Soldiers have their say...

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Red@Oct 10 2004, 04:53 PM

Yup, they need the gun registry bill C68




Disclaimer: Poking fun at the gun registry in canada, not you guys.

Uh, no!

Heard all about that beauty from my father-in-law.

[CaptainCrunch]

You don't rip up the document that contains the priciple that your nation is founded on.

You don't replace it, because there is nothing in that document that dosen't apply to today.

its the framework upon with the United States was built.

[Red]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Oct 10 2004, 09:56 AM
You don't rip up the document that contains the priciple that your nation is founded on.

You don't replace it, because there is nothing in that document that dosen't apply to today.

its the framework upon with the United States was built.

Use the 10 commandments instead..........ooops, now I've done it
________
JUSTIN BIEBER FAN

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 10 2004, 04:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 10 2004, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Oct 10 2004, 04:46 PM
. If many of the clauses included are simply basic human rights, then it shouldn't be hard to keep those same core principles, but assisting them with a 21st century context.

So you're telling me that rights to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, unreasonable search and seizure...etc, etc, etc, need to be updated to apply to the 21st century?

Why?[/b][/quote]
Lol, updated? I just said in that quote that if they are so universal, it shouldn't be difficult to keep those core principles enshrined in a newer, more modern document.

It's probably a mistake to simply disgard the fact that we live in a much different world than the one of 1776. Why is it such a bad thing to realize this and update government institutions accordingly?

I guess you don't revise hallowed super-human documents (like the bible), right?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 10 2004, 05:00 PM

Lol, updated? I just said in that quote that if they are so universal, it shouldn't be difficult to keep those core principles enshrined in a newer, more modern document.

It's probably a mistake to simply disgard the fact that we live in a much different world than the one of 1776. Why is it such a bad thing to realize this and update government institutions accordingly?

I guess you don't revise hallowed super-human documents (like the bible), right?

So they are universal, then why do they need to be updated?

What is antiquated about the document? How does it not apply today? I don't even understand where you are coming from on this.

And your presumptive little shots are getting old. I haven't been inside a church in over 15 years.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 10 2004, 05:03 PM
And your presumptive little shots are getting old. I haven't been inside a church in over 15 years.

You seem much to godless to have anything to do with any church, don't worry, that wasn't directed at you

Basically I'm equivilating reverance for the Constitution with reverance for the Bible. The Bible says formal monogamy was the only way to go. Maybe if they knew about condoms and birth control, Jesus would have ordered us to let loose and re-create Eden. Just an example of how modern context can change an old, 'solid' principle.

I suppose though, again, if the thing can just be amended upteen # of times, then you may as well keep it. It will never be re-done because it would be too difficult. Look at the problem Trudeau had trying to get Canada one.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 10 2004, 05:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 10 2004, 05:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 10 2004, 05:03 PM
And your presumptive little shots are getting old. I haven't been inside a church in over 15 years.

You seem much to godless to have anything to do with any church, don't worry, that wasn't directed at you

Basically I'm equivilating reverance for the Constitution with reverance for the Bible. The Bible says formal monogamy was the only way to go. Maybe if they knew about condoms and birth control, Jesus would have ordered us to let loose and re-create Eden. Just an example of how modern context can change an old, 'solid' principle.

I suppose though, again, if the thing can just be amended upteen # of times, then you may as well keep it. It will never be re-done because it would be too difficult. Look at the problem Trudeau had trying to get Canada one. [/b][/quote]
I seem godless? How did you come to that conclusion?

You still haven't answered the question....or have you decided there isn't a good enough answer worth debating?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 10 2004, 05:16 PM
I seem godless? How did you come to that conclusion?

You still haven't answered the question....or have you decided there isn't a good enough answer worth debating?

Jeez, turn your joke-dectetor up a little, you're getting tiring. I don't think you're godless, I was having fun with you. The bible comment wasn't aimed at you, and the godless one is just cause I don't like you (see, there's another joke!).

As for the question, I've already answered it. I think most government institutions need updating, and the constitution is no exception. There are so many amendments now, doesn't it seem that it would be more efficient to create a new document, incorporating a lot of the amendments?

I don't know, I see the arguments in favour of keeping it (as I've already stated). I'm just not sure where this reverance to keep this document completely intact comes from. Well... I know where it comes from. I just don't appreciate it as much as others I guess.

[Agamemnon]

Oh wow. I was looking for some constitution criticism to provide some more fodder for this conversation, and I ran across something interesting. Apparently there is an American Nazi Party. Ooooookkkk.

This is the link for the GOOGLE SEARCH, I'd never post a direct link to this kind of crap anywhere.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=americ...azi+party&meta=

However, super-interesting look at the hate-mongoring typical of a Nazi mentality. Lots of hate-literature and racist vibes. Most importantly, the Nazi's are horrified by recent demographic information that shows whites are being reduced in proportional #'s in the US.

Jeez, some people's children!

The site came about because it claimed to be protected by the 1st amendment of the Constitution.

[RougeUnderoos]

Not saying I agree or disagree, and it's an interesting conversation, but it's sort of like discussing "should we all drink a bottle of bleach"?

The answer is going to be a pretty universal "No" amongst Americans. A politician that tries to bring that up is either A) on the serious fringe or B ) about to get fired.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 10 2004, 06:03 PM
Not saying I agree or disagree, and it's an interesting conversation, but it's sort of like discussing "should we all drink a bottle of bleach"?

Lol, or like asking, "Should Canadians have a Constitution?"

[Agamemnon]

Wow, I've never quite seen it put this way.

"If you love your country, you are a Nationalist. If you love your White Race, you are a Socialist. Why not be a National Socialist? "

Those Nazi's are something else. Some amazing Flash intro to their site too.

They're actually trying to get a National Socialist to run for President in 2008, wouldn't that be pathetic. Apparently some guy ran on that ticket and made it past the primaries in Maryland (not sure what type of race this is, Governor, Senate, etc.).

Also, while there is absolutely NOTHING to be read into this (I believe, since these people are inherently not credible), the Nazi's in the states seem to be supporting Bush fervently, believing that Kerry will allow for millions more minorities to invade North America.

Again, I don't support this stuff, I just find it highly amusing (and by amusing, I'm not forgetting the holocaust, WWII, etc.). Sheesh, one has to leave a lot of disclaimers when talking about this stuff

Edit: And I've officially taken this thread farther off topic than any thread before

[FlamesAddiction]

I read an article the other day that say 1/3 of soldiers being called (and re-called) up to duty to serve in Iraq are saying no. That seems pretty significant.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 10 2004, 06:23 PM
I read an article the other day that say 1/3 of soldiers being called (and re-called) up to duty to serve in Iraq are saying no. That seems pretty significant.

That applies to about 1,500 older reservists who are ostensibly over their military obligations who are being recalled via an obscure clause. Its not the normal situation and frankly, if I were them I'd be monumentally cheezed and probably protesting as well if I were in their boots. Its kind of cheap shot recall.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Its referred to as a "backdoor draft". And yeah, I'd be right there with you protesting that BS. Most of these people now have completely different lives and responsibilities to worry about. They are being asked to make the ultimate sacrafice for an illegal war. Its not kosher.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 10 2004, 05:54 PM

Jeez, turn your joke-dectetor up a little, you're getting tiring. I don't think you're godless, I was having fun with you. The bible comment wasn't aimed at you, and the godless one is just cause I don't like you (see, there's another joke!).

As for the question, I've already answered it. I think most government institutions need updating, and the constitution is no exception. There are so many amendments now, doesn't it seem that it would be more efficient to create a new document, incorporating a lot of the amendments?

I don't know, I see the arguments in favour of keeping it (as I've already stated). I'm just not sure where this reverance to keep this document completely intact comes from. Well... I know where it comes from. I just don't appreciate it as much as others I guess.

OK...joke detector is turned up. Forgive me though, it's been very hostile in here the last few weeks.

I don't see the need to rewrite a document to say the same things it already says. Can you give me an example on how this would be beneficial, or more importantly I guess, can you give me an example of something that is hindered because of the present state of the constitution?

I guess I just don't see the issue. It has nothing to do with reverence whatsoever.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 10 2004, 10:15 PM
OK...joke detector is turned up. Forgive me though, it's been very hostile in here the last few weeks.

I don't see the need to rewrite a document to say the same things it already says. Can you give me an example on how this would be beneficial, or more importantly I guess, can you give me an example of something that is hindered because of the present state of the constitution?

I guess I just don't see the issue. It has nothing to do with reverence whatsoever.

It's not that there's a pressing concern to radically alter the constitution. I'm just surprised that one would run a country based on a document created centuries ago. I've heard TONS of reverance for the thing, and that's what I'm arguing against, preserving it because of it's 'biblical' nature. You don't want to change something that's 'working', fine with me. I prefer to modernize and streamline government institutions, even if there isn't a 'pressing' need.

If the thing was re-written today, I doubt it would be exactly the same, so clearly it's not a 'perfect' document.

Why amend the old one that allowed for racism? Why not just make a new one? Since they haven't been doing that already, I admit, it would be pretty strange to start now.

Just arguing for the sake of arguing... it's Sunday and I'm bored.

[Displaced Flames fan]

The consititution doesn't have to be altered to change and streamline government institutions, unless you are talking about a radical reformation of the basic 3-branch system of government.

You're arguing against some folks' reason for not changing something. You're not arguing against the lack of change.

Doesn't make much sense to me.