Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Controversially Interesting Quote

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 9:45:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties." -Marquis De Lafayette-

Do you believe this to be true? If not, why? If you do, what do you think is the reasonable boundary to where the people have been pushed to insurrection to gain their unalienable rights via the constitution back? Due to moral relativism and the fact that good and evil are honestly only what the majority perceives as good and evil, should you stand up for what you believe in and commit acts of insurrection, even if the majority thinks you are evil or a "terrorist"?

My honest opinion is that insurrection is a duty of the people, human rights should be one of the utmost important things to preserve. I believe that we have come too far to let any one leader or governing body take what is rightfully ours via the constitution, and you should be willing to fight and possibly die to preserve your rights. Understandably, this is easier said than done, and I would probably fight to preserve my freedom, but it would be interesting to see what most would do, despite their saber rattling, if the time came to preserve our freedoms and take back our gov't. What would most people do?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 8:33:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 9:45:38 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
"When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties." -Marquis De Lafayette-

Do you believe this to be true? If not, why? If you do, what do you think is the reasonable boundary to where the people have been pushed to insurrection to gain their unalienable rights via the constitution back? Due to moral relativism and the fact that good and evil are honestly only what the majority perceives as good and evil, should you stand up for what you believe in and commit acts of insurrection, even if the majority thinks you are evil or a "terrorist"?

My honest opinion is that insurrection is a duty of the people, human rights should be one of the utmost important things to preserve. I believe that we have come too far to let any one leader or governing body take what is rightfully ours via the constitution, and you should be willing to fight and possibly die to preserve your rights. Understandably, this is easier said than done, and I would probably fight to preserve my freedom, but it would be interesting to see what most would do, despite their saber rattling, if the time came to preserve our freedoms and take back our gov't. What would most people do?

I once share the similar thoughts. But today, I would say:
1. "If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain."
2. "Where There Is Life, There Is Hope." Better Live than Die hard.

One thing I may want to know: What is "human rights?" and what is "rights?"
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 8:59:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Obviously you are going to be hard pressed to find a politician who will write in the right to riot into our bill of rights. That being said, I absolutely think it's right for the people to cause insurrection if necessary. Obviously, the government isn't going to like it, and will try to shut the insurrection down, which is why I think it's important for the American people to be on the same page, which they aren't. They're split. So half the country will always be okay with the way the country is going, the other half, dead set against it.

But one phrase every dick head politician (in other words, every politician) seems to forget is, "consent of the governed". We the citizens, give them the right to govern us, and if they don't listen to us, and treat themselves as royalty and our superiors, much as they do today, then we the people most certainly have a right to do something about it. Not only is it a right, it is a duty.

So yes, I very much do agree with the quote. It is our duty to keep the government in place, and if they get out of hand, it is our job to do something. The easiest way is to vote, but as we have seen, that doesn't always work. And in those cases, insurrection is most certainly an option, in my opinion.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 2:47:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 9:45:38 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
"When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties." -Marquis De Lafayette-

Do you believe this to be true? If not, why?...

...I believe that we have come too far to let any one leader or governing body take what is rightfully ours via the constitution, and you should be willing to fight and possibly die to preserve your rights.

Do I believe the statement? Yes. Do I find your need to point to this quote and proclaim that we should all be willing to "fight and die to preserve our rights" to be over the top? Yes.

I really don't understand this rhetoric in 21st century America. If you don't like what the government is doing then take it to the voting booth. If that doesn't work then become an activist, or run for congress. And if that doesn't work it is because people don't agree with you. The idea behind the quote is that the government is not representing the people. Until you can prove that to be the case the your rant is meaningless.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 4:21:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 9:45:38 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
"When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties." -Marquis De Lafayette-

Do you believe this to be true? If not, why? If you do, what do you think is the reasonable boundary to where the people have been pushed to insurrection to gain their unalienable rights via the constitution back? Due to moral relativism and the fact that good and evil are honestly only what the majority perceives as good and evil, should you stand up for what you believe in and commit acts of insurrection, even if the majority thinks you are evil or a "terrorist"?

My honest opinion is that insurrection is a duty of the people, human rights should be one of the utmost important things to preserve. I believe that we have come too far to let any one leader or governing body take what is rightfully ours via the constitution, and you should be willing to fight and possibly die to preserve your rights. Understandably, this is easier said than done, and I would probably fight to preserve my freedom, but it would be interesting to see what most would do, despite their saber rattling, if the time came to preserve our freedoms and take back our gov't. What would most people do?

And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. - TJ (abbreviated quote)

It's a common idea. The one (and only?) area where Jefferson and Adams agreed was around the idea of constant revolution.

I think this un-pleasantry can be avoided if, outside a country's constitution, there is a rule that the constitution be re-written every generation (30 years?).

Chances are, it would remain largely the same, but when significant changes needed to be made, they could be much easier under this set-up than they can be now.

The US is on an ~100 year revolutionary cycle. The next one isn't scheduled until 2060. 1960 was kinda borin (though it did have the best soundtrack of the original trilogy), so I'm hoping this next one is a bit more exciting...more like 1770 and 1860 were.

(Queensryche - even the butt-rock is better in Seattle)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 7:46:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 2:47:59 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2013 9:45:38 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
"When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties." -Marquis De Lafayette-

Do you believe this to be true? If not, why?...

...I believe that we have come too far to let any one leader or governing body take what is rightfully ours via the constitution, and you should be willing to fight and possibly die to preserve your rights.

Do I believe the statement? Yes. Do I find your need to point to this quote and proclaim that we should all be willing to "fight and die to preserve our rights" to be over the top? Yes.

I really don't understand this rhetoric in 21st century America. If you don't like what the government is doing then take it to the voting booth. If that doesn't work then become an activist, or run for congress. And if that doesn't work it is because people don't agree with you. The idea behind the quote is that the government is not representing the people. Until you can prove that to be the case the your rant is meaningless.

Not to sound offensive or biased but, what if the gov't is using executive orders to take away the people's rights? What if we had a situation like the one in Nicaragua, Venezuela, or Russia, where they have democracies that are squashed on by tyrants who run extra terms or just give themselves extra terms without an election and then have the audacity to call themselves 'President'. The people who still support these tyrants are a militant populist movement that comprises about 10% of the population, would you take up arms to defend your liberty if you lived in Russia, Nicaragua, or Venezuela? I would.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:13:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 7:46:06 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/16/2013 2:47:59 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2013 9:45:38 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
"When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties." -Marquis De Lafayette-

Do you believe this to be true? If not, why?...

...I believe that we have come too far to let any one leader or governing body take what is rightfully ours via the constitution, and you should be willing to fight and possibly die to preserve your rights.

Do I believe the statement? Yes. Do I find your need to point to this quote and proclaim that we should all be willing to "fight and die to preserve our rights" to be over the top? Yes.

I really don't understand this rhetoric in 21st century America. If you don't like what the government is doing then take it to the voting booth. If that doesn't work then become an activist, or run for congress. And if that doesn't work it is because people don't agree with you. The idea behind the quote is that the government is not representing the people. Until you can prove that to be the case the your rant is meaningless.

Not to sound offensive or biased but, what if the gov't is using executive orders to take away the people's rights? What if we had a situation like the one in Nicaragua, Venezuela, or Russia, where they have democracies that are squashed on by tyrants who run extra terms or just give themselves extra terms without an election and then have the audacity to call themselves 'President'. The people who still support these tyrants are a militant populist movement that comprises about 10% of the population, would you take up arms to defend your liberty if you lived in Russia, Nicaragua, or Venezuela? I would.

Venezuelans went to the polls on Sunday for the 15th time since Hugo Chavez was first elected in 1999: all of those previous elections were judged as free by international observers, including ex-US President Jimmy Carter, who described the country"s election process as "the best in the world". When Chavez lost a constitutional referendum in 2007, he accepted the result. Before his massive registration drives, many poor people could not vote. In stark contrast to most Western democracies, over 80 per cent of Venezuelans turned out to vote in Sunday"s presidential elections.

Even opponents of Chavez told me that he is the first Venezuelan president to care about the poor. Since his landslide victory in 1998, extreme poverty has dropped from nearly a quarter to 8.6 per cent last year; unemployment has halved; and GDP per capita has more than doubled. Rather than ruining the economy " as his critics allege " oil exports have surged from $14.4bn to $60bn in 2011, providing revenue to spend on Chavez"s ambitious social programmes, the so-called "missions".


http://www.independent.co.uk...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:24:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 8:13:21 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/16/2013 7:46:06 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/16/2013 2:47:59 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2013 9:45:38 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
"When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties." -Marquis De Lafayette-

Do you believe this to be true? If not, why?...

...I believe that we have come too far to let any one leader or governing body take what is rightfully ours via the constitution, and you should be willing to fight and possibly die to preserve your rights.

Do I believe the statement? Yes. Do I find your need to point to this quote and proclaim that we should all be willing to "fight and die to preserve our rights" to be over the top? Yes.

I really don't understand this rhetoric in 21st century America. If you don't like what the government is doing then take it to the voting booth. If that doesn't work then become an activist, or run for congress. And if that doesn't work it is because people don't agree with you. The idea behind the quote is that the government is not representing the people. Until you can prove that to be the case the your rant is meaningless.

Not to sound offensive or biased but, what if the gov't is using executive orders to take away the people's rights? What if we had a situation like the one in Nicaragua, Venezuela, or Russia, where they have democracies that are squashed on by tyrants who run extra terms or just give themselves extra terms without an election and then have the audacity to call themselves 'President'. The people who still support these tyrants are a militant populist movement that comprises about 10% of the population, would you take up arms to defend your liberty if you lived in Russia, Nicaragua, or Venezuela? I would.

Venezuelans went to the polls on Sunday for the 15th time since Hugo Chavez was first elected in 1999: all of those previous elections were judged as free by international observers, including ex-US President Jimmy Carter, who described the country"s election process as "the best in the world". When Chavez lost a constitutional referendum in 2007, he accepted the result. Before his massive registration drives, many poor people could not vote. In stark contrast to most Western democracies, over 80 per cent of Venezuelans turned out to vote in Sunday"s presidential elections.

Even opponents of Chavez told me that he is the first Venezuelan president to care about the poor. Since his landslide victory in 1998, extreme poverty has dropped from nearly a quarter to 8.6 per cent last year; unemployment has halved; and GDP per capita has more than doubled. Rather than ruining the economy " as his critics allege " oil exports have surged from $14.4bn to $60bn in 2011, providing revenue to spend on Chavez"s ambitious social programmes, the so-called "missions".


http://www.independent.co.uk...

Look up the Corruption Perception Index, Venezuala is one of the most corrupted nations on Earth, only below Russia, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Somalia.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://news.investors.com...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:50:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 8:24:31 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Look up the Corruption Perception Index, Venezuala is one of the most corrupted nations on Earth, only below Russia, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Somalia.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://news.investors.com...

Such indexes do not reveal the real context of a situation, and may even be counterproductive to a nation"s efforts to develop its economy and improve its citizens" standards of living. An inverse effect may occur under which countries are discouraged from undertaking serious anti-corruption measures because their attempts at reform are neither revealed nor regarded as successful by an improved score in the CPI. Perception indexes can punish rather than reward solid reform. The complexity of understanding how to interpret these indexes places the responsibility on anti-corruption agencies to explain index ratings to the media.

Since 2002, Transparency International has supplemented the CPI with the Global Corruption Barometer, a series of individual-level, national probability surveys assessing general public attitudes toward and experience of corruption in personal, business, and political life; educational and legal systems; medical services; police, registry, and permit services; utilities services; and tax revenue offices.


http://gcb.transparency.org...

Venezuela shows up is in police corruption. US in political parties. Which one is closer to the top?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 1:27:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 7:46:06 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/16/2013 2:47:59 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2013 9:45:38 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
"When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties." -Marquis De Lafayette-

Do you believe this to be true? If not, why?...

...I believe that we have come too far to let any one leader or governing body take what is rightfully ours via the constitution, and you should be willing to fight and possibly die to preserve your rights.

Do I believe the statement? Yes. Do I find your need to point to this quote and proclaim that we should all be willing to "fight and die to preserve our rights" to be over the top? Yes.

I really don't understand this rhetoric in 21st century America. If you don't like what the government is doing then take it to the voting booth. If that doesn't work then become an activist, or run for congress. And if that doesn't work it is because people don't agree with you. The idea behind the quote is that the government is not representing the people. Until you can prove that to be the case the your rant is meaningless.

Not to sound offensive or biased but, what if the gov't is using executive orders to take away the people's rights? What if we had a situation like the one in Nicaragua, Venezuela, or Russia, where they have democracies that are squashed on by tyrants who run extra terms or just give themselves extra terms without an election and then have the audacity to call themselves 'President'. The people who still support these tyrants are a militant populist movement that comprises about 10% of the population, would you take up arms to defend your liberty if you lived in Russia, Nicaragua, or Venezuela? I would.

You completely missed the point. Show me a valid reason to believe this might happen here in 21st century America, and I'll consider your questions reasonable enough to warrant an answer.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 2:34:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 1:27:51 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/16/2013 7:46:06 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/16/2013 2:47:59 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/15/2013 9:45:38 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
"When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties." -Marquis De Lafayette-

Do you believe this to be true? If not, why?...

...I believe that we have come too far to let any one leader or governing body take what is rightfully ours via the constitution, and you should be willing to fight and possibly die to preserve your rights.

Do I believe the statement? Yes. Do I find your need to point to this quote and proclaim that we should all be willing to "fight and die to preserve our rights" to be over the top? Yes.

I really don't understand this rhetoric in 21st century America. If you don't like what the government is doing then take it to the voting booth. If that doesn't work then become an activist, or run for congress. And if that doesn't work it is because people don't agree with you. The idea behind the quote is that the government is not representing the people. Until you can prove that to be the case the your rant is meaningless.

Not to sound offensive or biased but, what if the gov't is using executive orders to take away the people's rights? What if we had a situation like the one in Nicaragua, Venezuela, or Russia, where they have democracies that are squashed on by tyrants who run extra terms or just give themselves extra terms without an election and then have the audacity to call themselves 'President'. The people who still support these tyrants are a militant populist movement that comprises about 10% of the population, would you take up arms to defend your liberty if you lived in Russia, Nicaragua, or Venezuela? I would.

You completely missed the point. Show me a valid reason to believe this might happen here in 21st century America, and I'll consider your questions reasonable enough to warrant an answer.

Would an executive order to assassinate two American Citizens, one a 16-year-old boy convince you? How about a 19yo girl serving an 18mo sentence who never went to trial or signed a plea bargain? That good enough?

Domestic wire tapping?

Torture of American Citizens?

"Free Speech Zones"?

The list goes on...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 12:20:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 2:34:39 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
You completely missed the point. Show me a valid reason to believe this might happen here in 21st century America, and I'll consider your questions reasonable enough to warrant an answer.

Would an executive order to assassinate two American Citizens, one a 16-year-old boy convince you? How about a 19yo girl serving an 18mo sentence who never went to trial or signed a plea bargain? That good enough?

Domestic wire tapping?

Torture of American Citizens?

"Free Speech Zones"?

The list goes on...

So because American citizens identified as being associated with Al Qaeda, an organization responsible for the deaths of almost 3,000 American citizens in one day and to this day want Americans dead so bad that they value that goal more then they value their own life lose their rights, and because the government decided that the ability to listen to my phone sex conversations is collateral damage compared to missing an opportunity to prevent another 9/11 in a post 9/11 world...

No, that is not some tyrannical government taking away our rights, that is the government doing everything it can to protect us. That is not reason to stand up and fight, it is a reason to be able to sleep at night, especially when you live in New York City.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 7:11:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 12:20:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/17/2013 2:34:39 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
You completely missed the point. Show me a valid reason to believe this might happen here in 21st century America, and I'll consider your questions reasonable enough to warrant an answer.

Would an executive order to assassinate two American Citizens, one a 16-year-old boy convince you? How about a 19yo girl serving an 18mo sentence who never went to trial or signed a plea bargain? That good enough?

Domestic wire tapping?

Torture of American Citizens?

"Free Speech Zones"?

The list goes on...

So because American citizens identified as being associated with Al Qaeda, an organization responsible for the deaths of almost 3,000 American citizens in one day and to this day want Americans dead so bad that they value that goal more then they value their own life lose their rights, and because the government decided that the ability to listen to my phone sex conversations is collateral damage compared to missing an opportunity to prevent another 9/11 in a post 9/11 world...

No, that is not some tyrannical government taking away our rights, that is the government doing everything it can to protect us. That is not reason to stand up and fight, it is a reason to be able to sleep at night, especially when you live in New York City.

The US Government is openly funding and arming people who identify as al Qaeda in Syria right now.

al Alwaki was killed to shut him up because his only crime was that he vocally opposed American Foreign Policy.

AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, HE WAS KILLED FOR HIS POLITICAL SPEECH.

I think your political speech is crap, but I don't think anyone should be able to shut you up, nor kill you for it.

Obviously, you disagree.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 7:12:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 12:28:11 PM, Kinesis wrote:
As a non-american, I feel like I should have a right not to be killed either.

once we get that right back, I'll work on it for ya. :-)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 9:02:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 12:28:11 PM, Kinesis wrote:
As a non-american, I feel like I should have a right not to be killed either.

That's not too hard. Don't make a declaration that you want to kill Americans (or people in general for that matter) or join any groups that have made such declarations and you'll be good for the most part (at least from governments, you'll have to take other precautions from individuals that may want to cause harm).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"