Syria

[TheMastersSon]

I shudder at the thought of living in a country where my rights as a citizen and human being are somehow allowed or provided by my own paid employees. Indeed you already do live in China inside your head, the likes of you will need to step aside while actual free Americans fix our collapsed and bankrupt federal government and replace our current set of fascist traitor federal employees.

 

To again repeat our last discussion, if you simply do the legwork you'll discover none of our constitutional rights have been destroyed, mere recognition of these rights by our feds has been suspended temporarily by legislation ("Patriot" Act etc) passed after 911. In fact just a few weeks ago our NSA was given another six years of Constitution trampling, unfortunate but it's still considered temporary by all parties. Any such concessions can only be temporary, since it is not within the government's power to eliminate rights that it does not issue, provide or allow in the first place. I don't mean to keep harping on the FCC, but what Trump and Pai did is as close to a delusional attempt to actually eliminate constitutional rights as our country has seen in 240 years. I won't even bother with an imo on that claim because nothing else in our history compares to this orchestrated treason.

Edited April 14, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[JimboUK]

https://twitter.com/RusEmbUSA/status/984980480234868736 this is ominous.

[HeyYou]

I shudder at the thought of living in a country where my rights as a citizen and human being are somehow allowed or provided by my own paid employees. Indeed you already do live in China inside your head, the likes of you will need to step aside while actual free Americans fix our collapsed and bankrupt federal government and replace our current set of fascist traitor federal employees.

 

To again repeat our last discussion, if you simply do the legwork you'll discover none of our constitutional rights have been destroyed, mere recognition of these rights by our feds has been suspended temporarily by legislation ("Patriot" Act etc) passed after 911. In fact just a few weeks ago our NSA was given another six years of Constitution trampling, unfortunate but it's still considered temporary by all parties. Any such concessions can only be temporary, since it is not within the government's power to eliminate rights that it does not issue, provide or allow in the first place. I don't mean to keep harping on the FCC, but what Trump and Pai did is as close to a delusional attempt to actually eliminate constitutional rights as our country has seen in 240 years. I won't even bother with an imo on that claim because nothing else in our history compares to this orchestrated treason.

See, and this is what I don't quite get. You state that the government can't take away our rights, and in the next breath, you give an example of them doing exactly that. Temporary is only a word, and in some cases an empty promise. How long does a 'temporary' measure need to remain on the books before it becomes obvious that it isn't really temporary?

 

We may pay government employees out of our tax dollars, but, if you think they still actually work for us, you must be hiding under a mighty big rock.......

 

Back on Topic...... I see that we actually did blow stuff up in Syria...... supposedly chemical weapons facilities of one description or another....... now we get to see what Russias response is going to be. That should be fun..... We just need to get the hell out, and let the folks that actually live there figure it out.

[Lisnpuppy]

Shouldn't this be in the debates section?

[TheMastersSon]

Well not imo but as always I defer to mod judgment. Unless somebody other than Trump, AIPAC and our Pentagon machine is claiming we have any business in Syria, or that it amounts to something other than attempted distraction from Trump's failed poll numbers and delusional/crumbling as we speak empire, no debate exists on Syria as far as I've read.

Edited April 14, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[RatB0Y68]

I know that this isn't related to Syria per se, but I feel I have to say something on the issue of rights.

 

In my opinion, if people are to have rights, then the only proper way for a system of rights to be instituted is by mutual consent of those involved. Rights that are 'given' by anyone or anything are not rights, they are privileges. Here is why I say this:

 

If Institution/Entity X 'gives' you rights, then I would insinuate that this institution or entity has more power than you. After all, If they did not have more power than you, you could simply 'take' or reserve these rights for yourself.

 

If the institution or person has more power than you, then they can use that power to do whatever they want to you. The same power they used to give you these rights can be used to deny these rights to you or take them away. The fact they just happened to grant you rights is irrelevant.

I would submit that belief that you possess rights because they were granted to you by some higher authority (of whatever type) is in itself a concession to totalitarianism. In such a belief system, you only have these temporary privileges because someone else more powerful deigned to allow you to have them. You are essentially enjoying these perks at the pleasure of the ruler.

 

Democracy in the simplest sense means power to the people, so I could assert that this means that ultimate power/authority lies with the people. If so, then it is down to the people to ultimately 'reserve' these rights for themselves instead of hoping for their employees in government to do it for them (of course, I do realise that I am discussing things theoretically here.)

 

Right, now to say something about Syria so my post isn't a total waste of space.

 

One thing that annoys me about this is the whinging from various opposition members here in the UK that Parliament didn't get a say in deciding whether or not to join in on the strikes. There's a very good reason for that right off the bat... They weren't even IN!... Parliament isn't even in session right now. They're not going to be back until Monday. Secondly the PM didn't decide this on her own, she consulted and discussed matters with the Cabinet, the other leading members of the Government.

There's another important consideration. Let's assume just for the sake of argument that there are conclusively proven chemical weapons being produced in Syria, as it stands the investigation is still ongoing but whatever (I don't know, I haven't been there, I haven't seen the facilities, I don't even know what a chemical weapon even looks like)

 

I'm not an expert in military matters, but if I were to receive indication that there was a chemical weapons R&D facility operating in Syria, and I had a view to crippling Syria's Chem weapon production capability, I would prefer to act quickly and decisively before the intelligence goes stale.

The people running those facilities aren't going to sit on their backsides waiting to get bombed; sooner or later they could get wind of what was coming, presumably they would try to not only evacuate, but to try to uproot the infrastructure and resources to a safer location so as to continue their production later. Obviously they can't just take the entire factory and run, but they could try to salvage equipment, data and stockpiles to take with them. Allowing them to do this is tantamount to locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

 

Would I have liked Parliament to have been consulted? Maybe, It would have bolstered legitimacy, but as it stands, time was not on our side.

 

DISCLAIMER: The above post is nothing more than my subjective opinion, taking it too seriously may induce seizures, high blood pressure, wall to wall vomiting, red mist and green parrot disease.

[TheMastersSon]

In my opinion, if people are to have rights, then the only proper way for a system of rights to be instituted is by mutual consent of those involved. Rights that are 'given' by anyone or anything are not rights, they are privileges.

Exactly. A certain number of people including in my country either cannot understand or simply don't respect the concept of inherent God-given rights. The decline and fall of my country's federal government is the story of incremental ignorance of these rights, and resulting fascism, exactly as in Germany last century. The simple reality is that our federal government has already entirely failed, from our borders and airports to our Google searches. So the only remaining question is whether the people will or can replace the current set of proven fascist traitors with another set of elected representatives who hopefully will be willing and able to defend and protect our inherent rights, instead of relentlessly attack and repress them. That final part is a nod to HeyYou, I know it seems like inherent rights can be destroyed, only because the abject treason of our federal government has been going on for almost a half century. It's still fundamentally delusional to believe your own God-given rights are provided to you by your own employees, or can be taken from you by these same people.

Edited April 15, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

 

In my opinion, if people are to have rights, then the only proper way for a system of rights to be instituted is by mutual consent of those involved. Rights that are 'given' by anyone or anything are not rights, they are privileges.

Exactly. A certain number of people including in my country either cannot understand or simply don't respect the concept of inherent God-given rights. The decline and fall of my country's federal government is the story of incremental ignorance of these rights, and resulting fascism, exactly as in Germany last century. The simple reality is that our federal government has already entirely failed, from our borders and airports to our Google searches. So the only remaining question is whether the people will or can replace the current set of proven fascist traitors with another set of elected representatives who hopefully will be willing and able to defend and protect our inherent rights, instead of relentlessly attack and repress them. That final part is a nod to HeyYou, I know it seems like inherent rights can be destroyed, only because the abject treason of our federal government has been going on for almost a half century. It's still fundamentally delusional to believe your own God-given rights are provided to you by your own employees, or can be taken from you by these same people.

 

See, we have a major difference of opinion there..... God doesn't give you squat. Your government gives you what it feels like giving you, regardless of what God (provided he even exists) suggests.... I have found that our government doesn't put much credence in 'what god wants'.

 

As for the american people 'taking back' our government. That's another thing I am not going to hold my breath on. I would point out, that the american people are the very people that continually put those same crooks BACK in office.....

 

Individually, we have some pretty smart folks here, collectively though, we got nothin' on a box of rocks.

[RatB0Y68]

At the risk of straying into forbidden territory, I feel I must clarify my position on rights.

 

When TheMastersSon described rights as 'inherent, God-given', the juxtaposition of those two terms led me to assume that perhaps 'God-given' is being used as metaphorical shorthand for 'innate' or something similar. That is one interpretation.

However, I have to reiterate: If you believe that these rights are literally granted to you by some 'higher power', whether that is an earthly Government or a supernatural Deity, this is a concession to tyranny.

Because, as I said before, both a State and a Deity presumably have greater power than you, which they can use against you as much as for you.

In the case of your rights being granted either by God or by Government, you only retain these privileges because of a totalitarian permission. Furthermore if your rights come from an all powerful superbeing, then that being takes them away, in common vernacular you are utterly screwed.

In the case of an earthly institution you at least have some options to try to assert your rights such as public protests, voting, campaigning etc. While it may well be said that these options are sometimes flimsy or hopeless, they alt least have a chance of working. No such recourse is even concievable if some supernatural controlling power takes away your rights.

 

TLDR: If rights are inherent, they have to come from the individual common people, and be codified by the mutual consent of these individuals. Relying on any form of 'Higher Power', Temporal or Spiritual, Political or Religious, to deign to grant them to you defeats the whole point of having rights.

 

But of course, in real life, the true nature of rights falls short of the ideal.

[Deleted54170User]

At the risk of straying into forbidden territory, I feel I must clarify my position on rights.

 

When TheMastersSon described rights as 'inherent, God-given', the juxtaposition of those two terms led me to assume that perhaps 'God-given' is being used as metaphorical shorthand for 'innate' or something similar. That is one interpretation.

However, I have to reiterate: If you believe that these rights are literally granted to you by some 'higher power', whether that is an earthly Government or a supernatural Deity, this is a concession to tyranny.

Because, as I said before, both a State and a Deity presumably have greater power than you, which they can use against you as much as for you.

In the case of your rights being granted either by God or by Government, you only retain these privileges because of a totalitarian permission. Furthermore if your rights come from an all powerful superbeing, then that being takes them away, in common vernacular you are utterly screwed.

In the case of an earthly institution you at least have some options to try to assert your rights such as public protests, voting, campaigning etc. While it may well be said that these options are sometimes flimsy or hopeless, they alt least have a chance of working. No such recourse is even concievable if some supernatural controlling power takes away your rights.

 

TLDR: If rights are inherent, they have to come from the individual common people, and be codified by the mutual consent of these individuals. Relying on any form of 'Higher Power', Temporal or Spiritual, Political or Religious, to deign to grant them to you defeats the whole point of having rights.

 

But of course, in real life, the true nature of rights falls short of the ideal.

 

And I second that!