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.

 

A new American civil war

page: 15
56
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It is tyranny. It is tyranny of a minority by the majority. A minority of 1, in the United States, has the right to remain free from a majority of everybody else.

Frankly we do not have to accept anything less nor should we. If all rights are not 100% secure, then no rights are truly secure.

I'm personally not a fan of waiting for a snake to bite me on the rear end before I take some concrete action to protect against it.

If you prove whatever point you're trying to make, do you think the defenders of the US Constitution will care less about defending it? We won't be talked or argued out of our rights any more than we're willing to be forced into parting with them. They are called "unalienable" rights for a reason. It means they are above reproach. They aren't granted by any government or human being, therefore no government or human being has the ability to steal them from us.

We are further empowered with certain capabilities to defend our rights. And, in my opinion, they are worth defending. This is a free country. Individual citizens have the right to remain free from others (including every other). This isn't "home of the meager, land of group think" it is the land of the free, home of the brave. Our rights have always came with a heavy cost (usually measured in the blood of patriots and tyrants) and Americans have consistently said that cost is not too high for the blessings of liberty we enjoy.

In the case of 2A, a minority of any size has a veto option against a majority of any size. There is historical precedent supporting this reality.
edit on 4/5/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: daskakik

I think the point is situational awareness. Always know if surrounded by a faction in a new American Civil War if you should hug a tree or pee on a tree.


That sums it up for me as well Ahabstar


Perhaps if those individuals realize Americans are willing to defend our Constitution they will change their calculus and decide what they are fomenting is a losing proposition

I think the value and effect of "deterrence" cannot be overstated



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

But then you go on and say the same thing.
edit on 5-4-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Upholding the Constitution is not "forcing our will" on anybody. Constitutional order is the United States. There is no moral or logical comparison to forces working to overthrow the Constitution and those pledging to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution

That is a moral equivalency fallacy

With all due respect, what point are you trying to make?



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

The point was that if it is tyranny in that example than it was also tyrrany when the FF dragged people into a revolution they didn't want.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the argument.

I already lnow nobody cares about logic. They just want their side to win so they can call the shots. Thank you for proving my point.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: JBurns

The point was that if it is tyranny in that example than it was also tyrrany when the FF dragged people into a revolution they didn't want.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the argument.

I already lnow nobody cares about logic. They just want their side to win so they can call the shots. Thank you for proving my point.


Starred this because it has nothing to do with calling the shots

Defending our rights is a default position. One of those rights is the right to self-determination and individual liberty.

One side wants each citizen to call the shots in their own lives, instead of having large groups of people who believe they should decide which rights we "need" and which ones we don't.

That is hardly a nefarious or malicious position

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, so if you would be so kind as to explain why you believe upholding the Constitution is the same thing as working to subvert, nullify or even skirt the Constitution are on equal footing?

Respectfully,

JB
edit on 4/5/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

The point isn't the Constitution and those in love with it. The point is your dumb claim that 99% choosing for 1% is tyranny because then everything is tyranny. People have never agreed 100%.

The FF of the US didn't ask what the people wanted, they chose for them. Those tyrants, according to your logic.





edit on 5-4-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

It isn't about your biased view of your position but your claim that you can't support anything with less than 100% consensus when even your beloved constitution only calls for 2/3 (66.6%).



edit on 5-4-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

The conservatives were most definitely British, and the American populists were most definitely the libertarian left leaning for massive reform and change for the people and not be under the thumb of a monarchy.


People say they love the Constitution but hate Congress and Democrats. People on the right love the military. I think what people on the right want is STRONG leadership that can only come from having a right wing military style dictatorship. This way they don't have to deal with the minority opinion of the Democrats they claim is the cause for everything that is bad in this country.

There two types of public policies in this country. On type of public policy preserves the status quo and enriches the billionaires and increases wealth inequality. And the other type of public policies like increasing the minimum wage so a minimum wage is not a poverty wage.

How can we have so called "socialism" and "communism" in this country when everything is privatized, outsourced, and over priced. What did Trump do in office so far besides huge tax cuts for the rich and more gutting of consumer protections. It just seems to me with wealth inequality at all-time highs "socialism" and "communism" are not our problems. Can anyone here argue with a straight face workers are doing better today than 30 years ago? The economic data says emphatically "no". I am just amazed by how conservatives never criticizing the billionaires for price fixing wages, products, and services. It doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. What DOES matter is the purchasing power of your take home pay:

Purchasing power of the consumer dollar

Wealth inequality is at all-time highs:



We may have a one party system in this country but it is NOT the kind of communism that is in the worker's favor. What we have is corporate communism. What is really going on in this country is the American people are being played like a fiddle. The American people are brainwashed to be outraged on topics that are completely irrelevant in our lives. The only way to not be played like fiddle is to be aware of the sophisticated brain washing techniques employed by the billionaires in power:



Until people realize government is the ONLY solution we are doomed. Trickle down economics has never worked. And the greedy billionaires do not give an eff about you. Here George Carlin has it right. There's reason why it will NEVER get better:



There's line the video above perfectly directed at Trump.


edit on 5-4-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Republicans think they're the only ones that own guns. The north is loaded with left wing sportsmen that hunt and own guns. We actually have a purpose for our guns here we don't use them to shoot cans.

America is no longer a democracy. Everyone and anyone is for sale in Washington. The corporations own this place and everything in it.

I always get a kick how right wingers are always complaining about social programs and taxes. As if food stamps are the issues not trillion dollar parachutes for bank CEO's. The rich are robbing you and everyone else blind.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: wantsome
Republicans think they're the only ones that own guns. The north is loaded with left wing sportsmen that hunt and own guns. We actually have a purpose for our guns here we don't use them to shoot cans.

America is no longer a democracy. Everyone and anyone is for sale in Washington. The corporations own this place and everything in it.

I always get a kick how right wingers are always complaining about social programs and taxes. As if food stamps are the issues not trillion dollar parachutes for bank CEO's. The rich are robbing you and everyone else blind.



I completely agree with your post.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Canny fight/police the rest of the world and also yourselves at the same time.

That's how Rome fell.

Then again the similarities there are rather synonymous.

Truth is we simply don't build things to last in this day of age.

Even nations.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: wantsome

Food stamps are not about feeding poor people so much as allowing poor people to continue to be consumers. Ever notice how widely EBT cards are accepted today compared to the 1980’s actual coupon style food stamps?



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: wantsome

Food stamps are not about feeding poor people so much as allowing poor people to continue to be consumers. Ever notice how widely EBT cards are accepted today compared to the 1980’s actual coupon style food stamps?
I get food stamps because I'm on disability. So is my mom and so is my aunt. My mom had to quit her job because she has cancer. My aunt had to quit her job because she needed a liver transplant. Many working people get food stamps too. I'm down there at the welfare office and I see whose collecting them. Mostly disabled people single moms foreigners like refuges and working poor. I've been on food stamps since 2005. I'm 2 blocks north of Detroit. In all the years I've been on them I've only seen abuse of them twice. One guy bought a bunch of candy bars and the other guy bought a bunch of power aid. My mom got food stamps back in the 80's because my dad died and she was a single mom. 99% of the people getting them need them. One day you might too if you should ever get sick. Better hope you have a lot of money stashed away. Drink? Smoke? or hell just breath the air cancer can hit any of us at any time. Should you not be able to work you might need them. My mom got cancer and she's 58. My aunt needed a liver transplant at 55. Bad things can happen once you hit your mid 40's.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

They are fed the same way they are being educated.

That being just enough and in dribs and drabs.

So as to exist and participate, just enough, and to a fashion, to perpetuate the crapshoot "They" call freedom, security and continued existence and way of life.

It's all illusory aside from the Ivory castles in which they reside.

Those are very real and we are simply puppets on their string.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: wantsome

"The North"


You realize this conflict does not have geographical boundaries?

Also, trying to compare a 21st century civil war with one from the 19th century is a true exercise in futility.

FYI, it is *our side* that was "The North" in the 1860s. Southern slave owning democrats seceded from the Union and Republicans/Republican President Lincoln fought and won the first civil war to prevent them from doing so.

You folks should read more history books and spend less time on social media. The BS the democrat party puts out is just that...BS.
edit on 4/5/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: wantsome

Well aware and you have a PM since the envelope doesn’t light up anymore to keep things from going too far off topic.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I am "in love" with the Constitution. It is the only thing keeping Americans safe from the hordes that want to run us over in the name of some BS notion of "progress"

Truth is, the only "progress" our nation ever made was casting off the chains of tyranny time and time again in order to gravitate toward a state of increased freedom/liberty.

The socialists/communists/regressive far left wants to move us toward a state of lesser freedom and lesser individual liberty.

Those are not comparable. One side's motivations (our side) is just and objectively right, the other is tyrannical and objectively wrong. How can one negotiate with an ideology that seeks a lesser state of freedom/liberty? Their views, their goals and their methods are simply incompatible with a freedom loving constitutional society - which is what the United States. We are a society governed foremost by the Constitution and then a representative government/rule of law as a very distant second.

The government/law are both mere afterthoughts compared to the Constitution.

There is nothing biased about my view: The left desires less than abject freedom/liberty, which is what our Constitution guarantees. Anything less than that should not be accepted by Americans, frankly we deserve a heck of a lot better than that/them.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
I am "in love" with the Constitution. It is the only thing keeping Americans safe from the hordes that want to run us over in the name of some BS notion of "progress"

Great but that wasn't what my point was about. It was about the contradiction between the type of society the Constitution brought into being and your dumb 100% or tyranny claim.


There is nothing biased about my view:

There is in regards to you putting the constitution on a pedestal. I never said anything about the left in my comments.




edit on 5-4-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

The Constitution is on a pedestal, however.


Great but that wasn't what my point was about. It was about the contradiction between the type of society the Constitution brought into being and your dumb 100% or tyranny claim.


If unalienable rights are infringed upon for any reason by any number of people (up to 99.9999999999%) then it is tyranny and should be responded to as tyranny.

Look the line is in the sand, if the leftist gun grabbers/free speech crushers are so confident what is stopping them from trying? That question was rhetorical as we both know the answer. In fact I think I spelled it out in this very thread multiple times.

And we both know they have indeed been trying for decades and have failed miserable. Especially on guns. No matter how much cry babies like Shannon Watts shed crocodile tears on television, the unalienable rights of Americans will always be sovereign. Sovereign from popular will, sovereign from government overreach and sovereign from dirty tricks and plots.

If you want to call that "putting it on a pedestal" then so be it.




top topics



 
56
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join