RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans

RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Zonie63 -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/26/2015 8:27:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, where, in your opinion, do rights come from? From humans. We invented the concept. Tyranny of the majority, then. Can you explain the logic which leads you to that conclusion?

NorthernGent -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 4:54:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne You should be proud of me since it comes from your country. Extremely proud, Real0ne, it's about time you came home, mate! Except, The United States is not a carbon copy of England. Yes, certain fundamental English ideas, values and principles underpin the United States way of doing things, but you also bolted on some other ideas some of which came from other European countries - such as the United Provinces which are today pretty much The Netherlands and parts of Belgium. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne You seem to be thinking of the UKofA imperialism with the motto "let he who has the biggest guns win" which is not civilized, nor does it have anything what so ever to do with rights outside last resort keeping them, like person B.[/color] Except I'm not, and the English and United States models are actually about who has the best ideas, with force being a last resort. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne It would be very odd for anyone to argue that B should simply tell A ok fine kill me its all good. But thats a misunderstanding of its meaning. While B took A's life he did not violate A's "right" to life, A violated A's own right to life by trying to take the life of B and failed. Except I'm not arguing the B should not defend himself. Your idea of 'a right' is a philosophical, abstract argument which doesn't necessarily inform the legal means of ensuring that the aim of government can be achieved: a prosperous and harmonious society. The law is simply an arbitrator in individual disputes and of course the law must protect against the law of the jungle in order to achieve government and society aims. Your abstract argument is underpinned by the idea that human beings are entirely reasonable, except we're not and perhaps A & B would have got their heads together and agreed a win-win situation were this the case. John Locke espoused the argument that human beings have a duty to God to not harm the person or property of yourself or another. Certainly a philosophical/metaphysical argument, and crucially the idea was a response to the civil and religious strife that occurred in England during his lifetime: the reasoning was simply a tool to make society work. The 'right to a life' isn't inherent in human nature; destruction led people to come up with a philosophical argument that would underpin society's mechanics in order to limit the destruction.

NorthernGent -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 5:13:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If there are no inherent rights, is it wrong to kill someone, in the absence of government? Good question. That would be a moral argument, and from a moral point of view I would say yes. I also believe that for most of us the most important factor in not killing people is empathy. But, again, I fail to see how a moral argument or inbuilt empathy translates into 'a right'. Regarding your rights versus privilege conundrum: I don't believe either term provides for an explanation of how government and society works. No one can grant what you have to work for: not God, not natural law, not government. These things termed 'rights' or 'privileges' are the result of your hard work or lack of hard work. Today's society is a result of centuries of people's hard work and redefining the process through new ideas. Nothing to do with rights and privileges As an example, stop and search laws are the product of people not working hard enough together to put their case forward TO keep things on an even keel, and so one part of society has wielded too much power. No right has been taken away, nor has 'innocent until proven guilty' become a privilege. It's simply that through apathy, or some other factor, we have not fought to protect something which is in all of our interests. 'Interests' being an opportunity to help ourselves.

Real0ne -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 5:42:18 AM)
quick question; who has the greatest level of jurisdiction over man B's body/life? Man A's body/life? Do you claim your body/life?.......or does it rightfully belong to another?

NorthernGent -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 5:53:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quick question; who has the greatest level of jurisdiction over man B's body/life? Man A's body/life? Do you claim your body/life?.......or does it rightfully belong to another? I lay claim to my life, it belongs to me - my mind or whatever is driving it. I also lay claim to my car because under legal contract I am the owner. Neither my abstract belief, nor a legal contract, however, means I have an inherent right to either: some bloke down the street can come and disabuse me of that notion. Because we have no inherent rights, we arrive at moral and philosophical arguments and associated practical measures such as a legal contract. Quick question: why do we need such moral/philosophical arguments and practical measures to safeguard that which you believe is an inherent part of human nature?

CreativeDominant -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 6:17:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quick question; who has the greatest level of jurisdiction over man B's body/life? Man A's body/life? Do you claim your body/life?.......or does it rightfully belong to another? I lay claim to my life, it belongs to me - my mind or whatever is driving it. I also lay claim to my car because under legal contract I am the owner. Neither my abstract belief, nor a legal contract, however, means I have an inherent right to either: some bloke down the street can come and disabuse me of that notion. Because we have no inherent rights, we arrive at moral and philosophical arguments and associated practical measures such as a legal contract. Quick question: why do we need such moral/philosophical arguments and practical measures to safeguard that which you believe is an inherent part of human nature? Because there are those who do believe that we do not have those rights mentioned. Just because something is a right does not mean that there is no need to institute safeguards to protect those rights. Hence we have laws against murder, a crime against the right to life.

NorthernGent -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 6:29:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quick question; who has the greatest level of jurisdiction over man B's body/life? Man A's body/life? Do you claim your body/life?.......or does it rightfully belong to another? I lay claim to my life, it belongs to me - my mind or whatever is driving it. I also lay claim to my car because under legal contract I am the owner. Neither my abstract belief, nor a legal contract, however, means I have an inherent right to either: some bloke down the street can come and disabuse me of that notion. Because we have no inherent rights, we arrive at moral and philosophical arguments and associated practical measures such as a legal contract. Quick question: why do we need such moral/philosophical arguments and practical measures to safeguard that which you believe is an inherent part of human nature? Because there are those who do believe that we do not have those rights mentioned. Just because something is a right does not mean that there is no need to institute safeguards to protect those rights. Hence we have laws against murder, a crime against the right to life. It's not really any different to the 'we are all equal' argument espoused by the left. In fact, they have come from the same place: The Enlightenment. Both are tools to direct human beings down a certain path, with a slightly different emphasis as to how the outcome is achieved. Both are a reaction to what people have perceived to be injustices within society. It is also comforting to some people to believe that there is some predestined role and rules for human beings: the alternative is that you make your own luck in all aspects of life, from cradle to grave. I would have thought that in the event something is an inherent right, then it is inherent to all human beings, and as such the supposed natural laws have no need for safeguarding measures to be implemented as a result of human beings not acting in accordance with the supposed natural laws.

CreativeDominant -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 6:33:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quick question; who has the greatest level of jurisdiction over man B's body/life? Man A's body/life? Do you claim your body/life?.......or does it rightfully belong to another? I lay claim to my life, it belongs to me - my mind or whatever is driving it. I also lay claim to my car because under legal contract I am the owner. Neither my abstract belief, nor a legal contract, however, means I have an inherent right to either: some bloke down the street can come and disabuse me of that notion. Because we have no inherent rights, we arrive at moral and philosophical arguments and associated practical measures such as a legal contract. Quick question: why do we need such moral/philosophical arguments and practical measures to safeguard that which you believe is an inherent part of human nature? Because there are those who do believe that we do not have those rights mentioned. Just because something is a right does not mean that there is no need to institute safeguards to protect those rights. Hence we have laws against murder, a crime against the right to life. It's not really any different to the 'we are all equal' argument espoused by the left. In fact, they have come from the same place: The Enlightenment. Both are tools to direct human beings down a certain path, with a slightly different emphasis as to how the outcome is achieved. Both are a reaction to what people have perceived to be injustices within society. It is also comforting to some people to believe that there is some predestined role and rules for human beings: the alternative is that you make your own luck in all aspects of life, from cradle to grave. I would have thought that in the event something is an inherent right, then it is inherent to all human beings, and as such the supposed natural laws have no need for safeguarding measures to be implemented as a result of human beings not acting in accordance with the supposed natural laws. But to do that, you'd have to assume that "all are equal" with all having equal respect for others. Time and history showed us that there are those who don't feel that way.

NorthernGent -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 6:45:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quick question; who has the greatest level of jurisdiction over man B's body/life? Man A's body/life? Do you claim your body/life?.......or does it rightfully belong to another? I lay claim to my life, it belongs to me - my mind or whatever is driving it. I also lay claim to my car because under legal contract I am the owner. Neither my abstract belief, nor a legal contract, however, means I have an inherent right to either: some bloke down the street can come and disabuse me of that notion. Because we have no inherent rights, we arrive at moral and philosophical arguments and associated practical measures such as a legal contract. Quick question: why do we need such moral/philosophical arguments and practical measures to safeguard that which you believe is an inherent part of human nature? Because there are those who do believe that we do not have those rights mentioned. Just because something is a right does not mean that there is no need to institute safeguards to protect those rights. Hence we have laws against murder, a crime against the right to life. It's not really any different to the 'we are all equal' argument espoused by the left. In fact, they have come from the same place: The Enlightenment. Both are tools to direct human beings down a certain path, with a slightly different emphasis as to how the outcome is achieved. Both are a reaction to what people have perceived to be injustices within society. It is also comforting to some people to believe that there is some predestined role and rules for human beings: the alternative is that you make your own luck in all aspects of life, from cradle to grave. I would have thought that in the event something is an inherent right, then it is inherent to all human beings, and as such the supposed natural laws have no need for safeguarding measures to be implemented as a result of human beings not acting in accordance with the supposed natural laws. But to do that, you'd have to assume that "all are equal" with all having equal respect for others. Time and history showed us that there are those who don't feel that way. I agree, in the event anyone wants to understand human beings then watch how they act. Clearly the idea that we're inherently all equal, or even have much desire to be equal, isn't supported by every day life; nor is the idea that we have certain rights. Human behaviour has shown that what we earn and safeguard is down the effort we put in on this earth as opposed to any notion of predestined rights. Were I to sit here and appeal to my predestined rights, then sooner or later someone will come along and disabuse me of that notion. On the other hand, however, I can do my bit on this earth to make it very, very unappealing for someone to attempt to harm me or my property.

Zonie63 -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 10:35:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quick question; who has the greatest level of jurisdiction over man B's body/life? Man A's body/life? Do you claim your body/life?.......or does it rightfully belong to another? I lay claim to my life, it belongs to me - my mind or whatever is driving it. I also lay claim to my car because under legal contract I am the owner. Neither my abstract belief, nor a legal contract, however, means I have an inherent right to either: some bloke down the street can come and disabuse me of that notion. Because we have no inherent rights, we arrive at moral and philosophical arguments and associated practical measures such as a legal contract. Quick question: why do we need such moral/philosophical arguments and practical measures to safeguard that which you believe is an inherent part of human nature? Because there are those who do believe that we do not have those rights mentioned. Just because something is a right does not mean that there is no need to institute safeguards to protect those rights. Hence we have laws against murder, a crime against the right to life. So, it's not really a question of having "inherent rights," but more a matter of whether or not people believe in it.

CreativeDominant -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 11:20:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quick question; who has the greatest level of jurisdiction over man B's body/life? Man A's body/life? Do you claim your body/life?.......or does it rightfully belong to another? I lay claim to my life, it belongs to me - my mind or whatever is driving it. I also lay claim to my car because under legal contract I am the owner. Neither my abstract belief, nor a legal contract, however, means I have an inherent right to either: some bloke down the street can come and disabuse me of that notion. Because we have no inherent rights, we arrive at moral and philosophical arguments and associated practical measures such as a legal contract. Quick question: why do we need such moral/philosophical arguments and practical measures to safeguard that which you believe is an inherent part of human nature? Because there are those who do believe that we do not have those rights mentioned. Just because something is a right does not mean that there is no need to institute safeguards to protect those rights. Hence we have laws against murder, a crime against the right to life. So, it's not really a question of having "inherent rights," but more a matter of whether or not people believe in it. Yes, but more important is whether they honor that. I believe you have a right to your life, as long as you respect that same right in others. I believe you have a right to liberty until your disrespect for another's rights leads you to do something to another person.

Sanity -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 11:31:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 So, it's not really a question of having "inherent rights," but more a matter of whether or not people believe in it. If people in general believe they have inherent rights, which they do, they are more likely to defend them. And if people understand that through history tyrants have routinely usurped peoples' rights again and again then they are more likely to work at preserving for themselves the means to defend their inherent rights.

BamaD -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 11:32:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quick question; who has the greatest level of jurisdiction over man B's body/life? Man A's body/life? Do you claim your body/life?.......or does it rightfully belong to another? I lay claim to my life, it belongs to me - my mind or whatever is driving it. I also lay claim to my car because under legal contract I am the owner. Neither my abstract belief, nor a legal contract, however, means I have an inherent right to either: some bloke down the street can come and disabuse me of that notion. Because we have no inherent rights, we arrive at moral and philosophical arguments and associated practical measures such as a legal contract. Quick question: why do we need such moral/philosophical arguments and practical measures to safeguard that which you believe is an inherent part of human nature? Because there are those who do believe that we do not have those rights mentioned. Just because something is a right does not mean that there is no need to institute safeguards to protect those rights. Hence we have laws against murder, a crime against the right to life. So, it's not really a question of having "inherent rights," but more a matter of whether or not people believe in it. If you don't believe in inherent rights then clearly your rights cannot be violated by the government since you don't have any not granted by the government. This is the view that leads to re-education centers and tyranny.

NorthernGent -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 12:11:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quick question; who has the greatest level of jurisdiction over man B's body/life? Man A's body/life? Do you claim your body/life?.......or does it rightfully belong to another? I lay claim to my life, it belongs to me - my mind or whatever is driving it. I also lay claim to my car because under legal contract I am the owner. Neither my abstract belief, nor a legal contract, however, means I have an inherent right to either: some bloke down the street can come and disabuse me of that notion. Because we have no inherent rights, we arrive at moral and philosophical arguments and associated practical measures such as a legal contract. Quick question: why do we need such moral/philosophical arguments and practical measures to safeguard that which you believe is an inherent part of human nature? Because there are those who do believe that we do not have those rights mentioned. Just because something is a right does not mean that there is no need to institute safeguards to protect those rights. Hence we have laws against murder, a crime against the right to life. So, it's not really a question of having "inherent rights," but more a matter of whether or not people believe in it. If you don't believe in inherent rights then clearly your rights cannot be violated by the government since you don't have any not granted by the government. This is the view that leads to re-education centers and tyranny. I would argue the opposite. The idea that we have predestined rights leads to complacency and opens the door for tyrants. Just look at this whole 'Stop and Search' thing, a good example of government over-reach. To focus on philosophical arguments is to take energy away from what is actually happening in practice. It is to get lost in some metaphysical argument instead of what is in front of our faces. I don't need an appeal to 'inherent rights' to understand that it is in my interests to co-operate with my neighbours with limited intervention from the government. And, the government can't 'violate my rights'. It is up to me and the people around me to come up with a plan to serve our interests, and in the event we fail to undertake this; then we are primarily responsible not the government. People get the government they deserve. The government doesn't live in a vacuum, nor is the government made up of human beings with little in common with the rest of us. The failure to keep the government in check primarily lies with the people, not the government. And, so to me this whole premise of the government violating people's rights is flawed all round.

BamaD -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 12:29:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quick question; who has the greatest level of jurisdiction over man B's body/life? Man A's body/life? Do you claim your body/life?.......or does it rightfully belong to another? I lay claim to my life, it belongs to me - my mind or whatever is driving it. I also lay claim to my car because under legal contract I am the owner. Neither my abstract belief, nor a legal contract, however, means I have an inherent right to either: some bloke down the street can come and disabuse me of that notion. Because we have no inherent rights, we arrive at moral and philosophical arguments and associated practical measures such as a legal contract. Quick question: why do we need such moral/philosophical arguments and practical measures to safeguard that which you believe is an inherent part of human nature? Because there are those who do believe that we do not have those rights mentioned. Just because something is a right does not mean that there is no need to institute safeguards to protect those rights. Hence we have laws against murder, a crime against the right to life. So, it's not really a question of having "inherent rights," but more a matter of whether or not people believe in it. If you don't believe in inherent rights then clearly your rights cannot be violated by the government since you don't have any not granted by the government. This is the view that leads to re-education centers and tyranny. I would argue the opposite. The idea that we have predestined rights leads to complacency and opens the door for tyrants. Just look at this whole 'Stop and Search' thing, a good example of government over-reach. To focus on philosophical arguments is to take energy away from what is actually happening in practice. It is to get lost in some metaphysical argument instead of what is in front of our faces. I don't need an appeal to 'inherent rights' to understand that it is in my interests to co-operate with my neighbours with limited intervention from the government. And, the government can't 'violate my rights'. It is up to me and the people around me to come up with a plan to serve our interests, and in the event we fail to undertake this; then we are primarily responsible not the government. People get the government they deserve. The government doesn't live in a vacuum, nor is the government made up of human beings with little in common with the rest of us. The failure to keep the government in check primarily lies with the people, not the government. And, so to me this whole premise of the government violating people's rights is flawed all round. Stop and search is, unless there is good reason, a violation of the 4th.

NorthernGent -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 12:58:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quick question; who has the greatest level of jurisdiction over man B's body/life? Man A's body/life? Do you claim your body/life?.......or does it rightfully belong to another? I lay claim to my life, it belongs to me - my mind or whatever is driving it. I also lay claim to my car because under legal contract I am the owner. Neither my abstract belief, nor a legal contract, however, means I have an inherent right to either: some bloke down the street can come and disabuse me of that notion. Because we have no inherent rights, we arrive at moral and philosophical arguments and associated practical measures such as a legal contract. Quick question: why do we need such moral/philosophical arguments and practical measures to safeguard that which you believe is an inherent part of human nature? Because there are those who do believe that we do not have those rights mentioned. Just because something is a right does not mean that there is no need to institute safeguards to protect those rights. Hence we have laws against murder, a crime against the right to life. So, it's not really a question of having "inherent rights," but more a matter of whether or not people believe in it. If you don't believe in inherent rights then clearly your rights cannot be violated by the government since you don't have any not granted by the government. This is the view that leads to re-education centers and tyranny. I would argue the opposite. The idea that we have predestined rights leads to complacency and opens the door for tyrants. Just look at this whole 'Stop and Search' thing, a good example of government over-reach. To focus on philosophical arguments is to take energy away from what is actually happening in practice. It is to get lost in some metaphysical argument instead of what is in front of our faces. I don't need an appeal to 'inherent rights' to understand that it is in my interests to co-operate with my neighbours with limited intervention from the government. And, the government can't 'violate my rights'. It is up to me and the people around me to come up with a plan to serve our interests, and in the event we fail to undertake this; then we are primarily responsible not the government. People get the government they deserve. The government doesn't live in a vacuum, nor is the government made up of human beings with little in common with the rest of us. The failure to keep the government in check primarily lies with the people, not the government. And, so to me this whole premise of the government violating people's rights is flawed all round. Stop and search is, unless there is good reason, a violation of the 4th. That's my point. Sounds great. Except in practice people are being stopped and searched for what I personally wouldn't say is 'good reason' and I'd imagine most wouldn't.

BamaD -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 2:06:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quick question; who has the greatest level of jurisdiction over man B's body/life? Man A's body/life? Do you claim your body/life?.......or does it rightfully belong to another? I lay claim to my life, it belongs to me - my mind or whatever is driving it. I also lay claim to my car because under legal contract I am the owner. Neither my abstract belief, nor a legal contract, however, means I have an inherent right to either: some bloke down the street can come and disabuse me of that notion. Because we have no inherent rights, we arrive at moral and philosophical arguments and associated practical measures such as a legal contract. Quick question: why do we need such moral/philosophical arguments and practical measures to safeguard that which you believe is an inherent part of human nature? Because there are those who do believe that we do not have those rights mentioned. Just because something is a right does not mean that there is no need to institute safeguards to protect those rights. Hence we have laws against murder, a crime against the right to life. So, it's not really a question of having "inherent rights," but more a matter of whether or not people believe in it. If you don't believe in inherent rights then clearly your rights cannot be violated by the government since you don't have any not granted by the government. This is the view that leads to re-education centers and tyranny. I would argue the opposite. The idea that we have predestined rights leads to complacency and opens the door for tyrants. Just look at this whole 'Stop and Search' thing, a good example of government over-reach. To focus on philosophical arguments is to take energy away from what is actually happening in practice. It is to get lost in some metaphysical argument instead of what is in front of our faces. I don't need an appeal to 'inherent rights' to understand that it is in my interests to co-operate with my neighbours with limited intervention from the government. And, the government can't 'violate my rights'. It is up to me and the people around me to come up with a plan to serve our interests, and in the event we fail to undertake this; then we are primarily responsible not the government. People get the government they deserve. The government doesn't live in a vacuum, nor is the government made up of human beings with little in common with the rest of us. The failure to keep the government in check primarily lies with the people, not the government. And, so to me this whole premise of the government violating people's rights is flawed all round. Stop and search is, unless there is good reason, a violation of the 4th. That's my point. Sounds great. Except in practice people are being stopped and searched for what I personally wouldn't say is 'good reason' and I'd imagine most wouldn't. I am generally opposed to stop and frisk. It's use is an example of the thinking that people don't have rights, just privileges granted by the government to be taken away when it suits them. This is how you get internment camps.

MichaelAgaAymes -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 2:38:21 PM)
A little light-heartedness (than means you mustn't be offended) from a British Commonwealth country... Surely ALL of you Americans ARE radicalised already. Indeed you have ALL been radicalised ever since your armed rebellion against your colonial masters. The reason the British left you to govern yourselves was not because the British couldn't quell the rebellion if they had really tried but because they realised that by leaving Americans in an isolated continent created the worlds first and largest internment camp and for 150 years or so (until WW1 or thereabouts) it worked very well. You Americans stayed in America (mostly) and the world was happily run as it had been for centuries. The past 100 years, however, has seen increasing numbers of Americans recognising that there are places outside America and some have even travelled to them while wearing garish clothes and spelling and pronouncing your mother tongue (and all others too) in a manner incomprehensible to all but yourselves. It is hardly a coincidence, then, that the past 100 years has been the worst in human history. Perhaps General Clark is a Brit in disguise attempting, albeit piecemeal to begin with, to reinforce the segregation of Americans from the rest of the world for the benefit of humanity at large. Next he'll get you driving on the correct side of the road and reintroduce the letter "U" into words like "honour", "colour" and "valour". If you're not careful he might even try to force you to drink proper beer - instead of the nearly frozen gnats urine that seems your preference. ...and why not Donald Trump for President? It has a nice verisimilitude about it. The world's most bankrupt man running the world's most bankrupt country. As they said as Reagan was elected "why not an actor the previous one was a clown".

BamaD -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 2:43:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MichaelAgaAymes A little light-heartedness (than means you mustn't be offended) from a British Commonwealth country... Surely ALL of you Americans ARE radicalised already. Indeed you have ALL been radicalised ever since your armed rebellion against your colonial masters. The reason the British left you to govern yourselves was not because the British couldn't quell the rebellion if they had really tried but because they realised that by leaving Americans in an isolated continent created the worlds first and largest internment camp and for 150 years or so (until WW1 or thereabouts) it worked very well. You Americans stayed in America (mostly) and the world was happily run as it had been for centuries. The past 100 years, however, has seen increasing numbers of Americans recognising that there are places outside America and some have even travelled to them while wearing garish clothes and spelling and pronouncing your mother tongue (and all others too) in a manner incomprehensible to all but yourselves. It is hardly a coincidence, then, that the past 100 years has been the worst in human history. Perhaps General Clark is a Brit in disguise attempting, albeit piecemeal to begin with, to reinforce the segregation of Americans from the rest of the world for the benefit of humanity at large. Next he'll get you driving on the correct side of the road and reintroduce the letter "U" into words like "honour", "colour" and "valour". If you're not careful he might even try to force you to drink proper beer - instead of the nearly frozen gnats urine that seems your preference. ...and why not Donald Trump for President? It has a nice verisimilitude about it. The world's most bankrupt man running the world's most bankrupt country. As they said as Reagan was elected "why not an actor the previous one was a clown". While I understand that this was posted in jest some people on here seem to seriously think along these lines. Not offended, you have a sense of humor. They have anal cranial inversion.

DesideriScuri -> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans (7/27/2015 7:49:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, where, in your opinion, do rights come from? From humans. We invented the concept. Tyranny of the majority, then. Can you explain the logic which leads you to that conclusion? If humans invent the concept of rights, and what is, or what isn't a right, that can always be changed at a later date. Which group is going to be able to dictate what is a right, who has a right, etc.? The majority group, and usually at the expense of the minority group.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625