f617a9fa   
   XPost: soc.men, can.politics   
   From: marek1@cox.net   
      
   On May 27, 10:02 pm, "The Bloody.Government.swine....flu.shrills..."   
      
   wrote:   
   > "PolishKnight"  wrote in message   
   >   
   > news:marek1-0631B7.19240927052009@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...   
   >   
   > > In article ,   
   > >  "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:   
   >   
   > > > "The Bloody.Government.swine....flu.shrills..."  > > Bloody..Government.Swine.Flu....Shrill...@56969696960.mpc..agov> wrote   
   > in   
   > > > messagenews:yYdTl.29504$PH1.6145@edtnps82...   
   >   
   > > > > "PolishKnight"  wrote in message   
   > > > >news:marek1-3E23E8.22314226052009@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...   
   >   
   > > > >> America truly is a great country   
   >   
   > > > > America was a great country, now it's a shit hole where freedoms and   
   > > > > rights   
   > > > > mean nothing to the political elite who think their so called   
   > terrorist   
   > > > > act   
   > > > > give them the right to violate any law it wants on law abidding   
   > citizen's   
   > > > > and trash over any person under any reason ..   
   >   
   > > So how many law abiding citizens do you personally know who've had their   
   > > rights violated by the Patriot act?   
   >   
   > Even one would be too many wouldn't it?   
      
   You didn't answer the question, did you?  I'll presume, safely, that   
   your non-response is due to the answer being: 0.  Yes?   
      
   It's an important distinction because the patriot acts severest   
   sanctions apply to non-citizens and to terrorists hence your argument   
   is moot.  1 would be too many if you actually _had_ 1 to parade   
   around!   
      
   Continuing:   
      
   > Once you create systemic violations   
   > of individual rights by legislative Bill or Statute, everyone's rights are   
   > at that point violated, so what difference does the count make - its not a   
   > sporting event?   
      
   This reminds me of a feminist histrionic argument that men looking at   
   a woman in a lurid way is sexual harassment which is a mild form of   
   rape therefore most men are rapists.   
      
   Oh, wait, here it comes!   
      
   > If Hilter had "only" killed 100 Jews, Christians and   
   > Gypsies, etc., because of their standing in Nazi "law", would that in any   
   > way diminish the assault on individual rights, as far as the law is   
   > concerned?   
      
   Let's just remember something here, mate: YOU violated Godwin's law, I   
   didn't!   
      
   Indeed, I wanted to make a comparison of the laughable and pathetic   
   Canadian "charter" that declares human rights by marginalizing white   
   males in writing to the Nuremburg laws that marginalized Jews and   
   added to caselaw that discriminated against Jews in Universities and   
   government employment.  There are no doubt white males being enslaved,   
   imprisoned, and killed as these Canadian racist laws are enforced.   
   Yep, Canada has a shameful legacy of being similar to Nazi Germany in   
   the 1930's.   
      
   The American Patriot Act, by comparison, is a very lightweight version   
   of FDR's WWII acts that included detaining THOUSANDS of Japanese   
   Americans and looking the other way at the Dresden firebombings.  Yet,   
   compare and contrast the media's treatment of the former to the   
   latter.  Wouldn't that kind of media protest indicate that freedom is   
   more alive and well in the states now than in the 1940's in some ways?   
      
   > Either you have an established constitution from which to build a   
   > common foundation of supreme law, that government is bound to, or you have   
   > man made Emperial rule, where government is god and tyranny is just a matter   
   > of time and degree... Pick up a history book some time.   
      
   You may not be aware that the Patriot act is not a Constitutional   
   amendment and has been challenged and overturned at times.  Recently,   
   Homeland Security decided to go to a Maryland library and start   
   pestering the perverts looking at internet porn and demanding their   
   ID's.  The commie librarians called the police and Homeland Security   
   backed off.  It's kind of funny because the leftists now are more anti-   
   sex and anti-porn than the right ever was (especially in Canada!)   
      
   Anyways, my point is that the Patriot act is still subject to legal   
   review and certainly doesn't allow "right to violate any law it wants   
   on law abidding citizen's and trash over any person under any   
   reason".   
      
   > Let me put it too you again.... Just how many people's rights can been   
   > legally violated in a free country? Explain your reasons for picking such a   
   > number, then explain just what you think a "right" is, if governments can   
   > break them with the stroke of a pen?   
      
   The fact that government's can break rights with the stroke of a pen   
   is a great argument for keeping it small and limited if there ever was   
   one rather than sucking bureaucrat c*ck to get rationed welfare   
   healthcare.  Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty, as I'm sure   
   you have heard.  The concept of "rights" is a historic laden term that   
   refers to an era when monarchies granted rights at the behest of the   
   crown and anti-monarchists argued that they were "God given".  I don't   
   get all in a tizzy about violations of rights that I don't consider   
   relevant, important, or justfiied.  I do think some of them are in a   
   very high region such as freedom of speech because that's a strong   
   safeguard against losing all the others.   
      
   And I didn't pick a number, you did.  You chose 100.  I could turn the   
   question around and ask you why you chose that one rather than 1 or   
   1000.  As I said, I don't view "rights" as these holy biblical style   
   concepts but rather as a pragmatic view in terms of providing the best   
   lifestyle and freedom for the buck.  In theory, there are other   
   countries that treat me better in terms of men's rights, but overall I   
   wouldn't live as well there.  It's a tradeoff so there is no perfect   
   number but 100 is a nice round number to indicate that a policy is   
   moving from a minor abuse into a significant human rights issue.   
      
   Let's go back to your hypothetical example of a Nazi Germany without a   
   significant holocaust.  What difference would it make?  It would mean,   
   for starters, millions of Jews that would have lived through the Nazi   
   regime and gone on with their lives after WWII had ended and the regime   
   was over.  It's the same hope that white males have after some   
   conservative S.C. Justices are nominated that have "empathy" for white   
   males.  It's a huge personal, and legal, difference not to be handwaved   
   away.   
      
   regards,   
   PolishKnight   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)