If Mexico can't eliminate the cartels, should the US military do the job ?

[Rigby5]

Dear ******* baby Jesus I didn't realize people could be born as ******* stupid as rigby5.

Say it with me Might makes right dumb dumb.

Might makes right is exactly the definition of a dictatorship, not a republic.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
When Congress simply declares something that can't be justified as necessary in defense of individual rights, then Congress is being a dictator.

It was illegal to kick the Spanish out.
It actually is the US that is illegal.
Did we ever pay the natives for their land we took?
No.

Wrong

There is no such legal restriction ont he power of congress to declare war

It was all legal

In many casesd yes we did pay them for the land we took. Such as Manhattan and kentucky

In most cases we took nothing from anyone as most of the land was empoty and belonged to no one

 

[Soupnazi630]

Might makes right is exactly the definition of a dictatorship, not a republic.

no one cited might makes right you dumb ****

 

[Rigby5]

WRONG

poplurity is not created by something being normal natural and legal

You are the stupidest ass wipe on this forum

Popularity is what requires it to be legal in a republic.
No one has the authority to impose dictates on others, in a republic.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Popularity is what requires it to be legal in a republic.
No one has the authority to impose dictates on others, in a republic.

No it is not
You have lied and massively failed to accurately define republic


Popularity means nothing you stupid ************

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong

There is no such legal restriction ont he power of congress to declare war

It was all legal

In many casesd yes we did pay them for the land we took. Such as Manhattan and kentucky

In most cases we took nothing from anyone as most of the land was empoty and belonged to no one

Obviously wrong, because the war caused deaths, which is inherently criminal unless defensive.

And there was NO "empty" land.
The 10 million natives needed that land for their hunter/gatherer economy.
And we murdered 9 million of them.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Obviously wrong, because the war caused deaths, which is inherently criminal unless defensive.

And there was NO "empty" land.
The 10 million natives needed that land for their hunter/gatherer economy.
And we murdered 9 million of them.

Wrong

Offensive warfare is perfectly legal

yes most if the land in North America was empty'
tyhere wwre less than 1.5 million natives in north america
The other 9 million or so were in central and south America which the US had nothing to do with

We did not murder 9 million

you claim is a bald faced lie

 

[Rigby5]

No it is not
You have lied and massively failed to accurately define republic


Popularity means nothing you stupid ************

Here is the definition of a republic:
{...
Government derives its powers from the people and is administered by elected officials.
...}
And the only power the people have is the defense of their inherent individual rights.
No one has the authority to impose arbitrary dictates like Prohibition or drug laws.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Here is the definition of a republic:
{...
Government derives its powers from the people and is administered by elected officials.
...}
And the only power the people have is the defense of their inherent individual rights.
No one has the authority to impose arbitrary dictates like Prohibition or drug laws.

WRONG
You are a liar who made that crap up

HERE IS THE DEFINITION

a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.


THATS IT

You are a deceitful dishonest liar who just makes crap up in EVERY ******* ARGUMENT

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong

Offensive warfare is perfectly legal

yes most if the land in North America was empty'
tyhere wwre less than 1.5 million natives in north america
The other 9 million or so were in central and south America which the US had nothing to do with

We did not murder 9 million

you claim is a bald faced lie

Wrong.
There were 10 million natives in what we define as the US around 1700, and by 1900, 90% of them had been murdered.
Remember we were the ones who put a bounty on scalps.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
There were 10 million natives in what we define as the US around 1700, and by 1900, 90% of them had been murdered.
Remember we were the ones who put a bounty on scalps.

Wrong

There were less than 1.5 million in all ofm north america

You are deliebrateluy perverting and lying about the numbers. Most of the ten million were in central and south america

that is a fact *****
they always collected scalps and the frnech and british were paying bounties for them long before us you illiterate stupid ***

 

[Rigby5]

WRONG
You are a liar who made that crap up

HERE IS THE DEFINITION

a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.


THATS IT

You are a deceitful dishonest liar who just makes crap up in EVERY ******* ARGUMENT

Obviously wrong.
If a republic were just majority rule as you imply, then there would be no such thing as inherent rights, so then the US Revolution would have been illegal.
We ended slavery because it violated inherent individual rights, not because of popular opinion.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Obviously wrong.
If a republic were just majority rule as you imply, then there would be no such thing as inherent rights, so then the US Revolution would have been illegal.
We ended slavery because it violated inherent individual rights, not because of popular opinion.

I Implied nothing you stupid ****

I copied and pasted THE DEFINITION

You just MADE UP your own

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong

There were less than 1.5 million in all ofm north america

You are deliebrateluy perverting and lying about the numbers. Most of the ten million were in central and south america

that is a fact *****
they always collected scalps and the frnech and british were paying bounties for them long before us you illiterate stupid ***

That makes no sense because we are the French and the British.
And no, there was no scalping before we started paying for scalps.

 

[Soupnazi630]

That makes no sense because we are the French and the British.
And no, there was no scalping before we started paying for scalps.

No we are not you senseless moron we are not the french or british we are americans

yes there was it was common practice beforre any whites arrived

 

[Rigby5]

I Implied nothing you stupid ****

I copied and pasted THE DEFINITION

You just MADE UP your own

Wrong.
Your definition did not create any criteria for what is legal or not, and clearly the SCOTUS often rules legislation illegal, so a criteria must exist. And what I posted about defense of inherent individual rights is what all the founders said.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Your definition did not create any criteria for what is legal or not, and clearly the SCOTUS often rules legislation illegal, so a criteria must exist. And what I posted about defense of inherent individual rights is what all the founders said.

Once again BOY I posted the defintion you make crap up as you

Not one of the founding fathers said anything of the crap you say

 

[Rigby5]

No we are not you senseless moron we are not the french or british we are americans

yes there was it was common practice beforre any whites arrived

Wrong.
Before the French and British, there was no one paying for scalps, and no reason to collect them.
In fact, there was almost no conflict at all until we invaded.
We most certainly are NOT "Americans" and are from Europe instead.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Before the French and British, there was no one paying for scalps, and no reason to collect them.
In fact, there was almost no conflict at all until we invaded.
We most certainly are NOT "Americans" and are from Europe instead.

Wrong

Before ther french and british the natives collected scalps as trophies of war which is a valid reason

hunter gatherer societies are inherently violent and war like and the natives were no exception

It was a common practice which others took advantage of

We are Americans it is irrelevant where ancestors came from

 

[Rigby5]

Once again BOY I posted the defintion you make crap up as you

Not one of the founding fathers said anything of the crap you say

{...

The Origin of Human Rights: A Founding Fathers' Perspective​

August 3, 2023
Introduction

When discussing the origin of human rights, the Founding Fathers' conviction that these rights were endowed by their Creator as stated in the Declaration of Independence is a pivotal starting point. This belief that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights was not just an assertion, but an ideal that would set the stage for the American experiment. However, it is important to recognize that while this principle was enshrined in one of our nation's founding documents, achieving true equality remained an ongoing struggle throughout history. This article will explore the Founding Fathers' perspective on the aspiration for equality and the contrast between God-given human rights and the divine right of kings, as expressed through their own words.

Striving for Equality: The Ongoing Journey

While the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all men are created equal, it is essential to acknowledge that this statement did not immediately translate into real equality for all individuals in America. At the time of the Founding, the institution of slavery persisted, and women were denied many basic rights. The Founding Fathers, though espousing the principle of equality, were products of their time and society, grappling with the complexities of these contradictions.

Thomas Jefferson himself, the principal author of the Declaration, was a slaveholder, which has led to criticism and scrutiny of the apparent incongruity between his words and actions. Despite the ideal of equality, it would take decades and significant societal upheaval before slavery was abolished and substantial progress was made in the pursuit of civil rights for all.

Throughout history, the United States has continually strived to live up to the ideals set forth by the Founding Fathers, working to overcome systemic inequalities and discriminatory practices. The ongoing pursuit of equality remains a central theme in American society, emphasizing the dynamic and aspirational nature of the nation's founding principles.
...}
The Origin of Human Rights: A Founding Fathers' Perspective