don't buy/use one!!! But, many parents like the idea, since it's a way of knowing the wereabouts of their kids (relatively speaking), and if a kid is kidnapped, it would sure help to find them.

Laws being set into place by corporations and not by the peoples' representitives.

REPLY: Corporations can't "pass" laws. Most any law/idea passed as law by Congress relates to tax breaks; we need the Fair Tax, and that would go away.

Invading other countries under the guise of "national security" (and if you believe that, I'll sell you the Brooklyn bridge...)

REPLY: You need to do more research on that subject.

Being told that if you're gay, you can't get married (and yeah, remember, people were actually trying to change the constitution to reflect this).

REPLY: The words "gay marriage" are mutually exclusive. Happy, carefree people are "gay." You are referring to homosexuals. Please use the correct term. Although I don't agree it should be a Constitutional Amendment, it SHOULD be left up to the states, and it's passage by one or more states shouldn't automatically be accepted by all states. "The People" should vote on it in their respective states.

Drug companies lobbying to BAN (yes, an outright ban) vitamins and supplements because people taking these and getting healty might upset their (toxic) drug-dealing business.

REPLY: The contributuions to society by drug/chemical companies has doubled the life expectancy of Americans, and has helped a great deal in the rest of the world. The benefits of "natural" vitamins and supplements vary greatly depending upon correct choice and usage, which most people don't know about. By the way, the "ban" will never be passed. Your choice.... don't take them (that goes for aspirin, too.

So what freedoms aren't we giving up?

REPLY: Please see all of the above!


[edit on 6-7-2006 by zappafan1]

Touche!

But basically the point I was trying to make was that we should have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Things that the above, in my opinion, infringe on.
Although, excellent use of referencing.

Although a few things about some of the above (I didn't want to continuosly [sp?] use quotes)...
You just go on thinking that the gov't has our best interests at heart and that drug companies care about our health and well being.

Under no circumstances, do I believe that the state (or anyone else for that matter) should have the right to tell any two consenting adults that they can or can not get married, period.

And in reference to the chemicals in food, that's pretty much the response I was expecting.
It's not about spoiled food.

So, why did we invade?
Oil?

And I've seen the random searches.
That infringes on the the prevention of unreasonable search and seizure, isn't that a right?

And a bunch of people strutting around with machine guns...
That doesn't make me feel safe.
If anything, it scares the hell out of me.
It reflects the idea of a police state (and I know I'm not the only person who feels that way...)

Social security cards... True. Anything that you've put your social security # on can be tracked.
Any purchase that you've made with a debit or credit card linked with that ss# can be tracked.
Isn't that against our right to privacy?

But you still did not answer my question about what you meant by my "giving it away" in reference to the use of the word "elite".

(ps. I never said that corporations "pass" laws, I simply stated that they use their lobbyists to get laws into place that reflect their best interests. I know, I know, lobbying has been around for years, that's true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's right.)

[edit on 7/6/2006 by wu kung]

[edit on 7/6/2006 by wu kung]

Under no circumstances, do I believe that the state (or anyone else for that matter) should have the right to tell any two consenting adults that they can or can not get married, period.

REPLY: Homosexuality is not "normal" in any civilization. The definition of Marriage as being between one man and one woman is defined that way for a reason. If the term "marriage" can mean anything, then it means nothing. Case in point: A woman in France or Germany recently wanted to "marry" her horse.

So, why did we invade? Oil?

REPLY: No!! Ask those 12 million in Iraq who freely voted for the first time in 40 years.

And I've seen the random searches. That infringes on the the prevention of unreasonable search and seizure, isn't that a right?

REPLY: You'd have to refer to your local city and state laws on that.

And a bunch of people strutting around with machine guns...
That doesn't make me feel safe. If anything, it scares the hell out of me.
It reflects the idea of a police state (and I know I'm not the only person who feels that way...)

REPLY: Considering that all of those people are well trained would help me to feel safe. And if they weren't there, and something tragic happened again, how would you feel? Who would be blamed for the in-action? I would guess that the majority of people feel better knowing that action is being taken.

Isn't that against our right to privacy?

REPLY: No. There is no "right to privacy" in the Bill of Rights.

Under no circumstances, do I believe that the state (or anyone else for that matter) should have the right to tell any two consenting adults that they can or can not get married, period.

REPLY: Homosexuality is not "normal" in any civilization. The definition of Marriage as being between one man and one woman is defined that way for a reason. If the term "marriage" can mean anything, then it means nothing. Case in point: A woman in France or Germany recently wanted to "marry" her horse.

So, why did we invade? Oil?

REPLY: No!! Ask those 12 million in Iraq who freely voted for the first time in 40 years.

And I've seen the random searches. That infringes on the the prevention of unreasonable search and seizure, isn't that a right?

REPLY: You'd have to refer to your local city and state laws on that.

And a bunch of people strutting around with machine guns...
That doesn't make me feel safe. If anything, it scares the hell out of me.
It reflects the idea of a police state (and I know I'm not the only person who feels that way...)

REPLY: Considering that all of those people are well trained would help me to feel safe. And if they weren't there, and something tragic happened again, how would you feel? Who would be blamed for the in-action? I would guess that the majority of people feel better knowing that action is being taken.

Isn't that against our right to privacy?

REPLY: No. There is no "right to privacy" in the Bill of Rights.

I know, lobbying has been around for years, that's true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's right.)

REPLY: True. But until the Fair Tax is passed it will not go away.

But you still did not answer my question about what you meant by my "giving it away" in reference to the use of the word "elite".

REPLY: It would take too long, and I must get to work.

REPLY: Homosexuality is not "normal" in any civilization. The definition of Marriage as being between one man and one woman is defined that way for a reason. If the term "marriage" can mean anything, then it means nothing. Case in point: A woman in France or Germany recently wanted to "marry" her horse.

Not "normal"? Oh yeah, right, I forgot...it's a disease, right?
Oh please...

So, why did we invade? Oil?

REPLY: No!! Ask those 12 million in Iraq who freely voted for the first time in 40 years.

Just because it's an "election" doesn't mean it's not fixed by people playing both sides...
Besides, I thought we were looking for WMDs.
Oh wait, that's right...
There were none!

And I've seen the random searches. That infringes on the the prevention of unreasonable search and seizure, isn't that a right?

REPLY: You'd have to refer to your local city and state laws on that.

Are you serious?
I believe it's the freakin' fourth amendment to the Constitution.

And a bunch of people strutting around with machine guns...
That doesn't make me feel safe. If anything, it scares the hell out of me.
It reflects the idea of a police state (and I know I'm not the only person who feels that way...)

REPLY: Considering that all of those people are well trained would help me to feel safe. And if they weren't there, and something tragic happened again, how would you feel? Who would be blamed for the in-action? I would guess that the majority of people feel better knowing that action is being taken.

Yeah, trained to kill people.
Something tragic?
Like another fixed election...
Action being taken?
Like us being lied to by our gov't?

Isn't that against our right to privacy?

REPLY: No. There is no "right to privacy" in the Bill of Rights.

No, but there are rights alluding to privacy in the Constitution though.

You can read some of it here:
www.law.cornell.edu...



(I'm still trying to get the hang of the quote system here on ATS...)
(holy smokes did I have to do some editing...)

[edit on 7/6/2006 by wu kung]

[edit on 7/6/2006 by wu kung]

[edit on 7/6/2006 by wu kung]

[edit on 7/6/2006 by wu kung]

[edit on 7/6/2006 by wu kung]

[edit on 7/6/2006 by wu kung]

[edit on 7/6/2006 by wu kung]

Not "normal"? Oh yeah, right, I forgot...it's a disease, right?

REPLY: No, not a disease. You said that, not me. Something that only represents maybe 4% of the population is not by any definition, "normal", and is still considered an aberrent (and abhorrent) condition.

Besides, I thought we were looking for WMDs. Oh wait, that's right...
There were none!

REPLY: This has been covered on other threads. You REALLY need to do some research!

Are you serious? I believe it's the freakin' fourth amendment to the Constitution.

REPLY: Amendment IV (1791) "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Do you see the word "Privacy" there anywhere?

Yeah, trained to kill people. Like another fixed election... Like us being lied to by our gov't?

REPLY: No, Trained to disable or kill, depending on the situation.
Geez... this is all old news... OK, I'll bite: The elections were won; what lies?

No, but there are rights alluding to privacy in the Constitution though.

REPLY: Ummmmm, the Bill of Rights IS a part of The Constitution.

Besides, I thought we were looking for WMDs. Oh wait, that's right...
There were none!

REPLY: This has been covered on other threads. You REALLY need to do some research!

Research? What more needs to be said. It's true, isn't it?

Are you serious? I believe it's the freakin' fourth amendment to the Constitution.
REPLY: Amendment IV (1791) "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Do you see the word "Privacy" there anywhere?

You're twisting my words, the reference to the 4th was specifically for search and siezure, I think you need to pay better attention to others words.

Yeah, trained to kill people. Like another fixed election... Like us being lied to by our gov't?


REPLY: No, Trained to disable or kill, depending on the situation.
Geez... this is all old news... OK, I'll bite: The elections were won; what lies?

We were lied to about wmd's, right?
We were lied to about Sadam's involvment in 9/11, right?
Donald Rumsfeld said he knows where the weapons can be found (then conveniently said that he never said that), right?
I'd consider those lies.
And martial law, would be considered a situation to disable and kill, would it not?

No, but there are rights alluding to privacy in the Constitution though.

REPLY: Ummmmm, the Bill of Rights IS a part of The Constitution.

That's your argument?
Are you serious?
Debating semantics about where these rights can be found?
Very nice...

But you still haven't answered my question about my remark about using the term "elite".
Gave what away?


(and just for the record, I'm not a democrat or republican; I'm non-partisan. To me, all politicians lie and most are [figuratively] in bed together on the same subjects).
Also, you keep saying that some of the above has been covered in other threads, it has.
I had no intention about going into those topics until I was goaded by you.
If you check the beginning of this thread, it was about our border fortification and martial law.
You keep saying that I need to do more research, perhaps I do.
But so do you, my friend, so do you...

ps: are you a neocon by any chance?

Research? What more needs to be said. It's true, isn't it?

REPLY: NO!!! And I'm not doing the research for you; I've done it in about four other threads.

You're twisting my words, the reference to the 4th was specifically for search and siezure, I think you need to pay better attention to others words.

REPLY: No, YOU'RE twisting your words; you implied that the "right to privacy" was in the constitution, and I provided the amendment showing you were wrong. You said the right to privacy was "eluded to" in the Constitution. Sorry, the "living document" (Constitution) alluded to by Algore, and taught at Cornell (a bastion of Marxism) doesn't cut it. 'Ya go by exactly what it says; that's why it's there.

We were lied to about wmd's, right? We were lied to about Sadam's involvment in 9/11, right?

REPLY: No, neither are true. Google "mother of all connections" and see the AQ/Saddam ties for yourself; I've known it for over two years. No one said Saddam was "directly" tied to 9-11.

Considering the definition of "Neocon", it would stilll be a compliment. But, no; I'm a Constitutional Libertarian, although I'm more driven by the Constitution than by most of the Libertarian ideaology.


"Elite" Noun
def: A group or class of persons enjoying superior intellectual or social or economic status."

This, of course, defines those who are educated, the majority of which have busted their butts to be superior intellectually, and successful in their lives. They are the ones who have taken the greatest risks to devolop new products, come up with new ideas and start companies, which then hire people and provide an income for their families, which generates wealth for everyone, and grows the economy.

Calling someone the "elite" is a compliment, and your (possible) attempt to use it in a defamatory way only shows your disdain for then, and probably your inability to become anything like them; hence dislike, hatred or envy.

Neoconservatism Noun
def: Political ideology of the US new conservatives, favoring hawkish views on foreign policy, minimal government regulation and little emphasis on social issues.

Both are good things.

[edit on 7-7-2006 by zappafan1]

i think martial law would be an excellent idea to take the guns of americans. it is the only way really the government could do it.

then americans would be in trouble, because the government could do anything to you guys if they take your protection.