It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exec order, donate to Snowden defense, have your property confiscated

page: 7
48
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hr2burn
a reply to: uncommitted

Read this closer...


freespeechtwentyfirstcentury.com...


That's a blog containing someones opinion which happens to match your own - it does nothing to validate your opinion, it just means someone else has the same opinion.

I think Indigo5 got it right early in the previous page.
edit on 14-4-2015 by uncommitted because: referred to the correct page




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry

originally posted by: Hr2burn
Thanks for that lead...I had not heard of that before...it says "pre-sale" so I assume it's not being shown yet. I bet Snowden won't see a red cent. I really don't believe Snowden is angling nor will ever make a profit from this. He gave up a pretty fantastic life to be on the run. I sincerely think he only exposed this for the benefit of the people of the USA (perhaps other countries as well). Everyone was mad, it is now since been brushed under the rug...nothing has changed. Our attention span in the USA is about 3 minutes...

[/URL]


a reply to: Bspiracy


Agreed as well...if they are doing nothing wrong, nothing that would upset the law-abiding citizens who trustingly voted them into office....then....


You would need to define 'wrong' though wouldn't you? For all the talk of whistle blowing, where are all the arrests? How many in a position of authority have been forced to step down due to proof of criminal (as opposed to civil) wrongdoing?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

It's because nobody will stand up to the boy king.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: uncommitted

It's because nobody will stand up to the boy king.



Should have expected that kind of (non) response shouldn't I? Ok, assuming you have read the various information that has been made available, what crimes can you point to that should stand up in a court of law?



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: lambs to lions

originally posted by: Hr2burn
There are not many agencies carrying this story right now....they're probably gun shy considering the risks of upsetting our "leader". You can find the story in a few places but here is the executive order from the White House's website. They didn't like the money that was rolling in to defend Edward Snowden...so they made it illegal.

www.whitehouse.gov...


Good. He is a treasonous criminal and shouldn't be allowed to hoard money from his fan club to pay for some high-priced celebrity lawyer.


Exactly.
He is also under the control of Russia. Probably was long before we knew who he was.


Uh yeah, sure. Just keep watching Brian WIlliams on TV and make sure you are well informed. Maybe afterwards you can tune into a celebrity news special.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: uncommitted

It's because nobody will stand up to the boy king.



Should have expected that kind of (non) response shouldn't I? Ok, assuming you have read the various information that has been made available, what crimes can you point to that should stand up in a court of law?


Executive orders , the abuse of what they are supposed to be used for, and whom they apply to, look it up.
Another small example - requiring citizens to purchase things/services....or be fined and more.

If you're really interested, there are more, far more - but it depends, if you actually care to find out?
edit on 17-4-2015 by BlackboxInquiry because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: uncommitted

It's because nobody will stand up to the boy king.



Should have expected that kind of (non) response shouldn't I? Ok, assuming you have read the various information that has been made available, what crimes can you point to that should stand up in a court of law?


Executive orders , the abuse of what they are supposed to be used for, and whom they apply to, look it up.
Another small example - requiring citizens to purchase things/services....or be fined and more.

If you're really interested, there are more, far more - but it depends, if you actually care to find out?


So you are saying that Assange, Manning or Snowden published evidence of where' citizens are required to purchase things/services or be fined - not sure what you mean by 'and more'.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: uncommitted

It's because nobody will stand up to the boy king.



Should have expected that kind of (non) response shouldn't I? Ok, assuming you have read the various information that has been made available, what crimes can you point to that should stand up in a court of law?


Executive orders , the abuse of what they are supposed to be used for, and whom they apply to, look it up.
Another small example - requiring citizens to purchase things/services....or be fined and more.

If you're really interested, there are more, far more - but it depends, if you actually care to find out?


So you are saying that Assange, Manning or Snowden published evidence of where' citizens are required to purchase things/services or be fined - not sure what you mean by 'and more'.


Wow, so many things taken out of context...

Instances given.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: uncommitted

It's because nobody will stand up to the boy king.



Should have expected that kind of (non) response shouldn't I? Ok, assuming you have read the various information that has been made available, what crimes can you point to that should stand up in a court of law?


Executive orders , the abuse of what they are supposed to be used for, and whom they apply to, look it up.
Another small example - requiring citizens to purchase things/services....or be fined and more.

If you're really interested, there are more, far more - but it depends, if you actually care to find out?


So you are saying that Assange, Manning or Snowden published evidence of where' citizens are required to purchase things/services or be fined - not sure what you mean by 'and more'.


Wow, so many things taken out of context...

Instances given.


No it wasn't taken out of context and telling me to look it up fairly much means it was a vague comment. What executive orders did Snowden, Assange or Manning expose that were not in the public domain if people chose to look? The comment I made was specifically about data they had released, not if you agree with the President of America being able to issue EO's and you don't like the ones the current president has issued.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Try any of the EO's to date. EO's have been pushed way beyond the scope of what they were designed to do, and to whom they apply.

EO's are *only* supposed to used while out of session, for little things and that *only* apply to the Executive branch of Gov't.

For starters.

I'm assuming there was a level of understanding - my bad for assuming it was already understood.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
Try any of the EO's to date. EO's have been pushed way beyond the scope of what they were designed to do, and to whom they apply.

EO's are *only* supposed to used while out of session, for little things and that *only* apply to the Executive branch of Gov't.

For starters.

I'm assuming there was a level of understanding - my bad for assuming it was already understood.



No, you are misunderstanding the point of this thread. It's about Snowden, then got expanded to include others who had made data public. EO's are already public and so therefore for this thread have no relevance. It's not me that misunderstood.
If you don't agree with the Executive Orders from your current president or any past president, that's fine, but you will concede that they weren't made public knowledge via Snowden/Assange/Manning? That was the question I asked, what information have they specifically released, not what don't you like about Obama.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

I'd not stick them in the same 'group' per se.

Snowden - I'd not classify as a terrorist, but a whistleblower. Gov't was and has over stepped, in a big way. He's attempting to help awareness how the Gov't is twisting and granting itself powers, to encroach on it's citizens rights, liberties, privacy and more.

Exec Orders are supposed to *only* be applied to the Executive branch, not the public. I can't stress that enough. It could be that all citizens need to eat a stick of cotton candy per month - it doesn't matter what it says, but the fact they are twisting it to apply to citizens, and not the original provisions of what an EO is for....



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: uncommitted

I'd not stick them in the same 'group' per se.

Snowden - I'd not classify as a terrorist, but a whistleblower. Gov't was and has over stepped, in a big way. He's attempting to help awareness how the Gov't is twisting and granting itself powers, to encroach on it's citizens rights, liberties, privacy and more.

Exec Orders are supposed to *only* be applied to the Executive branch, not the public. I can't stress that enough. It could be that all citizens need to eat a stick of cotton candy per month - it doesn't matter what it says, but the fact they are twisting it to apply to citizens, and not the original provisions of what an EO is for....



I'll take that as a no then. Oh dear.




top topics



 
48
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join