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: New US Revolution is Legal

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
The link is to a Bush propaganda website called "Bush Country." FYI - the map is bogus.


I think Grady's trying to intimidate us - and tell us we're outnumbered.

Not.

.noticed you deleted your post Grady -
- but I'll let my response stand.


I deleted the post because I am having trouble with my upload function, but if that map is bogus, I'd like to see proof of it. The point is not where the map came from, but that it accurately portrays the voting demographics. It comports with my personal knowledge of the facts. Why do you presume otherwise? And my point is not who outnumbers whom, only that the state dichotomy is not accurate, but rather, the dichotomy is one of rural versus urban.

Here is an interesting site of voting in the 2004 election graphically displayed using some interesting techniques to account for various demographics.

www-personal.umich.edu...

P. S. You should see how your user name comes up in my spell checker, soficrow. www.iespell.com...




posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Wouldnt it just display all the states where Republicans managed to rig the vote? Negative votes for Kerry on machines made by pro-Republican companies, I mean come on!



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra
I know Titorist are sitting on the edge of their seat with a big 'Told you so' on their face.

Why? Its the precise opposite of what titor said would happen, well, would have happened last year.

The cities are where civil rights are being protected and the federal government is meeting opposition, well, would be, if these resolutions had any legal standing or ability to overirde even state ordinances, let alone federal law.

A citizen in one of these cities can still be investigated, arrested, and removde to a federal pen. Some of the resolutions (they all seem to be somewhat variable) request that the police inform the city when federal agents are involved in an investigation (well, there goes the ability to covertly monitor the mafia and other criminal gangs across state lines). However, a federal law, or even a directive from a federal officer would supersede that. State troopers aren't under any obligations with that resolution anyway, and I suspect police directed by the county won't be under any obligation either ( tho I am not sure how many of those cities will have county cops in them anyway).



This should be interesting to see if these claims actually hold any legal merit in regards to the Patriot Act.

I honestly can't imagine them having the slightest effect. I'd be surprised if anyone actually reported on the involvment of federal investigators. Infact, its rather unthinkable that not one of those cities has a federal level investigation going on in it, yet these sites don't seem to be reporting any actual comliance.


subz
Is there any mechanism in US law for the people to initiate an impeachment?

Nope. The Founders were wise enough to not entrust the rabble, er, people, with that power.

Grady, great info. The county by county results are very interesting. In 200, they essentially reflected the the countryside voted Republican, and the Cities voted Democratic. Town and Country, the old dichotomy, very strongly operating in the modern age.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I do relise that these laws being passed are for challenging actions taken under the Patriot Act.
But I also must wonder what the people passing these laws will think when the next terror attack happens.
Also if the people to carried it out, were allowed to do so by way of the law which prevented the local authorities from investagating the people responcible.
If it happens like that, I hope they feel the pain they let happen.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Red Golem
I do relise that these laws being passed are for challenging actions taken under the Patriot Act.
But I also must wonder what the people passing these laws will think when the next terror attack happens.
Also if the people to carried it out, were allowed to do so by way of the law which prevented the local authorities from investagating the people responcible.
If it happens like that, I hope they feel the pain they let happen.


Let's lock you in a prison and throw away the key. Noone will get you there. Face it man, sh*t happens, and there is no reason to give up your life for life if you know what I mean. Next, let's put 100 foot walls on all our borders. Stay away from the water for fear of sharks. Outlaw all contagious diseases - - we send anyone who has them to an island, like Guantanamo. You see, these are all irrational fears which is what the Patriot Act is based on.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
ok so the fears of a terror attack are irrational fears. But just so I have a base to judge from about how many people must die in a terror attack before before it is not an irrational fear?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Red Golem
ok so the fears of a terror attack are irrational fears. But just so I have a base to judge from about how many people must die in a terror attack before before it is not an irrational fear?


Terror attacks are random. In the US, around 3,000 people have died of a terror attack in about the last 10 years. That might be a rough figure. Compare this to heart attacks, AIDS, cancer, or anything else that causes death for that matter. Even compare this figure to the amount of people committing murder every year.

Now, do you think it is wise to commit the creation of MULTIPLE federal agencies, create multiple bills of legislation, start two wars, and spend most of our budget every year on something that has only caused 300 deaths a year on our soil?

A whopping 14,000 people die per year just from firearms. Shouldn't we combat what essentially amounts to domestic terrorism in the forms of gangs instead of committing 100 polic officers to following around Arabs with video cameras?

Yes, it is very irrational.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by Red Golem
ok so the fears of a terror attack are irrational fears. But just so I have a base to judge from about how many people must die in a terror attack before before it is not an irrational fear?


Terror attacks are random. In the US, around 3,000 people have died of a terror attack in about the last 10 years. That might be a rough figure. Compare this to heart attacks, AIDS, cancer, or anything else that causes death for that matter. Even compare this figure to the amount of people committing murder every year.

Now, do you think it is wise to commit the creation of MULTIPLE federal agencies, create multiple bills of legislation, start two wars, and spend most of our budget every year on something that has only caused 300 deaths a year on our soil?

A whopping 14,000 people die per year just from firearms. Shouldn't we combat what essentially amounts to domestic terrorism in the forms of gangs instead of committing 100 polic officers to following around Arabs with video cameras?

Yes, it is very irrational.




Very good points here Jamuhn. ...Thanks.



.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
A whopping 14,000 people die per year just from firearms. Shouldn't we combat what essentially amounts to domestic terrorism in the forms of gangs instead of committing 100 polic officers to following around Arabs with video cameras?


These are very irrational thoughts, Jamuhn. Disease and domestic crime, including DWI and the total of all automobile accidents are serious problems, but they are internal problems which we deal with the best we can.

International terrorism has one goal. Upset the economy and domestic tranquility to the point that our system will collapse. The airline industry is virtually at that point now.

Whatever Americans are dying from regardless of whether is it is disease or violence or old age, it doesn't diminish the threat of terrorism and in no way justifies ignoring the problem. You say that only 3000 people have died from terrorism in the last ten years. Oklahoma happened about ten years ago, although it was, by all accounts, a purely domestic act. So, your figure of 3000 deaths due to international terrorism (of the Islamic variety) really occurred in the span of just a couple of hours on September 11, 2001.

How many of those could we absorb, if we did not have the combined efforts of Homeland Security to do all in their power to prevent such future attacks?

Irrational thinking, Jamuhn. You should work on that.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   
I wonder how any of this will protect anyone from being picked up, shipped out to lord knows where(like Gitmo) with no official complaint, no right to fair trial and no way to defend yourself.

You can have legal protection from everything, but the Patriot Act allows the Agency's to pick you up, ship you out and lock you away indefinatly without even having to give a reason or alowing you to defend yourself in a court of law.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I think everyone here would probably enjoy this book by Judge Andrew Napolitano:

C onstitutional Chaos : What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws

I have sufficient experience in the criminal and civil justice systems to recognize that we are constantly teetering on the brink of tyranny and I recognize that the Patriot Act walks that very thin line, as well.

Personally, I have faith that if we preserve the Constitution, it will always override potential abuses and that in times like these, we all need to sacrifice something for the greater good.

Judge Napolitano is a contributor to Fox News and while that might not set too well with some here, I think the Judge shares the sentiments of many here and he has the education and the experience to enumerate and articulate your collective fears.


Product Description:

In this alarming book, Judge Napolitano makes the solid case that there is a pernicious and ever-expanding pattern of government abuse in America’s criminal justice system, leading him to establish his general creed: “The government is not your friend.” ...Napolitano sets the record straight, speaking frankly from his own experiences and careful, thorough investigation and revealing how government agencies will often arrest without warrant, spy without legal authority, imprison without charge, and kill without cause.



[edit on 05/2/10 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Irrational thinking, Jamuhn. You should work on that.


Oh, and what do we have here? A petty ad hominem argument. The bulk and substance of the rest of your argument making at least one major assumption, 1) that you can predict the future.

Now tell me Grady, since Homeland Security will prevent so many terror attacks in the future, can you predict for me the lottery numbers for next Tuesday?

If we use the last 10 years as an indicator, about 3000 more people will die of terror attacks between 2005 and 2015 in the United States. Now, we have ten years to wait and see what the 3 separate agencies will do and the billions of dollars.

[edit on 10-2-2005 by Jamuhn]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Apparently, Jamuhn, you don't know a personal attack when you see one and I will remind you of one true fact that you should also learn. The past is no guarantee of future events. Talk to a stock broker sometime and see how many times he repeats that fact to cover his behind when your investments go south and you're looking for blood.


[edit on 05/2/10 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Disease and domestic crime, including DWI and the total of all automobile accidents are serious problems, but they are internal problems which we deal with the best we can.

International terrorism has one goal. Upset the economy and domestic tranquility to the point that our system will collapse.



IMO - corporate terrorism has the same goal - and has accomplished its objective much more effectively than international terrorists. ...Ie., corporate terrorists have taken over the food supply almost completely; have allowed the epidemic spread and transmission of infectious disease through negligence; restructured business in the USA and re-written insurance coverage terms to protect themselves from the resultant risks and liabilities; and financed the restructuring of our legal systems to remove our protections and civil liberties.

You go Jamuhn!


Civil Liberties Free Zones may not be adequate protection against the takeover of America by corporate terrorists by themselves, but they are a start.



.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Irrational thinking, Jamuhn. You should work on that.


Oh, and what do we have here? A petty ad hominem argument. The bulk and substance of the rest of your argument making at least one major assumption, 1) that you can predict the future.

Now tell me Grady, since Homeland Security will prevent so many terror attacks in the future, can you predict for me the lottery numbers for next Tuesday?

On the other hand I really would not want to see what they would do over the next 10 year with out the agencies and with out the billions of dollars. Might be more the 3800 people.
If we use the last 10 years as an indicator, about 3000 more people will die of terror attacks between 2005 and 2015 in the United States. Now, we have ten years to wait and see what the 3 separate agencies will do and the billions of dollars.

[edit on 10-2-2005 by Jamuhn]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Whats there left to "protect" from terrorism if your entire way of life becomes a police state? Your freedom will be a thing of the past and there will be nothing left for the terrorists to destroy but your life.

I'd prefer to run the risk of international terrorism and let existing laws and agencies try and protect us than give away all the freedoms we enjoy.

Britain has admitted to thwarting atleast 10 terrorist attacks on this country since 9/11. Thats WITHOUT something akin to Patriot Act. Although some of our citizens were locked up in Guantanamo without legal protections and rights. Thankfully though our law lords ruled that their detention was unlawful and that the government was breaking the law and they were released.

It can be done without losing your freedoms, which i may add, millions of our forefathers died in protecting from the last bastard that tried to remove them.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Sneer all you want, I have wholehearted support for the communities attempting to reign in federal authorities. The effort to retain rights and freedoms has to start somewhere, might as well be at home. While local resolutions and ordinances have no effect on federal laws, ask any investigator how 'active nonassistance' can put a real crimp in any investigation.

I remain to be convinced that current laws and regulations are inadequate to prevent past and future terrorist attacks. As such, I am unwilling to live with unjustified survaillance, unreasonable arrests, and unending incarceration.

It is true that the only people who can make and change federal laws are those who are members of congress. However, thankfully, these people must run for re-election on a regular basis. If a large majority of the communities in a congressional district have passed resolutions condeming the measures contained in PA1 & 2, how do you think that congressperson will view the matter?

To repeat something many of us said in the 60's, "More power to the people!"



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
A Dubious Case Against Outsourcing


Originally posted by soficrow
We are not in danger of future attacks from political terrorists - we already are under attack from corporate terrorists, on several fronts. That's the big secret - and it's why Americans are being manipulated to panic, and focus on off-shore boogeymen.

Fortunately, there is no shortage of people selling domestic boogeymen.

Otherwise, we might be forced to make political decisions on the basis of reason instead of scare tactics.

Different brands of the same crap.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic


Originally posted by soficrow
We are not in danger of future attacks from political terrorists - we already are under attack from corporate terrorists, on several fronts. That's the big secret - and it's why Americans are being manipulated to panic, and focus on off-shore boogeymen.

Fortunately, there is no shortage of people selling domestic boogeymen.

Otherwise, we might be forced to make political decisions on the basis of reason instead of scare tactics.

Different brands of the same crap.





No Majic - conclusions based on real research, not FOX news analysis - as you would know if you had the decency and respect to read the info and follow the links.



.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
.
.
.
Civil rights protections and the legal basis to sustain them, are being eroded rapidly.


www.abovetopsecret.com...






new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join