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.
originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Tartuffe
No animal may sleep in a bed, with sheets.
Everyone was so worried about Big Brother from 1984 that they completely forgot that Animal Farm is the playbook at hand and a much better story honestly. Took two years to be published too and was banned in the USSR, for reasons. Still banned in NK and heavily censored in Vietnam today. Banned from schools in UAE because of talking pigs, but that is a different issue.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: JBurns
Are you sure abiut that? Amendments can be made to nullify any of the first 10.
But you are missing or ignoring the point. 99% is greater than 0.0001 so how is 0.0001 imposing themselves on 99.999% less tyrannical?
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: JBurns
You keep missing the point. Civil war is one group imposing themselves on another. Representatives voting in laws that not everyone agrees with is one group imposing themselves on others.
The FF of the US. Starting a revolution that more than 1% didn't want is tyranny, according to the argumenr you made earlier. I'm just pointing out how hyperbolic that strawman was.
At a moment when the country has never seemed angrier, two political commentators from opposite sides of the divide concurred recently on one point that was once nearly unthinkable: The country is on the verge of “civil war.”
First came former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova, a Fox News regular and ally of President Trump’s. “We are in a civil war,” he said. “The suggestion that there’s ever going to be civil discourse in this country for the foreseeable future is over. . . . It’s going to be total war.”
The next day, Nicolle Wallace, a former Republican operative turned MSNBC commentator and Trump critic, played a clip of diGenova’s commentary on her show and agreed with him — although she placed the blame squarely on the president.
originally posted by: Ansuzrune
a reply to: JBurns
You are 100% correct and agree with you whole heartedly. Now how to deal with it since these morons who support this have almost 75% of the media backing them. Im angry as hell but what to do? Voting seems to not be the answer as when the American people have decided the Marxist/Democrats whine , yell, and make stuff up and their journalist minions promote it. Joseph Gobbels once said" tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth.
How can we fight this when the universities are infiltrated by Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky Commie professors. This is just all out of hand. McCarthy was correct in the 1950's and should have taken half of Hollywood and banished them to the USSR.
An information battle seems hopeless. I am really afraid if these morons get into office in greater numbers it will become what our founders said could happen, armed protest. This is why the second amendment must stand so we can protect the first amendment and the very Constitution itself.
An information battle seems hopeless. I am really afraid if these morons get into office in greater numbers it will become what our founders said could happen, armed protest. This is why the second amendment must stand so we can protect the first amendment and the very Constitution itself.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.