Us government's trick to violate civil liberties - Page 2 - Fandom Forums
Fandom Forums



Go Back   Fandom Forums > Indepth Interests > Debates Section > Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy Theories Talk about your theories here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-15-2011, 07:39 PM   #16
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Actually having some feet within reality would be nice. You somehow suggested that less letters in an abbreviation somehow takes away rights from people. To actually post such ridiculous statement is crazy, and so is more having it listened 15 years ago and never bothering to check the facts, like some document that at least hinted to such.

If it's more than hearsay, please present the documents to back it up.
Of course I will provide that, along with proof that JFK wasn't assassinated by Lee Harvey, and that Leonardo Davinci came up with a way to transmute lead into gold.

This is the conspiracy theory section. You are out of line to ask for proof here.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)


Old 12-15-2011, 09:40 PM   #17
LonelyNinja
Fight On, Fight Hard
 
LonelyNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fistopia
Age: 22
Posts: 399
Thanks: 112
Thanked 4,134 Times in 1,402 Posts
LonelyNinja has a spectacular aura aboutLonelyNinja has a spectacular aura aboutLonelyNinja has a spectacular aura aboutLonelyNinja has a spectacular aura about
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

"Theory" implies that there is substantial evidence to support it. Granted, conspiracy theories are usually total bollocks, but any "legitimate" theory has some form of evidence. Doesn't have to be particularly compelling, but then it can at least be argued that it's a theory.
__________________
LonelyNinja is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LonelyNinja For This Useful Post:
Miburo (12-16-2011), Numinous (12-16-2011)
Old 12-15-2011, 10:45 PM   #18
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonelyNinja View Post
"Theory" implies that there is substantial evidence to support it. Granted, conspiracy theories are usually total bollocks, but any "legitimate" theory has some form of evidence. Doesn't have to be particularly compelling, but then it can at least be argued that it's a theory.
Well there are some statements that are indisputable in this theory.
Namely the parts about the constitution.
I was in prison when I read this.
Did a bit of research in the law library about it, and it seemed to check out.
Didn't work when I tried it.
Posted it to see if anyone would recognize it more or less. HR did

Last edited by almightywood; 12-15-2011 at 10:50 PM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)
Old 12-15-2011, 11:58 PM   #19
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

PROTIP: It's not good to have HR agree with you.

From the brief cursory reading I was willing to give those links, it seems the arguments rely far to heavily on assuming what is true for a corporation is true for a country.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (12-16-2011), kael03 (12-16-2011), Miburo (12-16-2011), Numinous (12-16-2011)
Old 12-16-2011, 01:44 AM   #20
Human Rasengan
S-Ranked Shinobi
 
Human Rasengan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: inside your mom
Posts: 3,343
Thanks: 2,949
Thanked 1,152 Times in 787 Posts
Human Rasengan has a spectacular aura aboutHuman Rasengan has a spectacular aura aboutHuman Rasengan has a spectacular aura aboutHuman Rasengan has a spectacular aura aboutHuman Rasengan has a spectacular aura about
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonelyNinja View Post
"Theory" implies that there is substantial evidence to support it. Granted, conspiracy theories are usually total bollocks, but any "legitimate" theory has some form of evidence. Doesn't have to be particularly compelling, but then it can at least be argued that it's a theory.
Ok evidence that this is actually something going on most of the people that prescribe to the Sovereign Citizen Movement all pretty much start out with the basic things I outlined and another thing and perhaps the most important is that the government has devised ways to protect itself from these people. Many are often labeled Paper Terrorists for flooding the system with paperwork as they try to submit various documents to claim their rights again as free and sovereign citizens as they believe was granted to them by the constitution and has been worked around by small covert steps by the government.. most of which happened back in 1933 during the FDR presidency.

The sovereign citizens believe that the current government is false and thus the so called laws don't apply to them.. most of these people live quiet lives while like all fringe groups have a extremest element.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLSNLeoab8c This father and son duo who had been traveling across the country spreading the Enlightenment of America's citizens when they gunned down that officer in West Memphis.


Others who use aspects of this movement which heavilly relies on the UCC or the Uniform Commerce Code get labled as squatters but legally take back land form the government that doesn't really own hte land anywayhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjZQkErPD4Q so called legal loopholes that allow people to just acquire homes by making real investments or improving upon the physical property itself

But most of it can be summed up in this piece by 60 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F_pY47hE5U

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal View Post
PROTIP: It's not good to have HR agree with you.

From the brief cursory reading I was willing to give those links, it seems the arguments rely far to heavily on assuming what is true for a corporation is true for a country.
ok well not saying that i agree with any of this but here is the basic jist of their reasoning ot the claim that America is a corporation as you put it

Quote:
The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.

What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let's look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.

The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.

In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:

"The Constitution for the united states of America".

The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.

Capitalization — an insignificant change? Not when one is referring to the context of a legal document, it isn't. Such minor alterations have had major impacts on each subsequent generation born in this country. What the Congress did with the passage of the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia. The kind of government THEY created was a corporation. The new, altered Constitution serves as the constitution of the corporation, and not that of America. Think about that for a moment.

Incidentally, this corporate constitution does not benefit the Republic. It serves only to benefit the corporation. It does nothing good for you or me — and it operates outside of the original Constitution. Instead of absolute rights guaranteed under the "organic" Constitution, we now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example of this is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has been transformed under corporate government policy into a "privilege" which we must be licensed to engage in. This operates outside of the original Constitution.

So, Congress committed TREASON against the People, who were considered Sovereign under the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. When we consider the word "Sovereign," we must think about what the word means.

According to Webster's Dictionary, "sovereign" is defined as: 1. chief or highest; supreme. 2. Supreme in power, superior in position to all others. 3. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other, possessing or entitled to, original and independent authority or jurisdiction.

In other words, our government was created by and for "sovereigns" — the free citizens who were deemed the highest authority. Only the People can be sovereign — remember that. Government cannot be sovereign. We can also look to the Declaration of Independence, where we read: "government is subject to the consent of the governed" — that's supposed to be us, the sovereigns. Do you feel like a sovereign nowadays? I don't.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a constitutional historian to figure out that this is not what is happening in our country today. Government in these times is NOT subject to the consent of the governed. Rather, the governed are subject to the whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia — encroaching into every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO jurisdiction outside of the District of Columbia. THEY just want you to think it does.
Like i said earlier there is a lot more to all this stuff and it's going on all around us whether real or fake .. something is going on .. either the government is a corporation and has taken measures to hush people who have tried to awaken people to the rouse .. or there is a growing American Domestic terrorist organization .. at any rate we should be alarmed.
__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE
Human Rasengan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 06:07 AM   #21
Numinous
Writing speed: snail
 
Numinous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 8,386
Thanked 11,563 Times in 3,932 Posts
Numinous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Well there are some statements that are indisputable in this theory.
Namely the parts about the constitution.
I was in prison when I read this.
Did a bit of research in the law library about it, and it seemed to check out.
If the statements are "indisputable" and you actually researched upon them, please provide the evidence. That's what people are asking, they aren't asking for you to do a special pleading about how "conspiracy theories don't need evidence!" to evade your responsibility to back up the claims.
__________________
My writings and ramblings:

Water of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2
Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1 - 2 - 3







Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (12-16-2011), kael03 (12-16-2011), Miburo (12-16-2011)
Old 12-16-2011, 09:57 AM   #22
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Why should we be alarmed? OP said he heard about this 15 years ago, yet this is the first time I'm hearing about it. If this theory hasn't propagated as quickly as the 9/11 conspiracies, then obviously even the less intelligent members of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA realize it's stupid.

I'd have also expected the Occupy movement to breathe new life into this theory if it was really as commonly as believed as you say, since it would give those whiny bitches yet another scapegoat to blame for their own failure.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (12-16-2011), kael03 (12-16-2011), Miburo (12-16-2011), Numinous (12-16-2011)
Old 12-16-2011, 10:55 AM   #23
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Holy shit, retarded.


But that Occupy stuff. Mal, could you clarify what you mean by the 'whiny bitches, failure' thing? I haven't really be following that shit hardcore closely or anything, but from what I understand their complaints seem fairly justifiable.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
kael03 (12-16-2011), Mal (12-16-2011), Numinous (12-16-2011)
Old 12-16-2011, 11:13 AM   #24
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
If the statements are "indisputable" and you actually researched upon them, please provide the evidence. That's what people are asking, they aren't asking for you to do a special pleading about how "conspiracy theories don't need evidence!" to evade your responsibility to back up the claims.
Dude, your attitude problem is almost as bad as Kael's.

So now I have to provide you with a link to the constitution?

Do you want me to hold your hand while you go to the bathroom too?

If you choose to dispute what I am saying, then provide proof yourself.


EDIT: oh fine, there you go: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html


Don't say I never did anything for you, jackass

Last edited by almightywood; 12-16-2011 at 11:17 AM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)
Old 12-16-2011, 11:19 AM   #25
Numinous
Writing speed: snail
 
Numinous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 8,386
Thanked 11,563 Times in 3,932 Posts
Numinous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
Dude, your attitude problem is almost as bad as Kael's.
Yes, because calling you on your BS is clearly an attitude problem. Stop being a pussy dancing around the issue and provide the evidence.

Quote:
So now I have to provide you with a link to the constitution?

Do you want me to hold your hand while you go to the bathroom too?
Since the US Constitution is huge as hell and it's not even my constitution, I am unfamiliar with it. So yes, please provide me a link with the specific parts of the Constitution that back you up.

Quote:
If you choose to dispute what I am saying, then provide proof yourself.
Wow, you're stupid. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person refuting it. And I'm pretty sure you were called on that earlier.

Edit: finally read all the parts of the Original Constitution (without any Amendment) you linked that refer to the Congress and in none of the parts was there even an hint of the US Congress owning exclusively federal territories. The closest thing was the Congress having to be summoned in case someone wants to create a new state, due to territory issues.
__________________
My writings and ramblings:

Water of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2
Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1 - 2 - 3








Last edited by Numinous; 12-16-2011 at 11:37 AM.
Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (12-16-2011), kael03 (12-16-2011), Mal (12-16-2011), Miburo (12-16-2011)
Old 12-16-2011, 11:52 AM   #26
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Yes, because calling you on your BS is clearly an attitude problem. Stop being a pussy dancing around the issue and provide the evidence.
No, calling someone stupid for any reason ever is an attitude problem. The same with claiming that someone you have never met has any responsibility to you whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Since the US Constitution is huge as hell and it's not even my constitution, I am unfamiliar with it. So yes, please provide me a link with the specific parts of the Constitution that back you up.
Right, you obviously have no internet access, so can't google it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Wow, you're stupid. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person refuting it. And I'm pretty sure you were called on that earlier.
Again this only applies if someone is claiming something is assuredly so. I posted this in this section because conspiracy theories are BS. So asking me to provide proof for BS is ludicrous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Edit: finally read all the parts of the Original Constitution (without any Amendment) you linked that refer to the Congress and in none of the parts was there even an hint of the US Congress owning exclusively federal territories. The closest thing was the Congress having to be summoned in case someone wants to create a new state, due to territory issues.

Though I don't really like helping people to see things when they are as egotistically committed to their own impregnability as you, you must have missed this other part of article IV section 3:

Quote:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Last edited by almightywood; 12-16-2011 at 12:25 PM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)
Old 12-16-2011, 12:46 PM   #27
Numinous
Writing speed: snail
 
Numinous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 8,386
Thanked 11,563 Times in 3,932 Posts
Numinous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
No, calling someone stupid for any reason ever is an attitude problem. The same with claiming that someone you have never met has any responsibility to you whatsoever.
You must be new to debates. Or rather, debates that involve people not caring about what's politically correct. If you're being stupid, I'll call you stupid, since I don't like to pat people in the back when they don't deserve it. Also, when you make a positive claim, you have the responsibility to back it, unless you want to sound like an unmanly pussy that wants his bacon pristine all the times.

Quote:
Right, you obviously have no internet access, so can't google it.
Why should I google it if you're the one making the claim? Burden of proof's on you.

Quote:
Again this only applies if someone is claiming something is assuredly so. I posted this in this section because conspiracy theories are BS. So asking me to provide proof for BS is ludicrous.
In other words, you're backpedaling. You said it's in the fucking Constitution and you even researched a law library that backed you up. That means you don't consider this BS but actually something to be considered, to the point of posting it when nobody asked for it. Now be a man and own your shit.

Quote:
Though I don't really like helping people to see things when they are as egotistically committed to their own impregnability as you, you must have missed this other part of article IV section 3:
Quote:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Do you even read what you post?

That part of the section says that the Congress has the power to modify the laws of any territory/property of the United States, but it can't make laws that imply prejudice upon a claim (like the states that were included after the original Constitution was released) or State.

Nothing here says "US Congress has exclusive control of federal territories".
__________________
My writings and ramblings:

Water of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2
Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1 - 2 - 3








Last edited by Numinous; 12-16-2011 at 01:01 PM.
Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (12-16-2011), kael03 (12-16-2011), Mal (12-16-2011), Miburo (12-16-2011)
Old 12-16-2011, 01:02 PM   #28
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
But that Occupy stuff. Mal, could you clarify what you mean by the 'whiny bitches, failure' thing? I haven't really be following that shit hardcore closely or anything, but from what I understand their complaints seem fairly justifiable.
There are reasonable points at the base of it, but they've since been buried by people who have just failed at life and are looking for someone to blame. Keeping in mind I am doing my best to avoid the Fundamental Attribution Error, I can't help but think life is much easier than they're making it seem. Then again, I've been paying more attention to the Canadian equivalent, and I'm not sure how bad things are in the US.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
Miburo (12-16-2011)
Old 12-16-2011, 01:55 PM   #29
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal View Post
There are reasonable points at the base of it, but they've since been buried by people who have just failed at life and are looking for someone to blame. Keeping in mind I am doing my best to avoid the Fundamental Attribution Error, I can't help but think life is much easier than they're making it seem. Then again, I've been paying more attention to the Canadian equivalent, and I'm not sure how bad things are in the US.
I also dislike it when people divert blame off themselves and whatnot, since it's UNMANLY, but I'd say there are plenty of legit scenarios where people can 'fail at life,' which I assume you're referring to financial success given the context, where they really couldn't reasonably avoid it on their own.

Without any specific examples I can't address anything specifically. So, broadly speaking, it's not like everyone can be rich if they work hard and do their very best and shit. For our society to function there pretty much has to be people that get stuck in shit jobs that get shit pay. Cashiers, garbage men, etc. I don't think I need to really elaborate. That alone should be sufficient evidence that not everyone can be financially well off with hard work alone; that not everyone who is poor is a lazy loser that should pull himself up by his bootstraps or whatever.

When you add that to a pretty high unemployment rate, continual rising costs of healthcare in a nation with no universal system for some stupid reason (A lot of people can't afford preventative treatment, a medical problem can easily lead to financial ruin, etc.), crazy level of income and social inequality, and so on it's easy to see where a lot of people can actually become unable to better their situations despite their best efforts.

Sure, it's definitely possible for people to work their way up in life from near hopeless soul-crushing poverty to becoming reasonably wealthy. But for every success story there are most likely thousands of people who tried just as hard and didn't succeed. I would never call anyone a loser for simply not succeeding. And I'm a dick.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
Mal (12-16-2011), Numinous (12-17-2011), Scientia (12-16-2011)
Old 12-16-2011, 05:25 PM   #30
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
You must be new to debates. Or rather, debates that involve people not caring about what's politically correct. If you're being stupid, I'll call you stupid, since I don't like to pat people in the back when they don't deserve it. Also, when you make a positive claim, you have the responsibility to back it, unless you want to sound like an unmanly pussy that wants his bacon pristine all the times.
I'm all about discussions, I love them, I have them all the time for the sake of learning and knowledge like a proper discussion should be. I don't give attitude (before I get it) because it could throw people off, and make them not be able to tell me something I didn't know. I care way more about the knowledge than being right.

Quote:
Why should I google it if you're the one making the claim? Burden of proof's on you.

In other words, you're backpedaling. You said it's in the fucking Constitution and you even researched a law library that backed you up. That means you don't consider this BS but actually something to be considered, to the point of posting it when nobody asked for it. Now be a man and own your shit.
Be reasonable and take things the way they are presented. I told you what I meant by it, you refusing to accept that is simply proof that you are unreasonable, not that I am backpedaling. The existence of this section asked for it.

Quote:
Do you even read what you post?

That part of the section says that the Congress has the power to modify the laws of any territory/property of the United States, but it can't make laws that imply prejudice upon a claim (like the states that were included after the original Constitution was released) or State.

Nothing here says "US Congress has exclusive control of federal territories".
To quote an egotistical know-it-all, there's such a thing as reading comprehension, you lack it.

This is listed under the section detailing the judicial branch, and separate from the regular legislative branch. This little excerpt is stand-alone. In other words the executive branch has no say over this, and since it is listed as part of the judicial, it qualifies as that as well. ie. Exclusive control.

Now do me a favor and quit making arguments just to prove me wrong.

If you actually admitted that's all you care about it would be one thing, but you claim it's all about logic and learning. IF this was true you would have no need for the attitude. The attitude puts the lie to this whole little line of shit you like to shove down people's throats.

Last edited by almightywood; 12-21-2011 at 09:37 PM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.