If by your statement you are implying that ANY of your postings have been altered in ANY way on this forum, then I, as one of the moderators, take great offense! That is a falsehood. Perhaps your cut and pasting isn't all that it should be.
Or, perhaps your interest here is not so much in presenting differing ideas, but rather in undermining this forum. Well, I don't appreciate it in any case. Continue to make false accusations and your posting priveleges will be revoked.
We try to make this a place for free and open discussion. All messages are posted automatically at the time they are written! There is no delay period in which anyone could alter your messages, nor is there any desire to do so. That would contravene our moral beliefs in this matter.
I will be discussing this with Kohain the head moderator as soon as I am able to do so, but I am sure that he will concur with my statements.
Anyone who knows how these forums work, knows you can't edit messages, or cut out the offensive parts. As a moderator I can only remove an offensive message entirely. And I assure you and all the members of this forum that none of your messages have been removed.
But, we would appreciate it if you could enclose all of your messages under a single heading rather than submitting 6 or 7 posts on the same topic under seperate headings. This is so that messages written by others are not pushed off the page.
So they didn't block out parts of your messages (we knew this)
You just hit a wrong button, huh? and what button would that be? and how many times did you hit it?
Why are you making claims against the moderators of this group? What did they do to you other than give you an outlet for sharing your expert opinion? Or did you assume I was a moderator?
Now, on to other things. I am not 100% against what you are saying. I am against some of the claims and accusations you make. (The law always works, Christians*, Patriots, and Veterans haven't made contributions to this Country, the Constitution does not matter, ect).
PLEASE NOTE:
*I do not mean to rule out other beliefs - I'm just going by RFuselier's statements. He only seems to mention Christians, from what I have seen.
The claims I make are call civil liberties. They all have a basis in law from which you may read about them.
The opinion of others is irrevelant unless...a basis in law exist to prove different. That is what the discussion is opened for - to bring up a basis in law.
Notice this:
1. No law is used in discussions.
2. No other premise to accomplish anything is put forward - except war.
3. Direct avoidance.
Example:
I said the Constitution doesn't count unless you can produce law to argue the point.
The detractors avoid the issue of law and want to argue the Constitution issue. However they do not get specific about anything - just a general conversation. At the same time - I am offereing to discuss these issues with a "basis in law".
Again - the reason that certain rights are not claimable by the vast majority of people --- they do not learn how the law works on a particular right they want to claim.
Try a claim for relief and give it a try - or attempt this argument on the compensation claim.
I guess the problem I have with this individual, apart from his wild accusations, is his disregard for the beliefs and principles of others - ie. Christians and Patriots. However, I also don't agree with the idea that law is always a viable recourse in dealing with issues of human rights. I wonder what success Jews had in Nazi Germany trying to argue matters of private property and equality in the courts?
His whole philosophy to me, seems warped. He believes that our law makers determine what our rights are. To some extent that is correct. But, when asked what he would do if... in a given situation, he refuses to answer.
There have been countless examples of governments abusing their people and enacting draconian laws. Christians in communist countries have risked their lives violating communist LAW, to distribute bibles to citizens. In Cuba, it is the LAW that children be indoctrinated into communist philosopy and that no one be allowed to leave the country. In China it is the LAW, that you will not protest government actions - penalty for doing so - a tire tread across the forehead. And you Mike made a good point-about colonial America-it was the LAW that Americans pay exhorbinant taxes to an English dictatorship.
Obeying the law under such extreme circumstances becomes infeasable and at some point, people may have to challenge the law, and not neccessarily in a court room, in order to claim their INHERENT freedoms.
Of course working within the legal system is the best recourse at this time, but who knows what the future may bring?
The two laws being discussed are Federal law (law of the United States) and the common law (law of the United States of America) and this guy wants to talk about German law.
Out of context so he can participate. Avoidance of subject matter. I have no knowledge of German law. He should open up his own subject.
Are you that dense that you cannot realize that the remark I was making was by way of comparison? What I am implying, in case you missed somehow, is that our system of government, like the German government in the Nazi era, can be circumvented by those who do no respect human rights or established LAWS.
So answer the question. You claim rights that were granted before the U.S. was a country yourself. So that means ALL laws, not just U.S. laws. Right?
You still haven't answered my question about Native Americans. What did the law do for them? When they showed up in court they were shot or hanged. Or don't they matter to you and have no rights??????? If that's the case we've now established you're anti-Christian, Anti-Patriot, Anti-Veteran, and Anti-Jewish. Can we add racist to that list as well?
