Your God Given Rights!

[Dawn]

Talking about God...

Did you know the Preambule of the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms is worded that way:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Most Canadians thinks that all our freedoms are based only on the Law. Most Canadians ignore the God part.

Isn't it ironic that the freedom of religion is based on the law and upon the supremacy of God...the God of Protestants... which is not the official religion in Canada (we have no official religion).


Source: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#I

 

[Legzman]

Talking about God...

Did you know the Preambule of the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms is worded that way:



Most Canadians thinks that all our freedoms are based only on the Law. Most Canadians ignore the God part.

Isn't it ironic that the freedom of religion is based on the law and upon the supremacy of God...the God of Protestants... which is not the official religion in Canada (we have no official religion).

If it was that way here in America rest assured, the god part would be removed. Just like they did to our fucking pledge. If you don't like it then don't say it. I don't believe in god but ****, don't change the fucking pledge just because a small group of idiots is "offended" by a little word. Its the idea that these idiots got what they wanted more than what they got.

 

[YMIHERE]

Hitler came to power with 75 percent of the vote, and this is because so-called intellectuals gathered support behind him.

However, despite achieving a much better result than in the November 1932 election, the Nazis did not do as well as Hitler had hoped, polling 43.9%, rather than the 50+% that he had expected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election,_1933



Will E Worm, you are often wrong but always certain. :scream:

 

[Legzman]

^^^yea because wikipedia is the most reliable source of information...

 

[YMIHERE]

^^^yea because wikipedia is the most reliable source of information...

I know wikipedia is not the best source, but the issue is simple. How many votes did Hitler receive. Any good history book will show the same stats.

 

[assholebythedoor]

Hitler became in power because of money. Votes didn't even get count once they found out about his *********** money.

 

[Dawn]

If it was that way here in America rest assured, the god part would be removed. Just like they did to our fucking pledge. If you don't like it then don't say it. I don't believe in god but ****, don't change the fucking pledge just because a small group of idiots is "offended" by a little word. Its the idea that these idiots got what they wanted more than what they got.

Yeah, i remember the debates around the pledge.

Some people (mainly atheists groups) tried in Canada to change the wording but nobody with enough economical backbone would like to be stuck in a long legislative walk for several years just to change that line in the Preambule of the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

 

[Jagger69]

I know wikipedia is not the best source, but the issue is simple. How many votes did Hitler receive. Any good history book will show the same stats.

For the umpteenth time....Hitler did not receive ANY votes. He was appointed. The figures you cite are representative of what the **** party was able to garner as far as their constituency in the Reichstag is concerned. Again.....Hitler was NOT elected.

And you're right, YMI....it is extremely simple. Tons of sources back this up.

This is a recording.....

 

[Jagger69]

Truth is if we ever had an armed conflict between the population and the military here in the US and the soldiers obeyed the orders the population would not have a chance.Whether the soldiers would actually be willing to do that is a good question.If they instead decided to side with the population then there would be no need for the weapons the population has in their possesion.But if they didn't again the population with their handguns and rifles and shotguns would not stand a chance.
I really think it's kind of a ridiculous arguement anyway.Long before we ever got to a point that the population thought armed insurrection was a reasonable idea things would have gotten so bad that the US would have probably started a nuclear conflict and we would all be dead.Just look at the way things are going now, we are going to try to borrow (and print money) our way out of current and pending financial problems.What happens when other countries try to say no more loans US you are not a good risk and can't possibly pay it back.Our response will be FU! We are America and we will eithier get what we need or destroy your asses!

Sage-like wisdom from FOMM as usual. That's why it always slays me that all the *** nuts use the "armed insurrection" defense to justify their position. A hunting rifle won't be of much use should things really start coming down heavy.

It's OK to be in favor of the second amendment without contriving bogus reasons to justify its existence.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I know wikipedia is not the best source, but the issue is simple. How many votes did Hitler receive. Any good history book will show the same stats.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp

Read that, and then think again.

I've always been fascinated by Hitler and the **** regime, so I've studied it a lot. FYI - The main reason that people voted for Hitler was because Hitler used scare tactics which pretty much ****** people to vote for him. But, before the election that you are referring to, Hitler had already established his **** roots and started forming his dictatorship.

:2 cents:

PS - How did Hitler get brought up anyway? :dunno:

 

[Friday on my mind]

Sage-like wisdom from FOMM as usual. That's why it always slays me that all the *** nuts use the "armed insurrection" defense to justify their position. A hunting rifle won't be of much use should things really start coming down heavy.

It's OK to be in favor of the second amendment without contriving bogus reasons to justify its existence.

Thanks jagger.Truth is I think the 2nd amendment and have said this before does mean what most of the *** rights people here say it does.It was an individual right for the population to possess arms in order to keep a potentially tyranical govt. in check.But that seems to have become as we agree kinda of outdated.But that is the law of the land as it was intended and untill someone gets enough support to amend it which is not easy should be protected as a right IMO.But I also agree with you that arguements like keeping us safe from tyranny seem outdated and claims of more legal guns actually is safer for society's just don't stand up to scrutiny.It has been shown many times the majority of shootings of people in this country are not done by criminals or people defending themselves from criminals but were self inflicted suicide or related to some sort of ******/personal like a friend heat of the moment arguement situation by up to then law abiding citizens.But for now thats the way it is and probably will stay ,guns and the 2nd amendment aren't going anywhere.Right now I think we all have other priorities in america ,economic mainly we should be and I think most are ,worried about.

 

[Will E Worm]

A national socialist is about as far right-wing as you can get.

Nope :nono:

You think you know something, wanting to do away with the death penalty.
:tongue:

Will E Worm, you are often wrong but always certain. :scream:

^^^yea because wikipedia is the most reliable source of information...

:tongue:

 

[marquis2]

I'm sure to some it isn't, but that also is not limited simply to foreigners. Personally I think it helps to put things into perspective to view them from different angles.

I'm English, other posters in the thread are from different English speaking nations and it's interesting to look how our countries have developed since the 18th century where we all have some common ground.
The US Constitution was drawn up from people with British backgrounds and is really an idealised version of what existed anyway.The idea of freedom didn't come out of thin air , it already existed in an imperfect form , the big deal was that it was written down as a right instead of simply assumed.To this day Britain has no Constitution in a formal sense.Whether this made Britons less free than our American cousins is open to debate ; I feel we are freer in some respects but not in others.We abolished slavery in 1807 for example.
One problem with rights is that they don't always help.The UK is a signatory to the Human Rights Act and recently the courts held that DNA samples of people with no criminal convictions be destroyed as it infringed their rights.Other decisions have frankly made life more difficult - decisions are sometimes made which place the rights of criminals above those of their victims.

 

[Dawn]

[/SIZE]

I'm English, other posters in the thread are from different English speaking nations and it's interesting to look how our countries have developed since the 18th century where we all have some common ground.

True. That's also how i see things myself but i know it's not the minding of everyone. Canada is also linked with England - and developped in a different way too.

An interresting point: Canada is known for his pacific behavior. We even gained political autonomy in a very peacefull and democratic way. The canadian constitution is our own only since 1982 when our Prime Minister at the time, Pierre Eliot Trudeau, asked the Queen of England to allow this formal independency. Even in the way Canada was build, we can see what defined the canadian way to handle international affairs. Also our relations with firearms as we never needed them to gain independancy and freedom (unlike USA). For a canadian, the peaceful negociations based on good-will served us well and Canadians often promotes this minding.

And i'm not even talking about the french heritage in this mixt, french people were more than 50% of the population at the very beginning of Canada and represents now 32% of the total population. French and English cohabitating on the same land, sharing the same institutions... in an overall peaceful history.

 

[marquis2]

Yet for all your peacefulness Canadian ****** were among the most feared and respected by their enemies, certainly your Southern neighbours can't teach you much about soldiering!

 

[Dawn]

Yet for all your peacefulness Canadian ****** were among the most feared and respected by their enemies, certainly your Southern neighbours can't teach you much about soldiering!

And twice

I think the Canadian ****** gained a lot of respect in WW2 as well.

I'm not sure how is the non-Canadian coverage of the canadian troops in Afghanistan (Kandahar area) but our troops are doing well in a very hard situation over there.


Of course, i generalized in my previous post but... it remains quite true overall i think.

 

[Supafly]

To clean up this Hitler Vote thing, here is a link to the actual exact countings of the vote on 5th of March, 1933:

http://www.gonschior.de/weimar/Deutschland/RT8.html

It is in German, but the numbers are crystalclear to everyone.

Now two other things:

Is being an 'Intellectual' a bad thing? Let us see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and reason") is a person who tries to use his or her intelligence and analytical thinking, either in their profession or for the benefit of personal pursuits.

Do some of you really think that actually deciding by using ones brain is bad? Then please tell me what part of your body you let do your thinking!

Now that National Socialist = Socialist theory.

Here is the definition of Nazism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Here the one of Socialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Read a bit and see for yourselves.

But this **** topic has nothing to do with te original topic about God and the Rights of Men.

I think that God should be kept out of government. As long as it's not proven he/she/it/them exist, people should govern themselves.

Something thats existance is purely fictional as by now cannot allow or forbid us anything :2 cents:

 

[Will E Worm]

Is being an 'Intellectual' a bad thing? Let us see.

It wouldn't be if they would actually use their brain, not think so highly of themselves and lose touch will the common man and woman.

Socialism = ****

Hitler was a socialist

The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff...

"This book reveals socialisms nasty little secret." William Cooper

 

[marquis2]

I'm English, other posters in the thread are from different English speaking nations and it's interesting to look how our countries have developed since the 18th century where we all have some common ground.
The US Constitution was drawn up from people with British backgrounds and is really an idealised version of what existed anyway.The idea of freedom didn't come out of thin air , it already existed in an imperfect form , the big deal was that it was written down as a right instead of simply assumed.To this day Britain has no Constitution in a formal sense.Whether this made Britons less free than our American cousins is open to debate ; I feel we are freer in some respects but not in others.We abolished slavery in 1807 for example.
One problem with rights is that they don't always help.The UK is a signatory to the Human Rights Act and recently the courts held that DNA samples of people with no criminal convictions be destroyed as it infringed their rights.Other decisions have frankly made life more difficult - decisions are sometimes made which place the rights of criminals above those of their victims.

It wouldn't be if they would actually use their brain, not think so highly of themselves and lose touch will the common man and woman.

Socialism = ****

Hitler was a socialist

The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff...

"This book reveals socialisms nasty little secret." William Cooper

Hitler was a socialist in many ways-economics, dislike of big business , affinity with the common man.Interestingly enough his fellow Fascist Mussolini also considered himself to be a socialist.They both detested Communism but as the only communist state was the USSR that wouldn't be surprising.
Where he wasn't socialist was in his racial ideas of course.

 

[Dawn]

Socialism = ****

Socialism = Socialist States :dunno:

Hitler was a socialist

The doctrine of Hitler (Nazism, Hitlerism - call it how you want) is not representative of the above-mentionned (in the link provided) socialists states.