[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: Mythical inalienable rights.? Source: Crazy Guy URL Source: [None] Published: Feb 6, 2017 Author: nolu chan Post Date: 2017-02-06 03:25:38 by tpaine Keywords: None Views: 17720 Comments: 56 Nolu Chan has just posted another rather remarkable claim. (It is an) --- insufferable claim that RKBA is an inalienable right given by God Almighty hisself. The Constitution recognizes capital punishment which takes away all rights, including the mythical inalienable rights. nolu chan posted on 2017-02-06 Poster Comment: Any comments? Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 49. #2. To: tpaine (#0) Nolu is a bright guy. He has a sharp legal mind, but a Pharisaic one, like Paul of Tarsus. He believes in the rule of law above all other things. Now, what he said there is absolutely true, in the sense that if your right to life truly were UNALIENABLE, then you could not be executed for crimes. (To argue with ME, Nolu would point out - correctly again - that "unalienable" does not mean somebody can't take it from you in punishment for crime, just that you cannot contract it away). Once again, that would be his assertion of the rule of law as the supreme rule of life. Obviously lawyers like the idea of Rule-of-Law uber alles, the "Master Key", because they possess it and, therefore, have greater power than others. All of these things are always about power and fear. On another thread, strict legalism was being used to justify (as if that were possible) the German invasion of France and the Low Countries and Scandinavia and Poland in World War II. Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-06   6:45:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: Vicomte13 (#2) On another thread, strict legalism was being used to justify (as if that were possible) the German invasion of France and the Low Countries and Scandinavia and Poland in World War II. Bullshit. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49601&Disp=9#C9 [Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France. France declared war on Germany. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France? Who could have done such a thing? A country should not declare a war it is not prepared to fight. By declaring war, France made the subsequent German attack on France lawful. nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-08   16:41:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: nolu chan (#7) Bullshit. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49601&Disp=9#C9 [Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France. France declared war on Germany. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France? Who could have done such a thing? A country should not declare a war it is not prepared to fight. By declaring war, France made the subsequent German attack on France lawful. You're not as smart as I made you out to be. Belgium did not declare war on Germany. Holland did not declare war on Germany. Luxembourg didn't. Denmark didn't. Norway didn't. Nor did any of them attack Germany, carry out cross-border raids, anything. They were simply invaded by the Germans, because the Nazis were criminal thugs who broke the peace. That's why they were tried and hanged as criminals, breakers of the peace, when the war was over. They broke the law when they invaded Poland. That gave France and Britain, and Russia and everybody else, the RIGHT to attack them. The UK and France declared war, justly. You say that gave the Germans the "right" to invade France - sort of like a criminal has the "right" to go in an shoot up a police station because they are trying to stop him. But none of that list of countries above declared war on Germany. The Germans overran them anyway, completely without a fig leaf of justification. They were murderers, and criminals. And they paid for their crimes very dearly. I'm surprised that you don't see that. Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-08   17:01:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: Vicomte13 (#9) Bullshit. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49601&Disp=9#C9 [Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France. France declared war on Germany. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France? Who could have done such a thing? A country should not declare a war it is not prepared to fight. By declaring war, France made the subsequent German attack on France lawful. You're not as smart as I made you out to be. Belgium did not declare war on Germany. Holland did not declare war on Germany. Luxembourg didn't. Denmark didn't. Norway didn't. I did not say Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, or Norway declared war on Germany. Vicomte13 said: The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer ... France. France did declare war on Germany. The UK and France declared war, justly. You say that gave the Germans the "right" to invade France - sort of like a criminal has the "right" to go in an shoot up a police station because they are trying to stop him. The question is not whether France's declaration of was was "just" or "unjust." Germany had not attacked France and had not declared war against France. Ditto the United States. France declared war on Germany on 3 Sep 1939. So you mean that when France declared war on Germany, Germany was supposed to surrender to France? If France declares war against Germany (or anyone else), the other party has the right to take them seriously and conquer them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France In 1939, Britain and France offered military support to Poland in the likely case of a German invasion. In the dawn of 1 September 1939, the German Invasion of Poland began. France and the United Kingdom declared war on 3 September, after an ultimatum for German forces to immediately withdraw their forces from Poland was met without reply. Following this, Australia (3 September), New Zealand (3 September), South Africa (6 September) and Canada (10 September), declared war on Germany. British and French commitments to Poland were met politically but they adopted a long-war strategy and mobilised for defensive land operations against Germany, while a trade blockade was imposed and the pre-war re-armament was accelerated, ready for an eventual invasion of Germany. On 7 September, in accordance with their alliance with Poland, France began the Saar Offensive with an advance from the Maginot Line 5 km (3.1 mi) into the German-occupied Saar. France had mobilised 98 divisions (all but 28 of them reserve or fortress formations) and 2,500 tanks against a German force consisting of 43 divisions (32 of them reserves) and no tanks. The French advanced until they met the then thin and undermanned Siegfried Line. On 17 September, the French supreme commander, Maurice Gamelin gave the order to withdraw French troops to their starting positions; the last of them left Germany on 17 October. Following the Saar Offensive, a period of inaction called the Phoney War (the French Drôle de guerre, joke war or the German Sitzkrieg, sitting war) set in between the belligerents. [...] On 10 October 1939, Britain refused Hitler's offer of peace and on 12 October, France did the same. [...] So, France offered military assistance to Poland if they were attacked. Poland was attacked. Poland fell. France came from behind the Maginot Line and held a 10-day parade and retreated, not doing much good for Poland. The invasion of Belgium, Holland, and France was conducted in 1940. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France Popular reaction in Germany Hitler had expected a million Germans to die in conquering France; instead, his goal was accomplished in just six weeks with only 27,000 Germans killed, 18,400 missing, and 111,000 wounded, a little more than one third of the total German casualties in the Battle of Verdun during World War I. The unexpectedly swift victory resulted in a wave of euphoria among the German population and a strong upsurge in war-fever. Hitler's personal popularity reached its peak with the celebration of France's capitulation on 6 July 1940: Germany sought to get to the Atlantic in order to attack Britain who had also declared war against Germany. It appears they chose the path of least resistance. If France was prepared to fight a war, it should have not declared one. Vicomte13 wrote, "The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France." WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France??? The United States had not been attacked and was not at war. It was in a declared state of neutrality until after the attack on Pearl Harbor. nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-08   18:33:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: nolu chan (#14) WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France??? The civilized world. Germany committed the crime of starting the war. They defeated Poland, then invaded their little Western neighbors - more crime - and of course overran France. They were too weak to take out Britain, were defeated at sea by the British Navy, and defeated in the air by the Royal Air Force. And so then it was just a matter of time, for Britain to wait while Germany, cut off from international trade, slowly imploded as in World War I. The Germans doubled down their madness and invaded Russia, which they did not have the right to do either. And then they declared war on the USA, also, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. So, at war with every other major power on the planet except Japan, they sank under the weight of the combined forces of their enemies, who swamped them. But when it was just 1 on 1 versus the British, the Germans lost in the air, they lost on the sea, and they lost in North Africa also, where they faced off on land. Starting the war in the first place by invading another country was a criminal act. It was a criminal act that was bound to have war as a repercussion. The Germans were so delusive they actually thought they could win. So, they were criminal madmen. And they ended up swinging at the end of a rope, or against the wall in a firing squad. And that was that. Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-08   19:04:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: Vicomte13 (#19) WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France??? The civilized world. So, France declared war on Germany, and it was the duty of some amorphous "civilized world" to bail their ass out and fight their war for them. Who in that "civilized world" could have prevented Germany from overrunning France? What power, short of the Marvel Comics superheroes could have accomplished this mission impossible? Germany committed the crime of starting the war. They defeated Poland, then invaded their little Western neighbors - more crime - and of course overran France. They were too weak to take out Britain, were defeated at sea by the British Navy, and defeated in the air by the Royal Air Force. Whatever Germany did, they did not unlawfully attack France. France declared war on Germany. France made themselves a valid target of acts of war. The United States had no obligation to fight a war because France declared one against Germany. You fantasize that Germany lacked the power to take out Britain and that they were defeated in the air by the Royal Air Force. In truth, Germany ran the British off the continent and back to their island. The Germans did not surrender at Dunkirk. The British Army escaped across the water. The Germans lacked the attack or transport vessels to invade by sea. The Germans were primarily stopped by the Russians, and defeated by the Russians and Americans. It was the Russians who inflicted the most casualties against the Germans. The Royal Navy hardly defeated the Germans at sea. You seem to have mistaken them for the United States Navy. Germany did not exactly have a huge navy to start with. The British did as well as they did only because of the massive assistance, and the full scale entry, of the United States. Declaration of war. A public and formal proclamation by a nation, through its executive or legislative department, that a state of wr exists between itself and another nation, and forbidding all persons to aid or assist the enemy. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. B. Formalities and recognition 69. LOIAC relates to hostilities carried out between sovereign States, regard-less of any formal declaration of war.155 Indeed, there does not even have to be recognition of a formal state of war. The reason is that war between sovereign States can exist either in the technical sense (commencing with a formal declaration of war by one State against its adversary) or in the material sense (namely, as a result of the comprehensive use of armed force in the relations between two States, irrespective of any formal declaration).156 70. LOIAC is brought to bear upon the conduct of hostilities between sovereign States, even if these hostilities fall short of war, namely, constitute a mere incident.157 Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions appropriately proclaims in its first paragraph: [T]he present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.158 - - - - - - - - - - 155 See C. Greenwood, 'Scope of Application of Humanitarian Law', Handbook 45, 49. 156 On the distinction between war in the technical and in the material sense, see Dinstein, supra note 12, at 9-10. 157 See ibid., 17. 158 Geneva Convention (I), supra note 27, at 461; Geneva Convention (II), supra note 66, at 487; Geneva Convention (III), supra note 20, at 512; Geneva Convention (IV), supra note 66, at 580. You seem to want to digress into the entirety of WW2 in your effort to not explain how it was somehow illegal for Germany to attact France after France declared war on Germany, or to identify WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France, or by what miracle France was to be saved from itself. nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-11   1:05:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: nolu chan (#44) You seem to want to digress into the entirety of WW2 in your effort to not explain how it was somehow illegal for Germany to attact France after France declared war on Germany, or to identify WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France, or by what miracle France was to be saved from itself. It was illegal for Germany to attack France after the French declared war on them. Because the French declared war on them, along with the British, for committing the illegal act of murdering Poland. The Germans breached the peace first. That gave everybody the right to pile on them. It did NOT give the Germans the right to defend themselves any more than a criminal has the right to defend himself against the cops. The Germans became criminals when they invaded Poland. That they were able to then go murder a bunch of other free countries including France, and bomb England flat before attacking the USSR and FINALLY getting plowed under by everybody was because the United States chose to pretend in the 1930s that what happened in the outside world was none of our affair, and also because the Soviets decided to let the West tear itself apart. But the world came to get us eventually too, when the bad guys were a lot stronger and could kill a lot more of us. The Germans eventually went after Russia and 25 million died. The LESSON that everybody learned from this - particularly the Americans and the Russians - was to not let anybody who breaks the peace in Europe get away with it at all. When they START to go rogue, you occupy them and crush it out. Had the US stood by the Western democracies after Germany invaded Poland, or at least after they overran Denmark and Norway, Tens of millions of lives would have been saved. That's why we have the United Nations today - to stop that sort of imperial evil from getting started again. You're focusing on France to try to troll me, but France was just another one of the victims. The aggressors were the Germans. They started the war by invading Poland, once they did that, everybody had the right to attack them, and the duty to do so. Important and unimportant countries shirked their duty, with the net result that they all lost tens or hundreds of thousands or millions dead. You stop the criminals when they start. You don't let them get big and powerful. Had James Buchanan moved on the South immediately, the Civil War would not have had to go on as long as it did, and Sherman would not have had to burn Georgia to the ground. But he didn't. He let the rebels get on a head of steam, and then we had to kill a half-million of them to get it over with. It's never good to let criminals get on a head of steam. You need to nip that sort of thing in the bud early. France and Britain did the right thing, declaring on Germany. Russia and America did the wrong thing, staying out of it. We paid dearly for that, the Russians even dearer. Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-11   7:58:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: Vicomte13, y'all (#45) (Edited) Now you have digressed to the American Civil War. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France, or by what miracle was France to be saved from itself? ---- nolu chants Vic, - your discussion with nolu has become ridiculous, chiefly because he/she refuses to acknowledge what you have previously posted in reply. --- This is becoming nolu's signature way of debate, - ignore what an opponent posts and reply, usually with excessively lengthy posts that have little substance. Whats become really weird is that nolu is apparently not only an anti- constitutional southern sympathizer, but also some sort of an anti-allied axis symp as well. tpaine  posted on  2017-02-13   22:49:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: tpaine (#48) He's just stubborn and can't let go. I'm stubborn and won't get go either. The North-going Zax and the South-going Zax. Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-13   23:33:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 49. #51. To: Vicomte13 (#49) He's just stubborn and can't let go. I'm stubborn and won't get go either. It is just that I am willing to go that extra mile to cure you of your confusion. Your best so far is to claim that Russia should have declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland. Of course, Russia was part of their joint invasion of Poland. Russia kept their slice for a very long time. nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-14 01:56:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 49. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com