Bryce: Privacy falls under Amendment IV:

quote:

---

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....

---

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

---

Right now, the U.S. is the world's enforcer. You step out of line, the U.N. can't do anything much. The U.S. can.

If the mighty industrial and military power that is the U.S. was to suddenly collapse into splinter groups, we'd have a problem.

Say you have a major problem brewing in... say, Slovakia. No one would consider the Disjointed States of America to be able to help/enforce.

"President! President Bill! The (insert group here) are causing trouble in Slovakia. We're needed to stop a major incident!"

"Okay, get everyone (senators, etc.) to the polls so we can decide what states go."

???

Uhm, no.

That's political instability, and it wouldn't work. For the U.S., or anyone else.

If so, you're rather first-part-of-the-century U.S. citizen, Frank.

------------------
If the laws of the land were given to a society should not we take the laws away now?

1. The American People would never stand for it.

2. All conquered people everywhere would immediately understand why we constantly gripe about our govenrment (but wouldn't understand why we don't want a good, old fashioned dictatorship instead).

------------------
When only the police have guns, it's called a police state.
-- Bumper Sticker
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm

Incidentally, the First Amendment is a wonderful thing. No establishment, that also means that the US government cannot endorse any one religion. You Christians don't seem to understand that.

My favourite ammendment, well, lemme check the constitution. I have it tacked up on my wall. It truly is a brilliant document.

I would have to say the fifth. The American System of Justice is a marvel, the 8th wonder of the world. Although you right wing fanatics wish to remove it, the concept of allowing ten guilty men to go free so that one innocent man does not go to jail is brilliant.

Now, I like this imperialism thread. I say we pursue it! I would like to pose this question:

Who decided the US is the supreme source of what is right?

Baloo: As to the American people wouldn't allow it, bullshit. The American people are so bloody brainwashed and stupid and ignorant, they'd allow it. They'd allow anything if the media made it palatable for them. That's why I'm no longer a socialist (at least this week). People are so bloody stupid, they would never grasp anything beyond how to buy porn! People are worthless and they all should burn in hell! Omega, can you work on that for me? Thanks.

The US did, of course.

"As to the American people wouldn't allow it, bullshit. The American people are so bloody brainwashed and stupid and ignorant, they'd allow it. They'd allow anything if the media made it palatable for them."

It would take a great deal of work by the media to produce the amount of brainwashing necessary to convince the American public that the introduction of an additional 5 billion citizens (plus a few) would have a positive effect on the U.S. Besides, Congress, which is responsible for issuing declarations of war (one would almost be mandatory if the U.S. expected to keep it's newly-conquered territories) would recognize that these new territories would either have to be administered as protectorates (expensive) or admitted as states. This latter option would be no more palatable, since it would dilute the authority of individual congressmen and senators.

Add in the fact that many of these nations are military powers in their own right, with a national agenda that is not the same as the U.S., and even if the U.S. did decide to take on all comers, it would be hopelessly outgunned and outmanned before a single shot could be fired in anger.

"People are so bloody stupid, they would never grasp anything beyond how to buy porn! People are worthless and they all should burn in hell!"

The above statement is dysfunctionally hostile, filled with contempt. Do you include yourself in the description above or are you exempt? If you are not exempt, then why? If you hold us in such contempt, why do you deign to speak to us? If you do not include us in that group you describe, why do you not make this clear?

I know you asked Omega to explain this, but I'll go ahead. Yes, we all should burn in Hell because we are all worthless. That's why God sent His Son to die on a cross as the ultimate sacrifice for His children. Now, all who believe are made right.

------------------
Peace on Earth

Really. I can't even believe ANYONE believes that. Certainly "God As Advertised" could not feel this way.

Is there a whole lot of sense in going to all the trouble of creating something, setting down intricate laws and modes of behaviour for it to function with, and going to extremes in order to 'save' it, if you think it's WORTHLESS???

Piffle! Folderol! Balderdash!

People tell you you're worthless so that you'll be easier to CONTROL and ABUSE.

This is why the most common element in all kinds of child abuse is an attempt to make the abused individual feel.. what? WORTHLESS.

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

DT:

"No establishment, that also means that the US government cannot endorse any one religion. You Christians don't seem to understand that."

What the heck are you talking about, now? 'We' Christians? Didn't you say that you believe every single word in the Bible? And why do you say that we don't understand this? I have no desire to force my beliefs on anyone else, and I doubt that anyone else here (besides you, that is) wants to, either.

"Although you right wing fanatics wish to remove it, the concept of allowing ten guilty men to go free so that one innocent man does not go to jail is brilliant."

Same opening sentance as above. I have no clue what you're talking about. I don't know one conservative who would agree with the idea of sending an innocent man to prison along with ten guilty men. In fact, it sounds more like something you would support. "The good of the many outweighs the good of the one," you know. At least, in your philosophy.

"People are so bloody stupid, they would never grasp anything beyond how to buy porn!"

Ah, how many times have we heard this from tyrranical monarchs and dictators? I forget. "The people are too stupid to govern themselves. They have to have someone to take care of them." Tell me: what automatically exempts you from this stupidity of the people? This is the root of the difference between conservatism and liberalism. Liberals want the government to have more power over our lives because they think we can't take care of ourselves. Well, that, and they get more power. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the people CAN and SHOULD govern themselves.

It's like the pope's supposed infalibility. Until he becomes pope, he's just a man, but as soon as he does become pope, he can suddenly do no wrong. It's the same as you and so many others before you have said, DT: all people are stupid, unless they happen to be ruling other people. You seem to think that just because someone disagrees with you, they're an idiot. What makes you so smart that your supposed solution is so good that anyone who doesn't see its merits immediatly has the IQ of a ballpoint pen?

"People are worthless and they all should burn in hell! Omega, can you work on that for me?"

Is that a reference to our little conversation? You know, the point where you called me a tool of Satan and told me I'd burn in Hell?

------------------
"Arthur hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realised there was a contradiction there and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."