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.

 

WAR: Patriot Act II. Update

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Muadibb,


If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.


This sounds like a joke coming from the President? A joke coming from the president would start with 'knock knock', or 'did you hear the one about.....'.

I guess when he said you are either with us or you are agianst us, he was joking as well. Bush runs this country like a dictator. He has taken liberties with our rights and abused his power and position for profit. BTW, you do know that it is a fact that he made his first million in oil off the Bin Laden family? I know it may be a little off the topic, but you have got to think about what his motivations are.




posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Kidfinger, you don't seem to remember, but we have had this conversation before.... about the Bin Laden and Bush link...

Osama has like 72 siblings..... do you know anyone in your family who is a black sheep?....or do you know someone who has a "black sheep" in their family?.... is it that family's fault of having a "black sheep"?.... no...

and btw....one of the people we have to thank for having the ability to still possess guns is because of president Bush....if the president really wanted to have a dictatorship in the US, one of the first things the government would have done is to outlaw all guns...that is what dictators have done in the past...when people have no firearms, the country is open for a dictatorship...


NRA: Also early on in your Administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft stated his view "that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms." This was a clear reversal, was it not, of the Clinton Administration`s position?

President Bush: It was a clear reversal. It was a position that needed to be reversed—the prior Administration had taken the position that the Second Amendment only applies to state militias and doesn’t protect an individual right to bear arms. My opponent issued a press release earlier this year supporting that exact same position. I know that’s not what the Constitution says. The Constitution gives people a personal right to bear arms. So we did reverse the Clinton Administration’s position, and I think that was the right thing to do.


Excerpted from.
www.geocities.com...



[edit on 5-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Interpreting the facts:




U.S. Northern Command is not the police auxiliary and does not supersede the "first responder" role of lead federal agencies.
..................

Given these parameters, U.S. Northern Command does not:

Create a new agency or military service (the command realigns and streamlines U.S. military structure to better address 21st century threats.)

Liaison directly with the Office of Homeland Security or the anticipated Department of Homeland Security. DoD conducts interagency liaison.

Conduct law enforcement operations (role of the U.S. Department of Justice)

Secure airports (role of Transportation Security Agency)

Secure borders (role of U.S Customs and Border Protection - CBP)

Provide "first responders" (role of federal, state and local community authorities, see state homeland security representatives.)

Train and maintain operational forces (the role of the various military services)

Plan or conduct homeland security in Hawaii (role of the U.S. Pacific Command)


www.northcom.mil...


The command's mission is homeland defense and civil support, specifically:

Conduct operations to deter, prevent, and defeat threats and aggression aimed at the United States, its territories, and interests within the assigned area of responsibility; and

As directed by the President or Secretary of Defense, provide military assistance to civil authorities including consequence management operations.

www.northcom.mil...





So, in national emergencies, under direction of the President or Secretary of Defense, NORTHCOM provides consequence management operations - which means they take over and run the show, and provide centralized management and coordination of all other agencies.

Like I said earlier, expect it to happen if the bird flu epidemic goes wild - otherwise, expect a "terrorist attack." One way or another, looks like there WILL be a national emergency.


.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Hey Sofi, don't forget that the agency which supposedly isn't into law enforcement is lists drug enforcement as one of its purposes. Apparently "law enforcement" doesn't mean what it used to.



Originally posted by Muaddib
What the heck do you know of what i am capable and what I am not capable of....and if you have to know, i have been to the brig for disobeying an order i found immoral. That tells you how much you know about me....


Good for you buddy, thats a wonderful start. Now all you've got to do is decide that you don't want to be a slave to the growing "corporatist" (read fascist) movement in America and you'll be all set. If you honestly mean to say that you have questioned the authority of this government and the way our economic system is headed, and found no fault in it... well if I finish this sentence I just may get a warning. Lets just say that you're either not performing the task at all, or you're dedicating insufficient cerebral assets to the effort.

[edit on 5-3-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Marg...i guess you have never made a stupid joke in your life... i know i have...this shows that the president is also human and can make jokes.



Im' not the president of the US, and Idon't have to worry above the rest of the world and my image, I can make all the stupid jokes Iwant.

The president have to answer to me and any other citizen inthis country.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

The president have to answer to me and any other citizen inthis country.








You are absolutely right marg. The president DOES have to answer to you - and me - and every other person in this country.

I say it's high time we held him acountable. He's running around pointing fingers at everyone else - for torture, and bankruptcies, and being SICK too. Good grief. Enough of this finger-pointing and taking advantage.

I mean, just talk about "personal responsibility." Humph.


.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
The President did answer to the citizens of this country in November 2004 and he got a resounding affirmation of his policies.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The President did answer to the citizens of this country in November 2004 and he got a resounding affirmation of his policies.




Hmmm. That can be debated. And has been.

Not offering to arm wrestle over this one. BUT - will say that many people who voted for him are now appaled at what he's doing.


.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Not offering to arm wrestle over this one. BUT - will say that many people who voted for him are now appaled at what he's doing.


How exactly will you say that?....by what people in here are saying?

Since when has the mayority of people who post here are in favour of Bush?..... What happened when there was a vote done in these forums and according to the concnesus in these boards, which includes many people from other countries, president Bush lost....



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by soficrow

Not offering to arm wrestle over this one. BUT - will say that many people who voted for him are now appaled at what he's doing.


How exactly will you say that?....by what people in here are saying?

Since when has the mayority of people who post here are in favour of Bush?..... What happened when there was a vote done in these forums and according to the concnesus in these boards, which includes many people from other countries, president Bush lost....





Things change maudib, they really do.

For a while, people were afraid to speak out because the hammer came down, hard, when they did. Now, there are too many to hammer and more speaking out every day. Safety in numbers you know.


BTW - I wasn't talking about ATS - but mostly about people I know and also, things I've been reading.


.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Quote: "Corporatist" (read Fascist) Movement."

I could not have put it any better myself! If people are afraid of an N.W.O - they should not be looking for it coming from the Governments or "Secret Societies" Direction - they should look for it coming from the
*Multi-National Corporation's* Direction!

Now lets all get back to work on PRIVATIZING Social Security! I swear Bush amazes me! Just who does he work for anyway? I would say the
OIL Corps, the Military Weapons Manufacturing Corps, the Pharmaceutical Corps & the Big Financial Corps - certainly NOT for the American People!



[edit on 5-3-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 5-3-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 5-3-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
The debate over the presidents legitimacy is irrelevant. Just because someone is elected does not give them the moral highground on every issue. An elected official can be wrong, especially on the issues he didn't campaign on heavily. Bush won on foreign policy and "family values" (also known as gay-bashing and testing the limits of the establishment clause). That doesn't give him the mandate of the people to toy with the bill of rights. Unfortunately, he DOESN'T have to answer to the people in the pure sense of the word. He has to answer to the other party. As long as he can one-up the top democrat he's home free. In this case that wasn't very hard.
It was the guy who wears a bleeding heart and three much-disputed purple ones on his sleeve, or the guy who almost died from a pretzel. That was anybody's race and let's not pretend that it was an issue-centered campaign. It wasn't even a popularity contest. It was an UNpopularity contest- it was all about which candidate got more people to vote AGAINST him.
Bottom line, 51% or not, Bush doesn't have the right for this and his success in this matter proves that a president does not answer to the people on every issue.

Last question: when the heck did 51% become "resounding"? I don't remember who it was who said that, but resounding? Seriously? It's certain nice that he got more votes than the other guy for a change, but that's hardly a landslide.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Quote: "let's not pretend that it was an issue-centered campaign."

I more than agree!

Quote: "It wasn't even a popularity contest. It was an UNpopularity contest- it was all about which candidate got more people to vote AGAINST him."

CLASSIC! GOLDEN! You are 100% correct - at least from my perspective! I am not a member of the Republican Party OR the Democratic Party! The 2004 Presidential Election wasn't the only sham - just look at the 2000 Presidential Election! BOTH Parties SOLD-OUT to the Corporations a
LONG TIME AGO!



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Seraphim- the complete encyclopedia of Vagabond's political terminology is available by U2U or email for the low low cost of reading Vagabond's ATS Story, and/or a way above vote
.

Glad you find my paranoid dillusions entertaining.

Edit: Disclaimer: Vagabond's entire encyclopedia is as yet unwritten and will probably be less than one page long.

[edit on 5-3-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente

Quote: "It wasn't even a popularity contest. It was an UNpopularity contest- it was all about which candidate got more people to vote AGAINST him."

CLASSIC! GOLDEN! You are 100% correct - at least from my perspective! ...BOTH Parties SOLD-OUT to the Corporations a LONG TIME AGO!




And BTW - you guys are pretty funny. Thanks for the humor break.


...So where do we go from here? What do we do? How do we salvage what's left of this once great nation?


.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
And BTW - you guys are pretty funny. Thanks for the humor break.

It's like the great Marine hero (and outspoken socialist) Smedley Butler told his men in their march on Washington. You'll be alright as long as you keep your sense of humor. Remember that when you read the next part of my response.


...So where do we go from here? What do we do? How do we salvage what's left of this once great nation?

Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies. All the means of change which I think would likely work are A. Illegal. B. Not yet completely warranted. C. Foolish to talk about if one is not willing to actually carry them out. So if you'll just kindly not ask me that I'll kindly not give you sugar-coated non-answers. Get my drift?


Sooner or later things do have to change though. It will either be accomplished after a great deal of political success has made it possible to win peacefully, or after a great deal of political failure has necessitated other means. Hopefully we will have to shoot off nothing more powerful than our mouths to make it happen.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies. All the means of change which I think would likely work are A. Illegal. B. Not yet completely warranted. C. Foolish to talk about if one is not willing to actually carry them out. So if you'll just kindly not ask me that I'll kindly not give you sugar-coated non-answers. Get my drift?


Sooner or later things do have to change though. It will either be accomplished after a great deal of political success has made it possible to win peacefully, or after a great deal of political failure has necessitated other means. Hopefully we will have to shoot off nothing more powerful than our mouths to make it happen.


You said a mouthful there. I couldn't have said it better myself.


There is a real sense of helplessness that is right under the surface of American politics. There are good senators who are afraid to speak up, lest they end up like their coleagues, shouted down, humiliated, attacked, threatened, discredited, even dead. There are good citizens who don't want to resort to violence until absolutely necessary, who think the system can be salvaged in part or in whole.

In the end, PA 2 is no less insulting to American dignity than PA 1. In some ways it's more insulting.

Just like all other invocations of war powers, this time around was controversial. Making such laws permanent would be a tragic mistake. If war powers were made permanent in the past, there would still be Japanese citizens in internment camps today. Not pretty.

In the end most Americans won't take notice until someone is knocking on their door. And by then it will probably be too late.

The thing that scares me the most is what they can do to our kids. They can take them from school, whisk them away to secret, maximum security containment facilities, and treat them any way they please... It makes me shudder to think what might go on.

There will come a time when the 'terrorists' strike again, and the government of this nation tries to subjugate its citizens completely. There will be a confrontation, and the outcome will depend entirely on the reflexes and training of those involved. Survival of the fittest is alive and well.

I'm not upset by the changing face of America, because if you look at our history we were NEVER righteous, we just claimed to be. We were always thieves, and liars, and murderers, now we're being overt about it. This country wasn't ours, we stole it. This land never belonged to us, the creed we espouse was never evidenced in our actions, the entire concept of "America" began as a farce, lived as a farce, and will probably die a farce.

I think the best thing our government could possibly do would be to tell the truth. The absolute truth, from JFK on. They should tell us what they plan to do, and tell us why they don't think we can stop them, and tell us why it's for our own good. If everything was out in the open I might be able to muster some respect for our oppressors.

I wish the government would issue a formal challenge to its people, drop the gauntlet so to speak. But no, they will lie and pretend to be working for us until the very last second...

I think sides have been chosen. I've said it before I'll say it again, this conflict was inevitable, and probably will be very cathartic for all involved. Let's just get it on already, I'm tired of all the waiting. June is my bet, because the draft will be ready to execute.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
If by what you said about the US governement detaining "kids" such as Timothy Mcveight...for being one of those who perpetrated a terrorist act against his fellow citizens..... Would you prefer if those kids who go armed to their schools with the sole purpose of killing other kids to be set free?....

Otherwise, why and how exacly would the US government detain a "kid" if he/she was not trying to commit a terrorist act?...

You are making a lot of assumptions there WyrdeOne...

What proof do you have that the US government has detained kids for interrogation procedures?.....


BTW....in what way are you oppressed?.....


[edit on 6-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
What proof do you have that the US government has detained kids for interrogation procedures?.....


Actually I was talking about FEMA procedures in case of an attack on American soil. Sorry if that was unclear. I take issue with the fact that the government thinks they can 'protect' my kids for me, and I suspect I'm not alone on that. The government can do a lot of things and get away with it, but if they touch our kids, they WILL see the extent of our ability to resist.

Oh, how am I opressed? Not at all, because I refuse to allow it.

I've been interviewed and questioned by the FBI and I handled it with civility and grace. Others might not handle the situation as tactfully as I did. I think the agents were intimidated by my size and refrained from pushing too hard. I showed them respect, even when I questioned their career choice, and they were smart enough to be respectful back. I feel bad for some of the kids who get hassled and don't know how to turn it around.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Quote: "So where do we go from here? What do we do? How do we salvage what's left of this once great nation?"

I say we do what the Government wants us to do anyway - take matters into our own hands instead of waiting for Government to Save us or tell us what to do (& Think) all the time or waiting for Jesus to come back!
Lets be Self Sufficient & Independent – Government “Help” – no thanks don’t need it!

Lets tell the whole World the TRUTH about what is actually going on in the World & come up with Practical Solutions for Problems! Most of all lets exercise our First Amendment Rights to Free Speech & let NO-ONE Intimidate or Silence us!


[edit on 6-3-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join