Originally posted by StarValleyWyI see what you're saying, but I don't actually know enough about what the demands for joining the court is, or what you're expected to give up. I just chose it as a well known example.
Compromise is good. Full out capitulation can also be good, in the right circumstance. But not if you have to give up hard earned freedoms to do so. I agree with most of what you say. The thing we as americans can't seem to get across ...[text shortened]... he people. (Notice: No mention of world governments or courts)
However, when was that constitution written?
I mean - a militia? Is this necessary today? It's all very well revering your constitutional rights but they are bound to be out-dated eventually. In England we have laws such as it being legal to shoot scotsmen (with arrows) from the walls of the city of York (and welshmen in Chester) dating back nearly 1000 years.
Oh, and I think Switzerland would fit on this count - they have a mean militia 😉
Originally posted by VargIt is not a well understood fact, but the governor of each state is "required" to maintain a militia. They have no choice. It is now called the "National Guard" but it is still a militia. It is about 65% of the total strength of the armed forces of the nation. As to whether this is necessary "today"?... I don't know... The american civil war was as much about the rights of the states to oppose the rights of the federal government as it was about slavery. If I had to choose between the perpetuation of slavery or the right of the federal government to abolish a state militia... I would come down against slavery. But, luckily slavery is gone and the question now is whether guns get up in the middle of the night, under their own power and commit crime or whether people are responsible. No gun, knife, sling-shot or bow and arrow has ever decided to kill someone. The question is then whether there are people responsible enough to keep arms without terrorizing other people. I say that there are millions who can be that responsible. Immature's and those who don't want to take the defence of their family upon themselves think that "somebody else" should defend them. Bull. It's a bad, thankless job and only a selfish baby would put it onto another human being. If you aren't willing to defend yourself and your family from the evil's of the world you are nothing but a baby. Thus my previous references to the "immature" party or the so called democrats.
I see what you're saying, but I don't actually know enough about what the demands for joining the court is, or what you're expected to give up. I just chose it as a well known example.
However, when was that constitution written?
I mean - ...[text shortened]... Switzerland would fit on this count - they have a mean militia 😉
When it was written is not relevent. If it holds as a basic truth, whether it be a day old or a millenium old has no relevence. Switzerland is an excellent example of being "forced" to defend yourself. They don't hire guns the way certain other nations do. (Vatican, smattican! Dumbest "nation" on earth! Lazy damned priests who are too cowardly to even defend themselves!)
Sounds like you should use our "right to petition" to change some of those weird laws. We can put ANYTHING onto any ballot if 5% of the population signs a petition. 😵 First Amendment... and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Maybe the Scot's should get a petition drive going!
Originally posted by StarValleyWyActually there are thousands of those outdated laws, not all weird. Mostly to do with looking at a neighbours pig or something 😵
Sounds like you should use our "right to petition" to change some of those weird laws. We can put ANYTHING onto any ballot if 5% of the population signs a petition. 😵 First Amendment... and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Maybe the Scot's should get a petition drive going!
I think I heard one guy has the job of going through the records and cancelling them all.
Maybe we are keeping the scottish one for a reason - you never know when they might want to sack York again 😀
Originally posted by willatkinstechnically the anglo-saxons attempted to eliminate the celts and britons; the vikings tried to eliminate the anglo-saxons; the normans tried to eliminate the vikings. For all we know the celts and britons eliminated someone else before then. Has anyone figured out what "ethnicity" the British are? I would like to know!!!
No, the British may not have driven Native Indians off of their island, they chose to do it in far off lands in a vast colonial system. Why spill the blood on your own land(India comes to mind). When the British finally couldn't control the population, they "granted" them their independence. And as for Native American bashing, I suggest you go back a ...[text shortened]... et more recent, lets talk the leveling of German cities during WWII or Northern Ireland today.
As for colonialism, was that not the beginning of globalisation and the spread of capitalism that america is often blamed for. If anyone disagreed with the British system, they had a good way of getting them round to their point of view - kill them. The British should not be as proud of our history as we are. Don't forget we may have ended the slave trade - but we also started it!!
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by mmanuelAs guility as Britain is, I think it is unfair to say we started the slave trade, as this is not true. In true British fashion we exploited the existing slave trade system that was running between the various tribes in West Africa and offered them a better market for their goods.
technically the anglo-saxons attempted to eliminate the celts and britons; the vikings tried to eliminate the anglo-saxons; the normans tried to eliminate the vikings. For all we know the celts and britons eliminated someone else before then. Has anyone figured out what "ethnicity" the British are? I would like to know!!!
As for colonialism, was that no ...[text shortened]... ur history as we are. Don't forget we may have ended the slave trade - but we also started it!!
Even the utopia of the Greek empire was built on the foundations of slavery. It more a case of we as a spicies are not very nice rather than a product of nationality or ethnicity
Andrew
Originally posted by latex bishopGood point, but before the British were involved the slave trade was a small local enterprise; afterwards it was a globalised industry. Regarding the greek empire: a census carried out in the greek city of Attica revelaed that only 7% of the population were NOT enslaved - and often slaves were blinded and tongues cut out so they could not ferment ideas of escaping - some utopia!!!!!!!
As guility as Britain is, I think it is unfair to say we started the slave trade, as this is not true. In true British fashion we exploited the existing slave trade system that was running between the various tribes in West Africa and offered them a better market for their goods.
Even the utopia of the Greek empire was built on the foundations of sla ...[text shortened]... e of we as a spicies are not very nice rather than a product of nationality or ethnicity
Andrew
Originally posted by StarValleyWyGeorge Bush and Donald Rumsfeld pose a far greater threat to your rights than the U.N. ever will.
[b]Compromise is good. Full out capitulation can also be good, in the right circumstance. But not if you have to give up hard earned freedoms to do so. I agree with most of what you say. The thing we as americans can't seem to get across to the rest of the world is that we will not... can not join in a "world court" or any such organization until ALL OF ...[text shortened]... he UN and World Court adopt (at minimum) the following, I will be for joining those organizations...
wow i realy got you all going didnt i well noe i need to point out a few things,
i have already appologised to you all about the rants on directassault, there are some god points in it, i think if i made it in to a more constucted argument and planed and researched for it i could improve, as well as getting a few more people thinking and not just ignore it because it is a rant.
britain didnt exterminate india we exploited their resources and cheep labour instaling our own law, thats why it was a colony, we only gave it up after WWII because we could not afford to keep the empire going, it was also part of the deal for getting them to fight for us.
The saxons, normans, vikings ect didnt try to exterminate they tried to controle and faught for the best land, we are actually decendents of all of them, the welsh the first lot, cornish+midlands are saxons, scotland+some of ireland are viking, and in the east and south they are most likely normans, (this is though a generalisation).
no i havent been to america but both my parents have, i trust my parents views (especially mum), the one thing they told more than anything else is that the rich poor devide is just as big as some developing countrys. i am also a history student so i dont take one sided arguments, if you ask any of my friends (jimmi t, nktwild) they will tell you i dont jump on any band wagons.
you say a few ammericans had to die to get slavery to end in america (not having to go to war means we are better doesnt it?) but did you know the primary reason for offering freedom was so they would fight in that war.
i thaught i had made it clear i understood there were some exceptions to the americans i dislike, incidently the last american i met was when i was 12 he was were 24 (all he did was talk about how great his country was, my mum pointed out wahat was bull s***)and i was allot quieter then and hadnt done GCSE history which opened my eyes to your history according to both sides of the argument.
to the person who put up the list of ammendments you might want to look at this page,
http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm
it should add a bit more to you point and brings up a good few questions about the legitimesy of some millitary action.
the program that started all this off was very informative, the last few comments by the studeo panel realy had some good points (well done me palistinian speaker, i agree and so should many other countrys) the US speaker just didnt have a answer for many of their points. about N korea two girls were killed by US army drivers while on duty the US drivers were sent home the next day the family could take no action and got no appology, THAT IS JUST WRONG, america cant have any moral high ground on this one.
the results of the program show how all but america and israle (suprise suprise) see america as a threat on as the mistermeaner in the majority of the polls.
The administrator must be waiting for some one to say they declare nuclear war on someones mum who is also a whore(or some other demeaning expletive that shows th immaturity of the auther).
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by Super SpiffyPeople were upset because you made an unfounded and illogical attack on their country. you set out to offend and inflame and got exactly what you wanted, in doing so you mase yourself look stupid which now severley weakens your attempt to start a debate on this.
wow i realy got you all going didnt i well noe i need to point out a few things,
i have already appologised to you all about the rants on directassault, there are some god points in it, i think if i made it in to a more constucted argument and planed and researched for it i could improve, as well as getting a few more people thinking and not just ignor ...[text shortened]... m who is also a whore(or some other demeaning expletive that shows th immaturity of the auther).
So America is a bad place because your mother told you so? My mother has told me lots of things that as I have grown up I have found to be either untrue or based on uninformed opinion.
Yes there is a big social problem in America, there is a big divide between rich and poor, but that does not make Americans bad people per se, it just means some are poor and some are rich.
A little knowlegde is a bad thing, you say you are a history student and so you know what you are talking about. To what level have you studied history, and to a greater extent to what level have you studied American history, and the history of Imperialsim?
More than a few Americans died in the US Civil War. Lincoln was not the Hitler of his age. Lincoln went to war as he believed that the US should remain one country and that all states were bound by the same federal law. If the US banned slavery then certain states could not say no and pull out of the union. Lincoln did not start the war - the Confedracy did. So when Freedom was granted to US slaves it was nothing to do with them fighting in a war.
I have no intention of demeaning your mother as to do so would only demean myself.
Andrew
Originally posted by Super SpiffyAndrew is a lot nicer than i am...
[b]wow i realy got you all going didnt i well noe i need to point out a few things,
You couldn't point out your own (edit, edit) ... nose using both hands. As for being a "history student" ... enough said for your educational system. Try picture books next time... your chances of discovery will improve a bit. Maybe. Doubtful. Never mind.
I thought that I'd better just mention that although Spiffy has studied history only in school, I've studied the subject (mainly the wars) quite extensively out of school. I can say that although the Union didn't abolish slavery to acquire a load of troops, the majority of the Union officers still didn't treat the african-americans any better. The unit nicknamed the Denzels (sp?) was often sent in first and had the shortest life expectancy of any unit during the civil war.
I'm just stating the facts and not trying to provoke anyone. I'm fairly unsure on the whole issue of america and its involvement in the middle east. George Bush (jnr), has made american foriegn policy far more agressive than it has been since the Cold War and this has been reacted to badly by many people.
The palestinian issue. Well, I think that the isreali's do deserve some recognition of having been kicked out of the area by the palastinians in the first place. While they're being far too agressive, an eye for an eye... The palastinians have a similar view and in the words of Gandhi "an eye for an eye and the world will go blind".
In a question to StarValleyWy in the post, and I qoute " ...Immature's and those who don't want to take the defence of their family upon themselves think that "somebody else" should defend them... are you promoting vigilanteism in this? I can why you've said this but it has to be considered that open gun laws are open to use by criminals as well as by law abiding people defending themselves.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNow it's you who's being immature and simplistic. While it is patently obvious that no weapons are going to go and kill people of their own volition, it is also obvious that the people who commit crimes using these weapons could more easily be controlled if they weren't thus armed. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Fine. Now take guns from people and it makes it more difficult. According to recent statistics, about 2% of stabbings in the Unnited States are fatal, while around 30% of shootings are. It seems fairly clear that practically speaking, eliminating guns would save lives.
No gun, knife, sling-shot or bow and arrow has ever decided to kill someone. The question is then whether there are people responsible enough to keep arms without terrorizing other people. I say that there are millions who can be that ...[text shortened]... ferences to the "immature" party or the so called democrats.
Furthermore, guns represent basically obsolete ideas about what is necessary to survive. There exists NO PERSON in the continental US who MUST depend on hunting to survive. Nobody needs guns for self-defense, ideally, because in an enlightened and democratic coutry with practicality at heart, the enforcers of law should always be vastly better armed than the citizen, which is not currently the case because of misinterpretation of that fool 2nd Amendment.
*********************DIGRESSION ALERT*********************
Don't get me started on the Constitution. Why the government chooses to believe that the modern world can be run by a piece of 216-year-old dogma, with fewer than 30 substantial changes, is beyond me. (I suppose you Brits are worse in this respect. The Magna Carta dates to 1215, correct?) "All men are created equal?" What the hell does that mean? "Equal" in the sense of "people posses a substituability property"? That is clearly absurd. The value of a person is purely contextual. When I'm having open-heart surgery, a plumber is worthless to me unless he also counts aorta-fishing among his interests. But I don't think the wise old crazies (who, in writing the Constitution, failed to logically preclude the possibility of dictatorship) meant that. I think they meant that human beings have fundamental 'rights'. Now, I challenge any of the thoughtful and intelligent people of RHP to define 'rights' in a meaningful way and tell me why everyone has them.
*****************END DIGRESSION ALERT**********************
Erm....yeah. Mike, I suppose you're going to dodge this one with our geographical differences; I'm an arrogant Eastern ass or something. But I'd like to hear what you have to say.
WMD don't kill people, people kill people 😉 🙁
Originally posted by StarValleyWySo you're suggesting that Syria can't occupy a meaningless position as chairman because you judge them as bad? If someone wanted Syria booted out they would have to propose this, let it be discussed, then vote on it. I thought that was what democracy ws all about.
Supporting (as a state, with full force of government monetary and military might) at least three known terrorist organizations is not to be shown as doing something wrong? I think there is no doubt, and you would really have to have an agenda to not recognize what Syria boasts of daily on "The Peninsula"... Al Jezerra if you will...
Ok on not getting into the Iraq war.