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.

 

POLITICS: Congress Passes Doomsday Plan

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I have to agree with Mauddib. This part of German history doesn't seem to be parrallel or relevant to the Doomsday Provision recently passed.

The recent US provision allows congress to operate in a limited capacity, and the info you cited didn't allow for that.




posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Ok ill quote my own quote to make it easy for you.

A 2/3rds majority is required and 2/3rds of the Riechstag must be present.

See that 2/3rds part, it may not be what you may call a limited capacity but you cannot deny the similarities between the acts, both allow for a small number of men to make and stop laws with only a majority of that smaller amount of men.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoBoLT
Wow thats an idiotic comment.
.........................

Thanks for being nothing but an irritant. Really is worth while.

EDIT: How the government in the US has conducted itself is totally irrelevent you fool. Im mearly pointing out any similarities in the act.


Keep the insults out of the forums, if you can't back your arguments with real evidence, and instead give irrelevant links which have nothing to do whatsoever with what this bill states, that makes you making the idiotic comment...not the other way around.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoBoLT
Ok ill quote my own quote to make it easy for you.

A 2/3rds majority is required and 2/3rds of the Riechstag must be present.

See that 2/3rds part, it may not be what you may call a limited capacity but you cannot deny the similarities between the acts, both allow for a small number of men to make and stop laws with only a majority of that smaller amount of men.


You have got to be kidding.....

Ok, that's it....you are right....they both say "2/3rds"......that's the proof we needed....



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Hey, you are the one who made the first negative move, if you wont read what i say i just pick out points that you can criticise then do not bother replying to me as i wont continue to listen. If you really read the sources then you can see the act made in germany at that time has alot of similarities.

Anyway, i hope you see what im getting at if not it doesn't matter, some people wont be told and if you are not going to listen then do not expect another answer.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Of course they are not identical, what did you expect? I replica of the bill passed in the US? Similar is the key word here. Pick up on that.

Connection = In the right situation a few (not literal) men may take control of the laws and therefore the country (if they go that way like the Nazis did) with little support and no legal resistance.

[edit on 11-1-2005 by CoBoLT]

[edit on 11-1-2005 by CoBoLT]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Let's assign some random numbers to figure this out. Let's say 100. 2/3rds of that is 67. Then 2/3rds of that 2/3rds is 34. So what you wind up with is 1/3rd of the original whole.

What this doesn't have in common with the latest bill is the fact that this is a rigid, fixed, set number.

The problem with the new bill is that it calls for a majority of those who are capable of attending. Not a majority of those alive, not a majority of those seated, only a majority of those who have the ability to attend.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoBoLT
Of course they are not identical, what did you expect? I replica of the bill passed in the US? Similar is the key word here. Pick up on that.

[edit on 11-1-2005 by CoBoLT]


There is nothing similar between the two Cobolt.....nothing except the 2/3rds part.... if you are going to present this as evidence then every book, every country that has in it a "2/3rd" in any of their bills must be a "Nazi evil government." BTW, you are right, if you can't see that your argument has no grounds there is nothing else to talk about.

[edit on 11-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Well i certainly did not expect this kind of opposition to a simple comment i made about similarities in two seperate acts.

I can now see i cannot get through to either of you with reason so i wont post anymore and you two can agree how silly my post was and how it has no relevence to the US act.

Read up, i edited in the connection i see in big bold in a previous post, its all i have to say really.

Well done, you both have succeded in being ignorent of a couple of facts and seeing their connection.

[edit on 11-1-2005 by CoBoLT]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I don't think the 2/3rds part, or the similarities to Nazi germany are really relevant.

The problem with this bill is that it was written in such a manner that will easily allow for abuse. What is relevant is the fact that this bill was snuck through, behind our backs. What is relevant is the fact that this bill reverses one of the long held traditions that a full and complete congress be seated to conduct business.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Marshall Law can be declared and handles the emergency situation. The bill would be unconsitutional. Regarding the weather changes there could be advantages for us here:

Budget deficiet would no longer he a problem.
Churches would be filled.
Burlington Coat factory would be a buy on Wall Street.
Floridians, since Florida would be under water, would come north for the winter...could help cities like Detroit.
Iraq could become our 50th state replacing Florida.
Some of us land locked property owners could end up with beach front property.

What are some others?



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Sweet! I won’t be under communist rule in the event of international chaos...

Oh, and you guys aren’t foolish enough to think that this would be employed without the urgent need of it, are you? The economy, international and national would be ruined. The world would go into a depression, the country would stop, and there would be absolutely no benefit to such actions...
You guys don’t truly believe that they would employ such harsh tactics for power, do you? What good is the ability to heard people? They get no money from it, they get nothing... Just a ruined dust land with a rebellion brewing if such actions aren’t needed.


[edit on 11-1-2005 by ChrisRT]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
This is nothing new--contingency or "Shadow" government plans that run the country with limited personnel or non-governmental officials have been in place since the Cold War (and probably before) in case of catastrophies. These plans certainly subvert the Constitution as they are invoked during an emergency, when saving lives and sustaining the country would be deemed more important than things such as personal freedoms and proper representation.

Modifications to these plans have been made by each president. Eisenhower sent letters to industry leaders, informing them in secret that they would assume official positions if the government was devastated. Reagan established succession rules that went outside of the Constitution to install a new President in the event of the destruction of the government.

At least the new House plan includes some elected officials (although I am sure that there are other secret plans that take into account a total destruction of government....)

Funny, that these contingency plans don't seem to outline how the country would return to democracy (or at least this part isn't made public or discussed in the media...)

archives.cnn.com...
www.space.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   
'Excellent' (a la Mr Burns) now to arrange a convenient disaster.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
I am SHOCKED at the incivility on this thread!!! It makes my eyes ache. I think I'll go back to that Anne Coulter thread. It's quite civil compared to this.

CoBalt presented a comparison that s/he felt was somewhat analogous. The hostility displayed toward the post is uncalled for. If you disagree, just say so and point out the error of logic or fact. A personal attack ends rational discussion. Ad hominem = unsound argument. I don't recall who launched the first personal attack. Nor do I care. It's uncalled for either way. See it for what it is: strongly felt disagreement. There are better ways to express that.

CoBalt explained himself. I see the point s/he's making. I may not agree, but I understand what s/he is saying. There is some similarity between the bill and what happened in pre-Nazi Germany, as remote as it may be, there is a similarity. I don't think s/he is saying that fascism is just around the corner or the US Congress is being usurped by Nazis. But what's happening could start a slide down the slippery slope. It raises my antennae. Of course, weee all know it isn't the Nazi's but, rather, the NWO. That's where s/he got it wrong.

It seems that anyone suggesting there are similarities between what occurs in the USA and what happened in pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany will be attacked and personally vilified. So, CoBalt, choose your analogies carefully and think before you leap unless you can take the heat. But don't let it shut you down. Some people are going to jump on you. So what. They're just making their point. Hopefully in a better way next time. Some subjects stir emotions. Try to recognize when that happens and don't take it personally.

After all, this is a computerized discussion forum. You're in no danger. The personal attacks made here say more about the attacker than about you.

What seems like a personal attack is merely an expression of opinion about the content of your post. So, get back in the fray, you wimp!

[edit on 1/12/2005 by dubiousone]

[edit on 1/12/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
What is so bad about the Nazi party anyway, their system is as good as anyone else's.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
I am SHOCKED at the incivility on this thread!!! It makes my eyes ache. I think I'll go back to that Anne Coulter thread. It's quite civil compared to this.

CoBalt presented a comparison that s/he felt was somewhat analogous. The hostility displayed toward the post is uncalled for. If you disagree, just say so and point out the error of logic or fact. A personal attack ends rational discussion. Ad hominem = unsound argument.


Well, then tell that to he/she, Cobalt decided to resort to name calling and insulting not I. If he/she wouldn't have done that the thread would have gone another way, don't ask for respect when none is given.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Thanks Dubiusone, i appreciate the support even if you do not agree, I think I reilise that I will get flack for mentioning the Nazis and daring to compare what happend there to could happen in the US from some people no matter what so ill just leave the subject alone to avoid angering myself.

Suppose if thats the way people choose to react thats their choice if i like it or not.

Laugh hard i will if and, more likely in my opinion, when this act comes into play. That is untill whoever takes over turns its attention to the country i live in.


EDIT: Muaddib, i do not want your respect so do not expect me to hold back when i think you are not understanding what it is i am trying to say when others can.

[edit on 12-1-2005 by CoBoLT]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I hope I wasn't perceived as attacking you. I do disagree with the comparison, but I would leave it at that.

I do agree with you in some aspects that this new provision can lead to abuse, and some backhanded dealings, but we still have other constitutional rules that would prevent the rise of a permanent dictator.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoBoLT

EDIT: Muaddib, i do not want your respect so do not expect me to hold back when i think you are not understanding what it is i am trying to say when others can.

[edit on 12-1-2005 by CoBoLT]


Well, then perhaps you should read the rules of the boards, insults are not part of what is allowed to be posted in any thread. We can all agree to disagree, but if you resort to insults then you are breaking the rules.



[edit on 12-1-2005 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join