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: 7
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar




I would be all for repealing the 16th Amendment for improving the economy.


Crime-rates would be going down pretty fast as well. Which brings us back to the stabilizing effect of financial safety in a functioning social contract, which we would need to prevent further civil wars.

The old one is in shambles, obviously.




posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The US has fought proxy wars for ever. It's no different now with the government using elements of the public and social media to fight the civil war.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask



The right has said no to net neutrality for that exact reason........


No, they said no to net neutrality for $$$.


We dont have it now, tell me how restricted you are on what you say and do, besides FB and Twitter?


I don't use those platforms because they're horrible companies. That said at the moment I'm not restricted, but you don't start fighting for freedom when it gets taken away, you do it before hand.


The left are trying to come up with a solution to a problem that doesnt exist, in order to implement controls that would do the exact opposite of what you think they would.......

I'm not a fan of the left, I've never voted for someone from the left other than a local election.

But the problem did exist. ISP's were throttling content that threatened their business model. The big case was the fact most high speed internet is provided by cable companies who in turn were throttling Netflix.

It would be like if the power company also sold appliances and charged you extra or throttled electricity for appliances not bought by them (not a perfect analogy, but it's all I got).



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   
The right controls the presidency, the senate, and the supreme court, they control 3 of the 4 branches of government so civil war talk sounds as stupid as it is.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The US has fought proxy wars for ever. It's no different now with the government using elements of the public and social media to fight the civil war.



Except it would happen on their own doorstep and actually effect them directly.......



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




It's the right too. The right has been the source of the newfound net neutrality issue.


There are definitely turncoats among the right who need to be...dealt with. What self respecting Globalist Deep State WOULDNT have spies within the RightWing Patriotic Movement?




The right constantly talks about how the media is left leaning (rightfully so in many regards), yet they're willing to let Time Warner communications control what comes through their internet? Keep in mind that is the company that owns CNN.


One fight at a time, bro. We can only do so much at once. After the traitors are purged, er I mean, safely rounded up...(gotta hold out hope for the LEGAL option) Everything will be a lot easier.

And yeah, most of the elites, left or right, will go down as well. I mean, I think we have learned our lesson right? When a person has too much money and power, it makes them mentally ill and they become a danger to those around them. We need to put a cap on wealth, at least until we can understand the psychological effects, so that a person cannot become more powerful than their own Local government, let alone their own Federal Government.

We are all on the same page there, right? I mean... right??? Seems obvious to me, but, if more clarification is needed...


(post by ker2010 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I'm curious.

Many on (or near) the right suspect and dread a new civil war.

All we've seen is casual mocking from the more left-leaning members.

Is it because they don't think there will be a war, or do they think they will win it?


From a resident Libertarian point of view (mine) it seems the rightwing on here, with all their Chicken Little civil war doom porning, are the ones itching & fapping for a war, not the other side of the fence.

It's very apparent to those sitting elsewhere on the political spectrum, observing. Fancy words and long posts are cheap. Reading between the lines is a wealth of info.


It's probably best to go ahead and get it cranked up so we can get it over with. Normally a big fight will bring people back together. I met many friends in elementary and middle school after we fought. I met another great friend when I was 21 and got in a fight with a big talker. Those kinds seem to always wanna be your buddy after you get the best of them. I guess it's just human nature. So maybe a war is the best chance we have to establish peace at this point.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


because what, theyre suppose to shut down Time Warner? lol you cant just shut them down man.......


I never implied that... Just saying they shouldn't get to have a monopoly in an area with their high speed internet and then tell you what you can and can't consume.


It use to be, but its not anymore.......unless youve been living under a rock, you can see its spilled onto the streets, onto every social media outlet, and to every household.......


Eh, to some extent yes... But as I said earlier, most people don't participate, those that do to a large degree (us) are few and far between.


People are ostracizing family members because of whats going on........


Yup. My dad flipped out when he saw my girlfriend's facebook and saw she was a liberal. Dude had a conniption, needless to say he's one phone number lighter in his phone. But he doesn't represent the right or the majority of America, he is an isolated dumb ass who can't control his emotions.

As for the rest of your comments, there is validity to them... But I don't think it's a widespread problem. I think everyone having an internet phone in their pocket with a camera just gives us a lens to see something that's always been there in small numbers.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:14 AM
link   
It didn't work out to slaughter all the immigrants as they try to cross the border, did it? The term "deadly force" was used as I recall. Maybe killing all those little kids and their mommies wasn't such a good idea after all? Nobody else was much interested in that idea.

So now, the fantasy is to use those little machine gun - rapid fire things - to murder democrats? Soooo, ya want to kill the democrats. Alrighty then.

Holy Mary Mother of God.

Eat a snickers bar.


Anybody who pulls the trigger on one of those AK 47 things, or whatever weapon, at an innocent American will be shot on sight by police, or tried as a terrorist -- guilty of a hate crime, mass murder, and sentenced to death by the feds.

These violent scenarios are fantasies. There will be no civil war. Just a bunch of angry people who will find themselves in prison in short order. How do I know this? A little document we call the Constitution. Opening fire on groups of people is illegal, you know, and punishable by death. Be wary of those who advocate it.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


I think (believe) that when/if the poo hits the fan, democrat and republican politicians will openly unite against the American people.


I agree with you. In fact they are already prefacing it by representing their donors more than they do their voters.

While their voters are different, the donors are usually the same.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Question.

Because our democracy typically involves two parties, and one party kills all the members of the opposing party, until there is only one party left, or survivors of the second party are forced to succumb to the beliefs of the 1st party in order to continue their lives and those of their children and loved ones, is what is left still a 'democracy"?



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: JBurns

You know what the worst part of this is?

The anti-constitutionalists don't realize they're anti-constitution. They believe their actions will move the country forward so if they have to commit treason to do it, they will. This brainwashing is what makes them so dangerous to the progress (REAL progress) of our country that we love.


yes they do , of course they do , they just dont want to say it.......

3 years ago they woudlnt have said they were socialists or even pro communism.......now they are open about it......

Theyre just not admitting it yet.........give em until the primaries


Absolutely. The longer they continue to lose, the more they expose their real intentions. Moderate democrats are seeing this and running away as fast as they can and the left wingers exposing themselves are too busy trying to stop one man for his victory to notice.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: LSU2018

The anti-constitutionalists don't realize they're anti-constitution.


You're speaking of both parties here right?


They believe their actions will move the country forward so if they have to commit treason to do it, they will.


I think you mean sedition, not treason.


I'm talking about anyone trying to change the constitution because one piece of it doesn't benefit them.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
Question.

Because our democracy typically involves two parties, and one party kills all the members of the opposing party, until there is only one party left, or survivors of the second party are forced to succumb to the beliefs of the 1st party in order to continue their lives and those of their children and loved ones, is what is left still a 'democracy"?


Were a constitutional republic, not a democracy

When you learn the difference maybe youll be on the first start of actually understanding our government
edit on 5-4-2019 by SailorJerry because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

That's why I find AOC and her likes so refreshing btw, a very different kind of campaign donations.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


you werent talking to me, but damn right......that doesnt know a party .......


Thanks for being honest. The two parties are like mega churches, they interpret and pervert the text to fit their agenda.


So far theyve tried both.........


I'd agree there could be a case made for attempts of sedition by factions of the left.... But not treason.


Treason is the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

I don't see how that doesn't fit what the hard left is working towards right now. Sedition is an accurate term, too.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: LSU2018

I see your mistake. You equate moving forward as a good thing. Two cars having a head on collision at 65 mph because one was a jackass driving the wrong way on the interstate happens.

But both cars were indeed moving forward.


It depends on how we define "moving forward."



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: LSU2018

The anti-constitutionalists don't realize they're anti-constitution.


You're speaking of both parties here right?


They believe their actions will move the country forward so if they have to commit treason to do it, they will.


I think you mean sedition, not treason.


I'm talking about anyone trying to change the constitution because one piece of it doesn't benefit them.


Almost like someone miss-using the term treason (the countries highest crime) to paint opposition in a wrong light


Playful joking aside, I know it's an honest mistake, but I often use it to prove a point that both sides do in fact interpret things differently for their agenda.

I know what you meant though, and I understand where that sentiment comes from.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join