Staredit Network

Look it up, Militia wasn't the only thing fending off the British. The militia would aid the army in battle if the fighting reached their region. Like I said, a reserve army pretty much. We did have an army back then btw, and we do have to thank those soldiers for our freedom along with the militia. They defended our rights and way of life, an ARMY defended our rights and way of life.

No, an army defended our NATION from enemies.

WE defend our rights. That's why we have none now. Because of ignorant freakers like yourself.

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


keyword there is temporary which in essense is the definition for militia. The differance being that these men were better trained. In all actuality the "army" was trained militia. It was disbanded afterwards and years later reformed.

Like I said, you are comparing today's standards and usual situations with ones from the past. We had an army back then, an army is just a group of forces (usually armed) with a mutual cause. The continental army fought for our the people then because they WERE the people. Our nation was a newly formed one ran by people who wanted all the freedoms they had preserved and were willing to die for it to the last man. The continental army fought for our independence, freedom, and rights. ARMIES in some countries across the world are doing what the continental army did hundreds of years ago today.



No rights? We have none now? What world do you live in. You feel like you've had your rights violated, oh WHICH ONES? Personally, tell me, seriously.

I do hope you know that our nation wasn't formed until the treaty of paris which reconized us as a nation and when our consitution was ratified and set into effect.

umm constitution... something your right-wingers seem to forget a lot.

BTW it was not an army. Already disproven that. By definition it was a militia.

Stalingrad, holy crap.
Can't you get it we've all been violated of our rights, right at this very moment. The president has spied on people without telling us about the plan first?

People's rights are violated all the time, but evidently you're too shelled up in your little household to know anything about "rights" and the way the country is supposed to be ran.

@NR: Thank you, yes the Constitution seems to be a little sheet a paper that just says what rules you can break to you "right-wingers"

Im sick of explaining for the, if I even attempt to count, I would say the 23rd time which rights were violated. Obviously you haven't been here long.

To bad. You're going to have to get used to that.

Spying on us? When have you or your family been spied on? The list is very small and I can't see how it effects your life in anyway if you are spied on unless you have something to hide or are just plain paranoid.

And no crap people's rights are violated all the time. Sorry, with power comes corruption even from the little little guy in a blue suit with a badge on his shirt who likes to screw with people and we call them dickheads. But saying we have no rights at all? When's the last time you've walked down the street and thought, "Gee, I wonder if I'm being spied on right now?", or "Damn, this is such a police state, I hope I'm not pass cerfew so I don't get arrested."



How IS it suppose to be ran? If you knew anything about how it was SUPPOSE to be ran, you would find that the founding fathers knew our government would have to go through changes now and then. That's how they made it, to be flexible.

LOL speaking of police state... why have you avoided my thread? No argument?

And no... they created the constitution with the concept that you can't trust the government. Hence why we have the gun amendment, etc. Also during the same time the DoI states that when a government becomes tyrannical, those with the ability have the responsibility to do something.

Remember:
Tyranny by popular vote IS democracy! - This is a messege from the Department of Homeland Security.

What a rather sizable number of citizens have conveniently gone without noticing is a certain peculiarity in the federal government, a constitutional aberration if you will. Indeed, tradition-oriented 'Americans' are loathe to acknowledge something amiss with their government. At four-year intervals they prance off to the polls and leave it up to their choice trustee to handle the more onerous tasks and hazards that come with running a nation athirst for the vestiges of liberty abroad. What liberty means to the oft-unfortunate recipients of our largess is a tide marker shy of the fledgling America and all its star-spangled trappings.

It would appear to this viewer that we the people are the itinerant juggernaut, trying to cover all the bases without a slip. Somewhere along that tightrope we lost our footing, though it would seem that the circus crowd sees two different acrobats. We must trudge on. After all, are we not the cure to the world's lassitude? Or merely the cause? Nonetheless, the tent stakes are moldy and macerated, and it would seem all is set to collapse. Ignore the termites, they know not the works of man.

If you'd prefer I cut short the purple language and trade in this T-bone for a ribeye, then I may comply, but before that, I wish that you find my meaning.

To tell you the truth I skipped it, not on purpose btw, I just got into what MR.Camo said.



That and that the government would have to go through changes at times. That's why they didn't make elaborate guidelines to follow. It's starting to feel like you pick "verbal fights" or arguments because you have nothing better to do or something.



I know about our country's history. Kellimus said that an army defends a nation which is not the right definition. We were a people who wanted our rights and freedom defended. So guess what we did, WE FORMED AN ARMY. You know how I know it was an army? Because the Militia helped the Army when the Army neared a Militia's "zone". Not the other way around. It was not disproven, just because Kellimus says it does not make it right. The army defended the people and what it believed in, not just the nation. Other countrys' armies today in this world right for their rights and they are not called militia.



I'm not a right-winger, just because I don't agree with some of your *hardcore* left-winged ideas does not make me right-winged. You seem to forget that easily because I have stated that in almost all the threads you and I posted in. Either that or you need have a scapegoat to make my ideas look wrong just because of a falsely accused political agenda.

---------------------------------------



I'm not saying we don't have problems with our government and how it is carried out now, even though it seems that way because Kellimus and Euro have to make these absurd accusations and assumptions when I post, I'm just saying that their claims are mostly false or exaggerated, sometimes to the equivilant of a hyperbole.

I do think something should be done, I never said nothing should, but Kellimus and Euro must assume everything. To assume could be ones undoing.

You believe that unconstitutional acts are good.

And you call yourself an american.

You're a freaking hypocrite. Just like Chris.

The unconstitutional acts you claim can be debated. But do I support the constitution? Yes, but I also know the reality that people bend and use the constitution for their own personal gain which could be a corrupted reason, an "Evil" reason if you will. Some parts of it must be bent at times to prevent further damage to the nation.

I don't know if you've ever had this happen to you, but in school, have you ever had one person in your class who did something bad, never got caught, so your whole class was punished? Maybe a rule or two was made to prevent it from happening again? These are those "unconstitutional acts" you are talking about. Are they right? Not always, but they prevent our country and our people from getting harmed any further.

For one... none of this is hardcore left-wing. Its called reality and whats currently happening. None of it is absurd simply because as just stated its currently happening.

At 1:00am in the morning I don't have anything better to do. I like to pick fights with twits who think everything is just fine and dandy.

Lastly, you completely twisted what I said. I said a militia DISBANDS afterwards. All those armies that fight for freedom and aren't called militias DON'T DISBAND. How hard is it to get that through your thick skull.

You two still exaggerate, you two and some others.



As I said, I don't believe that, but nope, you must believe it and assume and ignore everything else I say and nit-pick at it.



How did I twist what you said?

Euro, keep in mind, just because Kellimus says it, doesn't mean it's true. If you knew the technical things about an army, there are two types: an Organized army, and an Unorganized army. Either way it's an army where militias are part of or not.

An army is simply a group of people who fight for a mutual cause. Sweet and simple.

The continental army were made of groups of militias and others which didn't make it a huge militia, it made it an army by USNG standards.

You claim we nit-pick, but you just did right there....

God you're a freaking hypocrite.

You don't know what hypocrite means, do you? If you did, you wouldn't be using it now because I didn't nit-pick at all in my last post. Maybe you're seeing something I'm not?



Nope, addressed the whole entire thing individually.

---------------------

Back to topic

Ok stalin, lets see basicly all that you have posted has been nothing new and is the same tune. The tune where you obviously know not of which you speak. Assume your more intelligent when your.. what... 13? I know what an army consists of, I have read up majorly on armies across the globe from the time of the mesopotamians to the Vietcong. A militia is simply put an armed force that disbands after war time. The continental Army was disbanded after the war. A US Army was later formed years later. Therefore since it was only for that war, it was a militia. Case closed.

You must not know what hypocrisy means because you are one. You do claim that we nit-pick everything, and you just did 2 posts above.


and whats a militia? A group that fights for seperate causes? No. An army is also described as an armed force that is not disbanded after war-time. Thats sweet and simple. Just because they call it an army does not make it one. Its just like how we never had a civil war. We had a war for southern independance.

army

n 1: a permanent organization of the military land forces of a nation or state [syn: regular army, ground forces] 2: a large number of people united for some specific purpose

Lets see... if the CA was disbanded after the war that would not make it permanent now would it. exactly.

If you really knew, we wouldn't be talking about this right now.



You mustn't know what nit-picking means because I didn't in my past two posts. What's funny is that you can't state what I nit-picked, just have to follow Kellimus like a blind man.



You keep saying just because our standing army after the war was disbanded, it doesn't make it count as an army at all, but it really does by military standards.

Like I said, we had an ARMY, which differed from a MILITIA, because the MILITIA helped the standing ARMY during the revolutionary war.

Many armies have been disbanded in the past that clearly weren't militias.

So stalingrad, you don't think people's rights have been violated?


What happened when we stole all THEIR land? HUH?!

Not on the level Euro and Kellimus are saying.

Also: What do the native americans have to do with the people's rights being violated now? They were not led under our government at the time, they were not our citizens.

If you cannot see the message that Camo is trying to portray, you have absolutely no right defending the Iraq War. AT ALL.

But here. Since you can't see it, allow me to explain it to you:

When we came here, the Native American's had the land. We come along, and annex them. We make treaties with them, and break treaties with them. They fight against us, and they are "infidels" when in all reality, WE ARE the infidels. And why do I say that? Well because it's quite simple and easy to understand (If you have a brain), that comming in and annexing people off of their land, and forcing beliefs onto them, makes us terrorists to that nation of people. What are we doing with Iraq? We are pretty much annexing them from their beliefs.

Did you know Muslims do not believe in Income Tax? Guess what Democracy and Captialism bring? Income Tax. We are FORCING beliefs onto them. That isn't what Democracy is about.

Democracy is about giving freedom to those who do not have it, WITHOUT FORCING things onto them. What have we done? FORCED DEMOCRACY into a RELIGIOUS RULING country. Forced CAPITALISM onto a country that does not believe in it.

Yet they are the infidels?

And to rebuttle against the "Not as much as we say":

Can you peacefully go to the library and check out a book that deals with the Muslim culture and religion out of pure curiosity and research? No. Guess what happens when you check that book out? Your name goes onto the potential terrorist list. All because you're curious about Muslims. How do I know this? Well, it's public knowledge that the government has admited watching over what you check out. Guess what Amendment that infringes? The Amendment for Privacy baby. You no longer can check out a book and read it in the PRIVACY of your own home, without the government peeking into your PRIVATE library record.

Can you peacefully make international calls? Be it to Canada, or Russia? No. Every international call that is made, gets tapped. Guess how I know this? Publicly announced by our own government. And guess what freedom that infringes eh? PRIVACY.

Guess how our government gets away with it? "Fighting Terrorism"



He knows what's up. Just because they are "Fighting the war on terror", "Terrorism" (Which one is it NOW eh Dubya?) means they can infringe our rights?



We deserve no rights then.

But alas.. You will only disagree with me on this, when I have clearly pointed everything out. To bad you're to blind to open your eyes to the truth.

We weren't talking about Iraq, we were talking about the rights we have in America and if they've been violated.



This is filled with half-truths. You feel that the government is constantly monitoring your everymove when they are incapable in doing that. The most they could ever effectivley check is a couple ten thousand at best. Their lists to profile people are very slim and I actually could care less if I'm on it. Only paranoid people like you probably give a damn anyways.

Not every international call gets tapped either, that's just an insane thought.



What rights have the government actually broken that effect YOU, YOU in anyway? In what ways does it affect your everyday life? Or are you just naturally jumpy to any thought of people listening in or watching.

Also, the government should have access to library records. They have caught criminals in the past and I'm pretty sure they are government funded (or can be traced to a federal fund) because they are a public facility and don't make an income.



Nice generalization.

If you still don't get the message, please go back to kindergarten, take your ritalin, and listen.