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: 19
57
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
The default and current position is one of liberty

In your mind.


Your move if you want to change the status quo go ahead

I don't care enough to even bother.


We know you want to, what is stopping you all? You've been trying, you say? We know.... and yet the flag still flies high and waves free. So long as that is true we will know communism has not disgraced this land.

You have me confused for someone else.


Now it is late and I have to ritually summon the Ghost of Joe McCarthy in council with HUAC

What took you sooooo long?




posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

No comment about summoning HUAC? I thought you'd find that at least a little bit funny


If that is the path they go then so be it, but it wont be forced on them by some black clad antifa types nor will they be tricked into it

In that instance I will be dead and having nothing but the occasional spooky appearance as an apparition to express my displeasure. Maybe by then I will have taken to helping detect or deter communist groups operating in the final domain of warfare... heaven. You know, bigger and better things ... Or maybe that other place depending on how my life measures up to the Good Book.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Who is he going to kill first? Any old democrat? One of his neighbours? How would a civil war look like when the people with opposing views are your next door neighbour? Or family and friends?.
I hope he is being monitored tbh.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

So I can infer by that you oppose the position that "more liberty is better than less liberty" ?


I don't care enough to even bother.


Now now... where would all the greats be if that had that attitude? Mao? Stalin? The Kim regime? Maduro? They wouldn't have been leaders of the 201st greatest nation on Earth that is for certain

I am glad you do not want to subvert the notion of individual rights, self-determination and personal freedoms


You have me confused for someone else.


Im old its late and I do not doubt that one bit. Happens a lot



What took you sooooo long?


Come on you ageist some of us are slow movers

I might move slow but I can still, what were we talking about again

Sen. McCarthy has grown wearing of all the angry Americans worried about their country asking him how we should proceed



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

The HUAC was not mentioned in the post I replied to.

I addressed it in my following post.

I know we are just bantering on the net but I will tell you something that is a bit out there. When you leave this place you might realize that none of this mattered. It matters while we are here because we are caught up in it, but maybe death is a rite of passage. Commies are not a problem in in heaven or the other place. Maybe because everyone there is already a commie?


edit on 8-4-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: MyToxicTash

My neighbors are not socialists although some are democrats. We shoot together quite often, most of the neighbors use my shooting range for that


I hope he is being monitored tbh.


I'm shaking in my.. slippers. Takes a little bit more than a list to rattle my cage

Probably have been since joining a certain organization pledging to ignore certain laws or directives and stand up for the Constitution instead. And I pay that about as much mind as I do your MSM

Either way, don't you love how I planted that idea in your head? First person to mention any sort of "list" or monitoring was me two replies up. See how quick you all latch on to other's ideas and wishful thinking?



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
So I can infer by that you oppose the position that "more liberty is better than less liberty" ?

I don't oppose it at all. I just question if someone living in a nanny state understands what they are asking for.


Now now... where would all the greats be if that had that attitude? Mao? Stalin? The Kim regime? Maduro? They wouldn't have been leaders of the 201st greatest nation on Earth that is for certain

Like I said, you are mistaking me for them. I am apolitical. I might talk about politics on the net for kick,s but I don't have any political leanings, let alone political aspirations.

If I had to put myself in a box I might say I am an anarchist, but I don't see myself doing that either.


Come on you ageist some of us are slow movers

I might move slow but I can still, what were we talking about again

Sen. McCarthy has grown wearing of all the angry Americans worried about their country asking him how we should proceed

I have nothing against the slow movers but the truth is that time is running short and there might not be enough time to get what they want done.

edit on 8-4-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I realize they are not a problem in heaven daskakik
It was a (typical) poor attempt at humor

I don't hate you guys (if you are even a commie vs. trolling me or this OP) but can you really not see how the constant pushing has caused likely irreparable harm to this country?

This thread is *not* out there. This topic appears in various MSM outlets almost weekly

Whether you or I like it, that is probably where this is headed no matter what happens from here it just so happens I am not afraid to acknowledge that and urge others to prepare for that very real possibility. And I will not lie, I am not entirely upset about that. Part of me thinks the people who caused this needless BS deserve every last bit of it. But I've also said 100 times it would not be me or (presumably) anybody else who kicks such a conflict off

My question is this... with so much risk and no chance of actually passing the "progressive" agenda, is it really worth tearing this country apart over trying to force a radical left wing agenda that Americans by far reject?


(post by MyToxicTash removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

It’s the same mentality of the guy that has the hots for a girl that tells him to drop dead.

Progressivism is a perv that won’t take no for an answer.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I can appreciate the position of anarchy, as strange as it sounds. Survival of the strongest and all that, there's a natural logic to it all that can't be denied


I don't oppose it at all. I just question if someone living in a nanny state understands what they are asking for.


I know full well what it means
People like me have been working to reduce the nanny state down to a whimper for years. If you don't want to wear a seatbelt in your car, don't.. it is your/my risk to take. If you want to light off large fireworks, more power to you (and me on the 4th of july)


I have nothing against the slow movers but the truth is that time is running short and there might not be enough time to get what they want done.


Yea yea that was another poor attempt at injecting humor


On a serious note,

Is it that much to ask for that my children have the same blessings of individual liberty we all had once? Before a law was created to address every bur someone had up their rear? Is it really so horrible?

It wouldn't be so bad if those folks (not you, I use that term way too generally) simply went their own way and enacted their policies among those who agreed with them. But the idea that everybody else who doesn't agree with them should have their arms twisted and forced into it is where I take exception

Healthcare, for example. I do not care if everyone has healthcare. I don't care if I have healthcare. If I can't afford it or otherwise obtain it too bad. Do you think It is right for me to force you to hand over your money/resources so I can have healthcare? Even if that means I die of some ridiculously treatable disease, it is not right for me to force you to provide for my healthcare as just one limited example

People die every day that is the way of the world



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
I realize they are not a problem in heaven daskakik
It was a (typical) poor attempt at humor

My reply was in the same vain.


I don't hate you guys (if you are even a commie vs. trolling me or this OP) but can you really not see how the constant pushing has caused likely irreparable harm to this country?

I'm not a commie or a troll. The constant pushing is from people who just disagree with you. They are younger and there are more of them, which is why I said that the inevitable end is what is going to be.


This thread is *not* out there. This topic appears in various MSM outlets almost weekly

I didn't say the thread is "out there". I said my esoteric reply about seeing things differently when we die was "out there".


Whether you or I like it, that is probably where this is headed no matter what happens from here it just so happens I am not afraid to acknowledge that and urge others to prepare for that very real possibility. And I will not lie, I am not entirely upset about that. Part of me thinks the people who caused this needless BS deserve every last bit of it. But I've also said 100 times it would not be me or (presumably) anybody else who kicks such a conflict off

My question is this... with so much risk and no chance of actually passing the "progressive" agenda, is it really worth tearing this country apart over trying to force a radical left wing agenda that Americans by far reject?

Ask people from the former USSR or Yugoslavia?

You could even ask all the people in communist countries, that opposed those regimes, if only they were alive.
edit on 8-4-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
a reply to: JBurns

I actually mentioned it in a pm to a few folk when you wanted to use force on the border.
Some of us worry I remember you a few years back and you were not anywhere near as mad as you are today.
Anyhow I hope it is all fantasy and you are just another fat old keyboard warrior who won't do #.
Also they have been taking your freedoms for years (patriot act) and you have not done anything...why?.



I actually mentioned it in a pm to a few folk when you wanted to use force on the border.


Well, at least that explains why my ears were burning. And here I thought it was from being in the Sun all day


Some of us worry I remember you a few years back and you were not anywhere near as mad as you are today.


OK, lets look at that for a second. Shouldn't that tell you something? When otherwise reasonable folks are angry enough to take up arms over this? It is serious for Chrissakes and they still keep pushing and pushing. The left likes to talk about consent and likes to say "no means no" but we've been screaming "NO" every way possible and it makes no difference

We tried electing Trump, but even that is continually challenged and attacked. Forget the insults and petty name calling, even overlook the violent acts in public (with copious cover from the left). You all created a hoax sour grapes investigation and then refused to accept its results when they didn't fit the narrative


Anyhow I hope it is all fantasy and you are just another fat old keyboard warrior who won't do #.


No I'm in pretty pitiful shape. I can shoot well, but I would never use that skill on an unarmed American no matter how much I despise what they are doing to our country. Make no mistake, if TSHTF I would probably be one of the first to eat #. Not just because I would not fire on unarmed Americans but because lets face it I'm not in any sort of fighting shape. Doesn't that alone tell you something when good people are willing to sacrifice quite literally everything over this BS?


Also they have been taking your freedoms for years (patriot act) and you have not done anything...why?.


I oppose the non-patriot act and their goofy useless surveillance programs. I don't know what to say, stop fighting with us and shoving all that far-left "my way or the highway" stuff down our throats and help us destroy those very useless
unpatriotic laws. I am all for it

Sad part about it is not every idea the left has is a terrible idea. Some may be ill thought out or impractical, but they aren't *entirely* bad. But who wants to work with you all on anything when you knee jerk and start talking about disarming otherwise law abiding citizens every time a damn mass shooting happens or want to provide excuses when black clad A-holes want to physically harm someone they don't like what they are saying?

You an I both could dismiss the concept of a civil war at that if it were truly just you and I. But you'd be surprised how many people are convinced this is not only inevitable but already in progress. Think of this thread as a symptom to a much larger and deeper problem. But it doesn't have to be that way. You want to destroy government surveillance, limit their overreach and reign the executive branch in? Great! I'm all for it. How about fighting that battle instead of this one? I'm not more interested in a civil war than you are



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
I know full well what it means
People like me have been working to reduce the nanny state down to a whimper for years. If you don't want to wear a seatbelt in your car, don't.. it is your/my risk to take. If you want to light off large fireworks, more power to you (and me on the 4th of july)

Those are valid examples but what happens when it turns into the mob collecting "insurance" or big corp going back to playing "monopoly"?

Things are the way they are for a reason.


Yea yea that was another poor attempt at injecting humor

I know. I was just reminding the old folk, as galadofwarthethird said, that there comes a time when, despite their best intentions, there is not much they can do, so why worry about it.


On a serious note,

Is it that much to ask for that my children have the same blessings of individual liberty we all had once? Before a law was created to address every bur someone had up their rear? Is it really so horrible?

It wouldn't be so bad if those folks (not you, I use that term way too generally) simply went their own way and enacted their policies among those who agreed with them. But the idea that everybody else who doesn't agree with them should have their arms twisted and forced into it is where I take exception

Healthcare, for example. I do not care if everyone has healthcare. I don't care if I have healthcare. If I can't afford it or otherwise obtain it too bad. Do you think It is right for me to force you to hand over your money/resources so I can have healthcare? Even if that means I die of some ridiculously treatable disease, it is not right for me to force you to provide for my healthcare as just one limited example

People die every day that is the way of the world

My point all along has been that people have always had their arms twisted. The colonists that wanted to stay loyal to the Crown had no way of stopping the FF of the US from dragging them into the American Revolution.

When the soviet countries became the USSR a lot of people had their arms twisted and others also experienced similar arm twisting when they broke up.

In the end, for better or for worse, some things will happen no matter who is opposed to them. That is the tug of war between conservatives and progressives.



edit on 8-4-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: continuousThunder

Read Article 4 Section 4 US Constitution

We won't tolerate socialism. All forms of government other than a Republic are unconstitutional.

We also won't tolerate any further infringement of our unalienable Constitutional rights. I don't care what the excuse or rationalization is, it will absolutely, 100% for certain cause an immediate armed conflict. That isn't a threat it is reality.


Have you checked the definition of a republican government as defined by the Constitution?

It doesn't mean "rule by Republicans."

It means "a form of government where the citizens elect representatives to serve for them in the government." (see Wikipedia or any dictionary). So you can have a socialist government that's a Republic or a Calvanist republic or even a Buddhist republic or Islamic republic. You can have mercantile republics.

Seriously. The Founding Fathers weren't against socialism.


Yet you still think it means Rule By Socialist Democrats, right?

I think it means the people are FREE to do what we want if we don't hurt others in a shared Republic. We share the decisions based on the States who United to accept the COTUS. The States have equal rights to the other States and a fair system is to allow the voters in each State decide what happens within the confines of the COTUS.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

...said the Hunter of Soros, eager to justify class-warfare. How does the disconnect feel, Daddy?


Ray Dalio, billionaire and co-chairman of Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund, said in a “60 Minutes” interview on Sunday. “If I was the president of the United States,” Dalio told “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker, “what I would do is recognize that this is a national emergency.”

Runaway Inequality Is a National Emergency, Billionaire Banker Warns



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

I think it means that rather than have a direct vote by the people on the issues at hand, we elect representatives that do the voting. That in a bicameral legislation, the states would be represented by appointing their voices. But since 1913, the Senate has been by direct election by the people. So currently the US is still a Republican form of government but no longer bicameral as intended.

The question of the US still being a Constitutional Republic in which the centralized power is limited and kept in check by policy that is ultimately in the hands of the people, is the root of this debate on the need for an actual civil war.

The Preamble is very clear that We the People is the fourth and final branch of our government in which all power derives and is granted. There are some ideologies that do not count the Preamble as even part of the Constitution. But without it, the Second Amendment is fairly meaningless, as it is no longer the Sword of Damocles to the other three branches that it is intended to be.

In the end, some people will say that this post is 100% correct. Others will say that it is completely full of BS. And others, just won’t be sure or do not care. But this is still America and you can still hold whichever opinion appeals to you the most, for now anyways. What people are upset about is that they fear the day when your only legal options is that this post is BS or that you can be apathetic, but it would become illegal to agree with it.

And that day, may not be too far off as it once was.



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

And this is different than say Trump first claiming he did not know anything about the payment to the pornstar for sex, and then later admitting to it, thus showing the man lied?

The reality is that there are a lot of questionable actions taken by this administration and the image is not of one who is there for the good of the country, but himself and those who would back him. And in all accounts, those actions are ultimately starting to not set well within the public eye. However, there has to be standards, and if it is not ok for one side, then it should not be ok, later on down the road cause the other guy is part of the political party in office. It is hypocrisy and ultimately sets a very bad precedent tht is going to come back to haunt the country in years to come.

Take the nuclear option in the senate. It was agreed on and passed by the Democrats, as a political weapon of last result, it was not right that they came up about it. And it is hypocritical of them to cry about it when the Republicans use it. That the legislative branch opens doors to get one up on the other side, then cry foul when it is used against them. I think that both sides need to back down and remove these bad policies and open doors before it gets further out of hand.



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

But those are the very definition of socialism in its pure essence.

Socialism is defined as following:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Now when one adds into the mix, far more politics then you start to see it go wrong. And both sides of the arguments have taken this to the extreme with plenty of examples that could go on for days, with who did what and why it is wrong.

Many social changes, that have a socialism as a core basis are not so bad, and when they work, work exceedingly well, or have gone so far beyond their concept they are either a miracle to behold or are a terror and nightmare. And far too often, when someone mentions socialism in a political argument, they point to those that failed, yet ignore those countries where it worked or went far better than expected.



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Non-profit institutions that benefit society are not examples of socialism. For profit ones are examples. Let’s take policing. You have your local PD or a private security firm in a gated community. If the gated community uses association fees for living there to support the cost of a private security firm like Brinks, then that is socialism. In theory a wide open town could do so with a local income tax and would be socialism. But if the security was not also legal law enforcement (certified and tested as a police officer) then none of the fines levied really go against you legally like points on your license or felonies, unless turned over to actual LEO’s.

Police Departments are taxpayer funded but not a for profit entity despite opinions on small town speed traps and parking fines. But they also have the force of law behind them.

Be careful in Ohio as Campus Police (usually called Campus Security) at all public colleges are indeed actual LEO and write legitimate legal tickets that can get you into legal trouble.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join