Do you support the loss of american sovereignty?

Originally posted by iori_komei
If a country is limiting it's peoples freedom and the democratic process,
it is the concern of the free world.

So who's gonna come to American peoples aid?

[edit on 5-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Hey I just want to be left alone to do what I want, when I want, without question. A decent social service system that provides a decent baseline for everyone in the society to start from or end at. And I don't want to pay for it.

So let me get this strait, want to have a government, with social sevices, and I could only assume that you would want such thing as roads, hospitals, and an army to protect you from the big bad dictators, you just don’t want to pay for it? Ummm… OK that sounds fair.

What we have now is anarchy and total insecurity on the part of the entire population. How ludicous.

What? Where is this mass pandemonium you describe?

Were all prisoners to a non-working system. I bet you won't see any millionaires walking through the streets of detroit at night, unless they have a batallion of marines, some helicopters hovering overhead and are wearing flack jackets.
No they don’t walk, they ride around in their over sized SUV limos.

Originally posted by iori_komei
The only thing that should ever be force don a country is freedom and
the democratic process, so long as that democracy does not limit
peoples freedom.

Even if they don't want freedom and a democratic process?

Originally posted by Johnmike
Even if they don't want freedom and a democratic process?

Yes, but they should'nt be forced to participate in it, but it should still
be there.

whoops

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
What? Where is this mass pandemonium you describe?

[edit on 5-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by Johnmike
Even if they don't want freedom and a democratic process?

Yes, but they should'nt be forced to participate in it, but it should still
be there.

So by conquering their country you aren't forcing them to participate it?

Illegal immigration pandemonium doth not make. All that does is create cheep labor.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Illegal immigration pandemonium doth not make. All that does is create cheep labor.

That and create identity theft and put a strain on our medical and police system, which we pay for.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

create identity theft

Identity theft is a white collar crime of some sophistication; you’ll find few illegal immigrants are capable of such a crime, due to lake of knowledge of the system.

and put a strain on our medical

For the most part illegal immigrants don’t go to the hospital, they can’t afford it nor do they want to get caught and sent back home. If an immigrant is in the hospital they need to be.

and police system, which we pay for.

Crime is not that high amongst illegal immigrants, they’re to busy selling flowers on the side of a hi-way, or cut someone’s lawn to commit many crimes. Further for the most part the police do not go after illegal immigrants, there’re to busy dealing with some dude smoking a joint, or a drunken guy beating his wife.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Umm… are not the rights of every citizen in every country granted by there government?

No. The rights of the American people were granted by God.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Were not the rights granted the US constitution voted and granted by the government?

No, the people of the United States voted in the Constitution. The Constitution is a limit on the Federal Government, not the people.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Can they not be taken away in the US visa-vie the patriot act?
I see no difference in this respect.

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional, IMO, it's just yet to be challenged.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
The major difference is the government type. The US is a Constitutional republic. Most E-U governments are parliamentary or constitutional monarchies.

The United States is a democratic republic, of which the people are represented by their elected governmental personnel.

A monarchy is but a means of smoothing over saying a "King". (dictatorship)

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
create identity theft

Identity theft is a white collar crime of some sophistication; you’ll find few illegal immigrants are capable of such a crime, due to lake of knowledge of the system.

Ok MX, so I'm gonna put you in the don't care about sovriegnty column.

Originally posted by Johnmike
So by conquering their country you aren't forcing them to participate it?

Nope.

Forcing them to vote, to own a gun, to marry someone outside there
religion, that is forcing them to participate.

Enforcing there freedoms to be able to is not.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I did'nt say it was, I am saying that the technology making us more
connected will help along the forming of a single world government.

You've used the basis of current technology to "OK" your hypothesis of a one world government thus far.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I may be precognitive, but I don't know that, int the end it will be the
will of the people.

Sure, all people want to be free. Do you honestly think the governments of those countries that are not free are going to willingly give up their power?

Originally posted by iori_komei
Name me one place, that is not founded on obsolete religious teachings
that does not want democracy.

Umm... Anywhere that there isn't a current democratic republic? Otherwise those people have simply boughten into the false sense of security their corrupt governments have sold them.

Originally posted by iori_komei
No, I am focusing on the positive changes, not the bad ones.

The only "positive" changes that have taken place are those of populous control. :shk:

Originally posted by iori_komei
I am comparing America than to America pre-bush.
True, even before Bush was Pres. we had had some rights diminished to some extent, but overall we had gained more.

America pre-Bush is nothing near what the EU is now.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I dissaprove of what Bush has done.

So do at least 250,000,000 Americans.... and you think those 250 million are going to give up anything for a false sense of security now?

Originally posted by iori_komei
Consider the world in the 1700's, now look at the world now, there
are a great many less of them.

Again, do you have any credible evidence to prove that the evil/corrupt have subsided in the past 2,000 years?

Originally posted by iori_komei
If a country is limiting it's peoples freedom and the democratic process,
it is the concern of the free world.

If it's not the concern of the people directly involved, then it's not concern of mine. If it's not a big enough deal of the people of such a nation to take a stand for themselves, then why must the entire globe run to the rescue of someone that's not asking to be helped?

Originally posted by iori_komei
I did'nt say you should give up sovereignty to combat the suppression
of freedom and democracy.

No, you sure didn't. But you did say that you'd force your ideals upon them.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Do you not think that the people of say Somalia (I think that's where
Darfur is, not sure) would be upset if we dismantled there government
and set up a new free and dmocratic government that actually tried to
end the genocide and other issues?

I'd be willing to bet that the people of Darfur would like you to stop the killing, but that has nothing to do with how the people of Darfur would wish to run their own country, now is it?

Originally posted by iori_komei
No, it is not, it does not even fit the definition fo Communism, I
already stated what it is.

What I did forget to mention to, is that it is becoming more capitalistic
as well.

Today, the Republic of China continues to exist on Taiwan, while the People's Republic of China controls the Chinese mainland. The PRC continues to be dominated by the Communist Party, but the ROC has moved towards democracy.
source

Originally posted by iori_komei
If the regime/government of a country is limiting it's peoples freedoms and the democratic process, and especially when many people want those things, that gives the right to dismantle the government through force if need be.

The only thing that should ever be force don a country is freedom and
the democratic process, so long as that democracy does not limit
peoples freedom.

I feel kinda like I'm talking to a brick wall here. YOU CAN'T FORCE ANYTHING UPON ANYONE By "forcing" someone (or another country) to believe the way you do, you have completely bastardized the meaning behind being free and democratic. Do you not understand?

Originally posted by iori_komei
Just because people may not want a freedom, does not mean it should
be banned.

No, but it shouldn't be forced. That's kinda the opposite of "freedom", wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by iori_komei
I can not fathom denying people freedom.

By guaranteeing everyone that right in a body like a constiution.

Just like here in America.

I wouldn't suggest that you deny someone's freedom. By denying them right to be free is exactly like your forcing democracy on them.

Originally posted by iori_komei
You can not be peaceful 100% of the time, and expect peace to
prevail throughout the world.

Just the same as you can't expect a forced democracy to work worldwide.

Originally posted by Infoholic
No. The rights of the American people were granted by God.

And when did God come down and grant these rights, until you can show me some evidence of divine intervention I choose to believe that some fine folks got together and decided not to abuse their position and grant their people rights.

No, the people of the United States voted in the Constitution. The Constitution is a limit on the Federal Government, not the people.

No it was voted on and decided by congress and the senate

www.constitution.org...

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional, IMO, it's just yet to be challenged.

On this one we agree.

The United States is a democratic republic, of which the people are represented by their elected governmental personnel.

Name three differences making a democratic republic and a parliamentary system incompatible.

A monarchy is but a means of smoothing over saying a "King". (dictatorship)

A dictatorship would be a absolute monarchy, a constitutional monarchy is some thing different. E.g. the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy; the Queen is nothing more then a figurehead with no real power. By your definition Queen Elizabeth is a dictator!

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Just to ensure that we are discussing the same document, you mean the Constitution of the United States of America.
The American Bill of Rights, The first ten Amendment passed by congress September 25, 1789. Ratified by three-fourths of the States, December 15, 1791

That means that congressmen wrote it and voted for it. Then states discussed it, voted on it and passed it in to the law of the land.
God did not grant them, the government did.

Read the Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
source

And the Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.....
source

They made it very clear that these rights, liberties, and freedoms we all share are given to us by God, and cannot be taken away from anyone other than Him.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Illegal immigration pandemonium doth not make. All that does is create cheep labor.

Illegal immigration by definition is:

1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful
source

Illegal means against the law... against the laws of the United States of America. Which means...

If you came here against the law, you should leave here immediately!

Screw it, lets just invade Mexico and Canada next, they got oil too.

Originally posted by Infoholic

Originally posted by iori_komei
If a country is limiting it's peoples freedom and the democratic process,
it is the concern of the free world.

If it's not the concern of the people directly involved, then it's not concern of mine. If it's not a big enough deal of the people of such a nation to take a stand for themselves, then why must the entire globe run to the rescue of someone that's not asking to be helped?

Originally posted by iori_komei
If the regime/government of a country is limiting it's peoples freedoms and the democratic process, and especially when many people want those things, that gives the right to dismantle the government through force if need be.

The only thing that should ever be force don a country is freedom and
the democratic process, so long as that democracy does not limit
peoples freedom.

I feel kinda like I'm talking to a brick wall here. YOU CAN'T FORCE ANYTHING UPON ANYONE By "forcing" someone (or another country) to believe the way you do, you have completely bastardized the meaning behind being free and democratic. Do you not understand?

Well done, and completely true

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
And when did God come down and grant these rights, until you can show me some evidence of divine intervention I choose to believe that some fine folks got together and decided not to abuse their position and grant their people rights.

And you choose to believe that anyone at any time may take your rights away. That's up to you. The choice of freedom is yours.

However, you have shown the utmost disrespect for those that founded this nation, and those that lost their lives to maintain this nation as a sovereign state.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
No it was voted on and decided by congress and the senate

Re-read the Preamble and the Declaration of Independence, and then stop for one second and think..... long and hard....

Who signed it?

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Name three differences making a democratic republic and a parliamentary system incompatible.

The only one that's relevent, is the fact that our rights are "inalienable"... which mean:

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
source

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
A dictatorship would be a absolute monarchy, a constitutional monarchy is some thing different. E.g. the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy; the Queen is nothing more then a figurehead with no real power. By your definition Queen Elizabeth is a dictator!

Does that bother you?

If Queen Elizabeth is nothing more than a figurehead, why is she used? I think there's a lot more to it than you understand, young grasshopper.