FTL_Ian's Personal Attacks on CNHT

[FTL_Ian]

CNHT:

You seem to never answer direct questions from Lex, Caleb, or myself, and just drone about how "we're falling for it", the UN, etc.  I'll ask again just for fun.  How EXACTLY would the UN be a problem if we set NH totally free of federal control and opened the borders?  Please enumerate your points.

[tracysaboe]

CNHT,


I, for one, would like to see the U.S. shrink into history.  I'm not particularly interested in defending "U.S. Sovereignty".

I'm also not interested in any U.N. agenda to rule over me.  From my perspective, anyone who wants to tell me what to do can shove it up their ...

Caleb

Then why are you here?
Do you really think the UN will give you any say in what they will do to you after the US has been dismantled?
Have you even read their Charter?
Do you have a fever?
Hello???

Sorry man, I like you Caleb don't mean to pick but I love this country and its better than anything I have seen, visited or read about.
If you think its really that bad then why stay?

You see, that's why we're seceding. We'll have the NH government to protect us from both the US and UN 

Seriously though, highly free society with highly visible and radicle arms baring rights, is much more capible of defending attacks on personal soveranty then an government organization.

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

Since when has any illegal immigrant demanded to be able to kick people out of their homes?

"Another key document, ?El Plan de Aztlan?, states that ?Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent?.We declare the independence of our mestizo nation?"

More:

http://thewideawakes.org/archives/2005/06/21/por-la-raza-todo-fuera-de-la-raza-nada-or-how-racist-mexicans-want-to-reclaim-the-american-southwest/

All they want is for those states (New Mex, Arizona, etc) to secede the U.S. because they believe the U.S. stole it. In many ways they're right.

I say let them secede. Good riddence.

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

I have a solution: Let the immigrants have California and Texas. This solves 2 problems:
1) The welfare roles in California won't be our problem any more
2) George Bush will not be a US citizen any more, as he resides in Texas, which is no longer a part of the US. He therefore cannot be President and must resign.

Tracy

[Lex]

All they want is for those states (New Mex, Arizona, etc) to secede the U.S. because they believe the U.S. stole it. In many ways they're right.
I say let them secede. Good riddence.

Why not let ALL the states secede? 

[tracysaboe]

Those that do want to take land and evict owners ... well, I don't think that's right.  Like Lex said, if all they are doing is TALKING, well, last time I checked free speech is ok. (Pending the outcome of Russell and Kat's trial).  If they are actually trying to actually steal land and evict people ... well, that is a crime, no matter who does it, (although the Supreme Court thinks its okay if municipalities do it, but that's another matter.)

It strikes me as a bit ubsurd that Jane think thinks she can trust the U.S. government to defend us from having our property stolen from us.

Tracy

[FTL_Ian]

Yes, it's quite the fantasy, isn't it?  Just like her fantasy that the UN could take over an armed, free state.   

[tracysaboe]

Well there you go again, putting words into my mouth. I never said you shouldn't hire whoever you want! The conversation wasn't even allowed to reach a point of talking about working immigrants because someone started screaming racism just for discussing that it was a problem.

Actually you're the one putting words in other people's mouths.

Nobody in this thread accused you of being racist. I think you're being a bit hypersensitive. That racist attack was a long long time ago.

Lets get past this racist stuff (you thinking people are calling you it.) and other people using the ad hominum attack of it, so we can get past it to the real issues like Calib is trying to get to.

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

ascribing to big BIG and I mean BIGGER
But Jane, getting rid of Dubya AND cutting down on the welfare roles is real tempting, isn't it?

Sure but it won't stop the rest of the states from having welfare nor will it stop the rich and powerful to function doing evil wherever they are. And it still plays into the hands of the UN..it's what they wanted you to say all along.   

Welfare states would find it much more difficult to be welfare states with-out all the federal governments subsidies.

Tracy

[Lex]

fantasy that the UN could take over an armed, free state.   

Yeah... Japan tried it once and they are still recovering 

[tracysaboe]

Just like her fantasy that the UN could take over an armed, free state.   

Yeah. The U.S. can't even take over a relatively poor, highly regimented central government controled state run by a despot. 

How much more difficult would it be to take over a wealthy, free, and highly decentralized state.

Tracy

[Lex]

Also, they may have an incentive to keep us around. One day they may want to retire somewhere safe... and just like nobody can beat Switzerlands private banks nobody will be able to beat New Hampshires private security and military.

[ravelkinbow]

You guys are missing the point ....  It's incremental...no one is going to take anything now...but given time...real id, un resolutions disarm citizens, little by little...

Just look at the uk, first the guns, now the knives...etc...

Hitler didn't get up one morning and throw people on trains, he did it small steps at a time, that is what the UN is doing and the US is apart of that.

[AlanM]

You guys are missing the point ....  It's incremental...no one is going to take anything now...but given time...real id, un resolutions disarm citizens, little by little...

Just look at the uk, first the guns, now the knives...etc...

Hitler didn't get up one morning and throw people on trains, he did it small steps at a time, that is what the UN is doing and the US is apart of that.

Ravel,
I haven't seen anyone here favor UN involvement in our affairs. I think we all want us out of the UN. That having been said, the issue seems to be, should we have open borders. I could care less what the UN, or Bush, or Pat Robertson, or Ted Kennedy, or whomever, have to say about the subject. I'm not going to make my decision on the subject a reaction to someone else's position on the subject matter. I choose to take a stand based on freedom, the freedom to live whereever a person desires.
If the UN were to come up with a policy that required everyone to eat oranges twice a day, would I stop eating oranges? Maybe, maybe not. I would make my decision based on the value of dissent, versus whether I wish to continue eating oranges. If I continue to eat oranges, does this mean I support the UN? No. It merely means I want to eat oranges.
I see this crucial fact as the whole basis of the disagreement here. If I, or anyone, support open borders, is it because we support the UN? In my case, I vehemently oppose the UN, but I am not about to allow my opposition to them force me into a decision to stop eating oranges.

[ravelkinbow]

open borders promotes the UN, in that it makes what they are trying to do..."Global Government"
that much easier to achieve.