America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~
Published on May 18, 2006 By Moderateman In US Domestic
We the people that are citizens of the United States have declared that we have the following rights.

1. The right to not spend our tax dollars supporting people that have broken the law to come to America ILLEGALLY.

2. The right to have English as our national language.

3. The right to Protect ourselves from criminals with no legal reprisal.

4.The right to vote in new amendments without some liberal judge over turning the will of the people.

5. The right to defend out borders without a foreign power interfering.

6. The right to VOTE on if we send our tax dollars overseas to help countries that never appreciate it.

7. The right to recall any politician from any state that fails in his duty: example Drunken Ted Kennedy.

8. The right to worship or not worship God in public if we so choose.

9.The right to freedom from government interference in our private lives.

10.The right to not to have to support lazy bums that refuse to work for a living.
Comments (Page 6)
8 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8 
on May 19, 2006
BS: *nods* okay...

Mod: oops... First word I learned of spanish, was "puta" (or was it 'puto' ?). That was only cause my mum asked a friend of hers who she worked with, and asked him for a spanish word that would be appropriate for a woman who was...difficult. Well, she nearly got her arse kicked cause of that...
on May 19, 2006
77 by ElindelWolf
Friday, May 19, 2006


puta=female

Puto=male
on May 19, 2006
"5. The right to defend out borders without a foreign power interfering."


We already have that in terms of government, Bush is just a puss in this regard. If you are talking about private citizens defending the borders, it's insipid to pretend they aren't anything more than vigilantes. If they want to patrol their land, fine, but I have as much respect for them as I have for bounty hunters.

People like that need to get over their childish need to play cop or military, and either do it for real or leave it to the people who voters deem proper to do it. Private citizens "protecting our borders" have no oversight from voters, and are just out their supporting their own agenda and making themselves feel big.


Get a grip BS. They are no more a vigilante than you are.


Main Entry: vig·i·lan·te
Pronunciation: "vi-j&-'lan-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
- vig·i·lan·tism /-'lan-"ti-z&m/ noun


Now you show me where the Minutemen are doing this! And since they aren't doing it they "can't" be vigilantes.
on May 19, 2006
I asked because i was having trouble finding any actual instances that you claim. if you can help, thanks in advance,,,,if not, well,,,


Try this one:


BURGLAR SUES HOMEOWNER

Terrence Dickson of Bristol, PA finished burglarizing a house and left through the garage. The door to the house locked behind him and the automatic door opener in the garage wasn’t working so he was stuck. The family was on vacation and Dickson was trapped in the garage for 8 days. He lived on dog food and Pepsi (and you thought it wasn’t good for you!). When he got out, he sued the homeowner for mental anguish. A jury awarded him $500,000.
on May 19, 2006
I asked because i was having trouble finding any actual instances that you claim. if you can help, thanks in advance,,,,if not, well,,,


Try this one:


BURGLAR SUES HOMEOWNER

Terrence Dickson of Bristol, PA finished burglarizing a house and left through the garage. The door to the house locked behind him and the automatic door opener in the garage wasn’t working so he was stuck. The family was on vacation and Dickson was trapped in the garage for 8 days. He lived on dog food and Pepsi (and you thought it wasn’t good for you!). When he got out, he sued the homeowner for mental anguish. A jury awarded him $500,000.
on May 19, 2006
#79 by drmiler
Friday, May 19, 2006


Now you show me where the Minutemen are doing this! And since they aren't doing it they "can't" be vigilantes.


they for sure are VIGILENT, BUT not vigilanties, they stop no one, they arrest no one, they confront no one, they simply call the border police and inform them where the ILLEGALLY ENTERING AMERICA people are.
on May 19, 2006
Anyone who considers themselves a fan of personal freedom and privacy would have to vote against 187. If you like the idea of the goose-stepping authorities walking up to you and shouting "WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS??!?" and then when you don't have them shuffling you off without due process, well, this isn't the right country for you.


This is the chief reason I support the McCain compromise RE: immigration, Baker. While we can talk about the ideal of deporting the illegals, to do so would require us to demand papers of every US citizen to prove that they are not among the illegals, and to violate several Constitutional amendments in invading homes, seizing property, and other acts. The "deportation movement", I fear, could lead very quickly to internment camps and vigilante action on the streets of the US. FAR better to give the illegals an incentive to self identify (and NOT immediate citizenship; self identification only STARTS an 11 year ROAD to citizenship), and deport immigrant criminals when they are detected by the justice system. It's not a perfect compromise, but it's FAR preferable to the alternative.
on May 19, 2006
83 by Gideon MacLeish
Friday, May 19, 2006


This is the chief reason I support the McCain compromise RE: immigration, Baker. While we can talk about the ideal of deporting the illegals, to do so would require us to demand papers of every US citizen to prove that they are not among the illegals, and to violate several Constitutional amendments in invading homes, seizing property, and other acts. The "deportation movement", I fear, could lead very quickly to internment camps and vigilante action on the streets of the US. FAR better to give the illegals an incentive to self identify (and NOT immediate citizenship; self identification only STARTS an 11 year ROAD to citizenship), and deport immigrant criminals when they are detected by the justice system. It's not a perfect compromise, but it's FAR preferable to the alternative.


but that head start to citizenship is what is not even fair, how about the people that have been waiting for years to be allowed legally into the United States, then these legal immigrants have to wait for the same 11 years to become citizens. I feel that rewarding lawbreakers that snuck across the border is just wrong.

What would be the problem with people having to identify themselves as citizens or legal immigrants?
on May 19, 2006
What would be the problem with people having to identify themselves as citizens or legal immigrants?


I refuse to carry "papers", MM. Your proposal of forced identification searches would make me and others criminals, with few tangible benefits to the country. And IF the Supreme Court didn't declare such searches illegal, we might as well prepare to surrender the rest of the Constitution.

The problem we have here is decades of bureaucrats who've let the situation get out of hand. There's no simple solution to the problem. Your solution is NO solution, as it means the death of liberty.
on May 19, 2006
85 by Gideon MacLeish
Friday, May 19, 2006


The problem we have here is decades of bureaucrats who've let the situation get out of hand. There's no simple solution to the problem. Your solution is NO solution, as it means the death of liberty.


I agree!@ I just wanted to see your take on this. heh heh heh
on May 19, 2006
The problem we have here is decades of bureaucrats who've let the situation get out of hand


I disagree partially...it is not just the bureaucrats, it is also those who illegally enter...
on May 19, 2006
The problem we have here is decades of bureaucrats who've let the situation get out of hand


I disagree partially...it is not just the bureaucrats, it is also those who illegally enter...
on May 19, 2006
I refuse to carry "papers", MM. Your proposal of forced identification searches would make me and others criminals, with few tangible benefits to the country. And IF the Supreme Court didn't declare such searches illegal, we might as well prepare to surrender the rest of the Constitution


All they need to do is tighten the restrictions on state issued DL's. Sorry Gid but you already carry papers. They're called a "drivers licence".
on May 19, 2006
While we can talk about the ideal of deporting the illegals, to do so would require us to demand papers of every US citizen to prove that they are not among the illegals, and to violate several Constitutional


No. To demand the deportation of EVERY illegal would. To deport the ones that are caught and identified only requires common sense.

Why am I the lone voice in the wind saying just because you cant catch every murderer, we must legalize it? We may not be able to get 12 million, but we can make a damn dent.
on May 19, 2006
88 by ElindelWolf
Friday, May 19, 2006


disagree partially...it is not just the bureaucrats, it is also those who illegally enter...


it is a circle, the bureaucrats make it easy for the illegals to come through.,
8 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8