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.

 

The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

page: 44
31
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
ya know what I think your right nojustice




posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJustice
Sure. My name is Roth Joint and I can't believe everyone doesn't agree with me that someone time traveled from the year 2036.

No problem. What you believe is entirely your responsibility. But so far I haven't heard any argument from you as to why time/dimension travel would NOT be possible. On the contrary, in previous posts I've presented the reasonings as to why the "grandfather paradox" simply does not even exist in a "multiverse" calculated enough with the use of "string-theory" for it to be possible to "travel" in, either dimensional or in time.


Originally posted by NoJustice
Bad things are happening and he said bad things would happen so I am close minded to think he was a fraud. It is impossible that a man didn't time travel from 2036. It's even funny to think that it didn't happen. I ignore that the constitution has been in jeopordy long before Titor came on the internet and spoke the GOSPEL such as in the Clinton years with the Oklahoma City bombing and the Effective Death Penalty Act that he couldn't pass a year before the bombings that passed after the bombings, and the Patriot Act which happened right after 9/11, and only pay attention to the constitution this year before I only care about what fits the Titor story.

Once again you don't understand that the Patriot Act is one of those things I am talking about. Wasn't it implemented AFTER 9/11 and AFTER John Titor spoke his words? There you go. All other things you are mentioning haven't established even a fraction of the eroding impact on our Constitution as the Patriot Act does.

It's you "NoJustice" who could better stop fooling yourself and open up your eyes. Do you really want to keep on denying that the federal police now has been given unconstitutional powers under Patriot Act II?

** Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again. The Justice Department states that they can do this because the person "had inferred from conduct" that they were not US citizens. Remember Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State law can result in the "enemy combatant" terrorist designation.

** SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a criminal act for any member of the government or any citizen to release any information concerning the incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. It also states that law enforcement does not have to tell the press who they have arrested, and they never have to release the names.


There you go. Who's ignoring what "NoJustice?"


Originally posted by NoJustice
I ignore that the man was here just months before 9/11 and failed to mention it because again it doesn't fit in with my Titor agenda and because he selectively doesn't want to warn people about their own deaths without any pattern or reasoning.

It's annoying if you don't get everything on a silver platter, isn't it? It hurts if you have to think a little harder, doesn't it? If I would tell you back in 1986 that Germany's economy would be weighed down for over a decade you would probably still nag now why I haven’t told you about the fall of the Berlin Wall…….

I wonder who is ignoring something here?


Originally posted by NoJustice
I also ignore that the U.S. Government has wanted control of the Gulf Region for many years and it was discussed in the PNAC by Dick Chaney and Rumsfield and others that we need to be occupied there in early 2000, but instead I credit Titor with saying there would be another war with Iraq that everyone already saw coming.

Sure. Around 2000 everybody could “predict” a “next Iraq war” would happen before 2004, right? Ofcourse not. Sure. Around 2000 everybody believed that Iraq posing a nuclear threat to the world was BS, right? Ofcourse not.

To predict a war is one thing, however, to "predict" another war in Iraq under false pretences where everyone would be whipped up into accepting it exactly as it happened, is another thing.

Yes, I definitely must have ignored something I guess....


Originally posted by NoJustice
I am taking away from real conspiracies and Government corruption by crediting it all to a man on the internet who traveled from 2036, it is worth it because I want to be right and I don't care about the truth. I have a built in excuse to never be wrong because of the whole time frame garbage, who in the world would not see it exactly the way I do?

It’s you who is making the excuses. Are you perhaps scared of the events unfolding in such a way exactly as John Titor “predicted” them? One thing is for sure, John Titor never made any excuses my friend:

John Titor
”perhaps its more interesting to consider what I won't be doing to try and stop that war.”

“Find 5 people within 100 miles that you trust with your life and stay in contact with them.”

”Get a copy of the US Constitution and read it.”

"Some things that are quite different on one worldline have very little effect as time passes and the worldlines appear to "converge" again and look very similar. Worldline changes are not exponential; they act more like chaotic attractors with varying effect depending on their size and location."

TimeTravel_0 : I just wish things didn’t have to happen they way they will.
Yareisa : we cannot change it?
TimeTravel_0 : Its too late.

"As far as I can tell right now, you are headed toward the same events I would call "my history" in 2036."


Now, that doesn't really sound like someone who is looking for an "out" or “excuses” does it? It sounds more like someone who is pretty convinced we are heading for the same events he already experienced.

Now, lets see, have I ignored something else perhaps?

[edit on 4-8-2005 by Roth Joint]



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Actually, I'm not scared of anything Roth Joint. It seems like you're paranoid about the end of the world as we know it and being in John Titor's future, since you believe in it so much and obsess over it. It that does turn out to be our future (which I don't believe you've proven anything at all that it will, nope not one shred of evidence. Just things that you are trying to make look coincidental enough to say Titor said them) then it is. If you really believe we're doomed then wouldn't you want to go outside, and take a deep breath of fresh air and enjoy the life you have now? I never claimed I don't believe the U.S. Government is corrupt which if what you are trying to point out over and over. I know that Dick Chaney and Rumsfield said we need a Pearl Harbor type event in 2000, and then we had 9/11. I know we're in trouble. I don't think it has anything to do with a person on the internet claiming to time travel from 2036. But, like I told you I believe America is in trouble ANYWAY, but I don't worry about the future like you do. Knowing about the Government being corrupt does NOT consume me like it seems Titor does you, it is only a small part of what goes on in my life. I have a girlfriend and have friends that I hang out with and play basketball and drink occasionally or play video games. I take life as it comes, if you turn about to be right congratulations, but worrying about it all the time and being paranoid is not good man. Right now you are not a slave or any of that you are free to do as you want to, so stop living the life you THINK you are going to live in the future and just enjoy the one you have right now. That is all.







[edit on 4-8-2005 by NoJustice]



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJustice
Actually, I'm not scared of anything Roth Joint. It seems like you're paranoid about the end of the world as we know it and being in John Titor's future, since you believe in it so much and obsess over it. It that does turn out to be our future (which I don't believe you've proven anything at all that it will, nope not one shred of evidence. Just things that you are trying to make look coincidental enough to say Titor said them) then it is. If you really believe we're doomed then wouldn't you want to go outside, and take a deep breath of fresh air and enjoy the life you have now? I never claimed I don't believe the U.S. Government is corrupt which if what you are trying to point out over and over. I know that Dick Chaney and Rumsfield said we need a Pearl Harbor type event in 2000, and then we had 9/11. I know we're in trouble. I don't think it has anything to do with a person on the internet claiming to time travel from 2036. But, like I told you I believe America is in trouble ANYWAY, but I don't worry about the future like you do. Knowing about the Government being corrupt does NOT consume me like it seems Titor does you, it is only a small part of what goes on in my life. I have a girlfriend and have friends that I hang out with and play basketball and drink occasionally or play video games. I take life as it comes, if you turn about to be right congratulations, but worrying about it all the time and being paranoid is not good man. Right now you are not a slave or any of that you are free to do as you want to, so stop living the life you THINK you are going to live in the future and just enjoy the one you have right now. That is all.

NoJustice, I am not as paranoid about the "end of this old system" as you think. Actually I agree with what you said above. However, I do believe there's a great unknown power in preparing yourself mentally to give what the next generation needs....

John Titor
"I see there is controversy over my "story" that is causing some people to ask themselves if they believe it or not. For quite a while, I have been stating that not only do I not expect anyone to believe me, it's irrelevant and in my opinion, quite dangerous. Belief implies that you accept what I say as true and real. Over the Internet, this is impossible. In fact, I have stated before, there are many people in 2036 who do not believe in time travel."

"What anyone chooses to do based on something I might say will not affect me in the least. My goal is not to believed and I submit that your life would not be any better (and perhaps worse) if you did believe me."

"It saddens me that you do not realize your true worth as a keeper of information and experience. Perhaps the end that we fear will open your eyes to your true value as an individual. Young people need wisdom. The captain of the ship knows where the lifeboats are."



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Look at you going on and on, claiming and hoaxing. None of you have any proof he is a hoax or even correct yet. Althought he has made decent little prediction statements.

You have to wait for the conflict to start off. If it doesnt happen, Titor is a hoax because he claimed it would happen in the middle or later of the year 2005.

Dont go thinking a war isnt going to start in the US either, if not Russia then you still have plenty of other enemys itself that want to go against them.

US already has one war in the middle east, Iraq for instance. You think it wont happen in the state someday?

I hope you know China is stocking up nukes, and are not very friendly to US right now.

washingtontimes.com...

"China is building up its nuclear forces as part of a secret strategy targeting the United States, according to a former Chinese diplomat."

[edit on 4-8-2005 by phantomviewer]



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Month 20 Roth (or month 8 if you perfer) and still no Civil War. Hmmm....I wonder why....


Sorry I haven't been on in the past couple weeks. I was traveling across this country yet again. Something you desperately need to do Roth.
Guess how many taser incidents I saw?
Zero
Guess how many civil conflicts I saw?
Zero
Guess how many Waco incidents I saw?
Zero
Guess how many federal agents I saw?
Zero

Surely if the civil war has been getting progressively worse in the past 20 months (or 8) I would have seen at least something right??

You know what though, I done here. I'm going to let you roll around in your perplexing fantasies about the city people/government out to get you for no reason. I see people have continued to show the errors of Titor and of your way of thinking while I was gone, yet you refuse to even consider to truth so....what's the point.
People like you frighten me. Terrorists have the same way of thinking. You distort and twists facts and the truth until it becomes your version of the truth. "You cannot be serious" is a common phrase from sane people who see what your write or hear what you say.....the scary part is....you are serious.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Month 20 Roth (or month 8 if you perfer) and still no Civil War. Hmmm....I wonder why....


Sorry I haven't been on in the past couple weeks. I was traveling across this country yet again. Something you desperately need to do Roth.
Guess how many taser incidents I saw?
Zero
Guess how many civil conflicts I saw?
Zero
Guess how many Waco incidents I saw?
Zero
Guess how many federal agents I saw?
Zero

Surely if the civil war has been getting progressively worse in the past 20 months (or 8) I would have seen at least something right??

You know what though, I done here. I'm going to let you roll around in your perplexing fantasies about the city people/government out to get you for no reason. I see people have continued to show the errors of Titor and of your way of thinking while I was gone, yet you refuse to even consider to truth so....what's the point.
People like you frighten me. Terrorists have the same way of thinking. You distort and twists facts and the truth until it becomes your version of the truth. "You cannot be serious" is a common phrase from sane people who see what your write or hear what you say.....the scary part is....you are serious.


Lol, it is fruitless again TJW. These people have either never visited the US or don't leave their basement. I mean that is the only way to explain this. I live in the 3rd largest city in the United States, and believe me, there is NO abnormal civil unrest here. Know what else? There isn't going to be, at least not for a long time. For the most part, the US is a very happy country. You may not be, but the majority of us are too busy to worry about something besides a civil war that some guy said was going to happen on a MESSAGE BOARD!




Please note: It may be confusing but I switched focus from TJW in the beginning to those fools who actually believe in this crap. Tons of offense meant.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
ya this is getting too obbsesive for people!



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
I live in the 3rd largest city in the United States, and believe me, there is NO abnormal civil unrest here. Know what else? There isn't going to be, at least not for a long time. For the most part, the US is a very happy country.





You should try to see what its like in BLUE STATE. I live in New Jersey and most of the people that I encounter say XXXX Bush, and there is a lot of unrest. The people are pissed about a lot things...Illegal War, Torchuring Prisoners, Land Seizure, Bolton, Roberts, Patriot Act ... ect.

I would guess that a RED STATE everything would be ok, because you give Bush your "UNWAVERING" Support...but you should really see what its like in a Blue State before you say everything is Peachy in America.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
I live in the 3rd largest city in the United States, and believe me, there is NO abnormal civil unrest here. Know what else? There isn't going to be, at least not for a long time. For the most part, the US is a very happy country.





You should try to see what its like in BLUE STATE. I live in New Jersey and most of the people that I encounter say XXXX Bush, and there is a lot of unrest. The people are pissed about a lot things...Illegal War, Torchuring Prisoners, Land Seizure, Bolton, Roberts, Patriot Act ... ect.

I would guess that a RED STATE everything would be ok, because you give Bush your "UNWAVERING" Support...but you should really see what its like in a Blue State before you say everything is Peachy in America.


you really need to learn your geography before you go preaching crap. Chicago is the third largest city in America. Chicago is in Illinois, which is a BLUE STATE. Chicago was one of the main reasons Kerry won Illinois, it is definitely almost all Liberal. EVERYTHING IS FINE IN CHICAGO. Everything is peachy in America, not to mention Titor said it WOULDN'T be a civil war fought on party v. party, more like agricultural v. urban USA

[edit on 4-8-2005 by Ryanp5555]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Civil War right now in America? No.

Civil unrest in America right now? Absolutely if only on a talkative level.

I never took much more than a passing glance at the Titor stuff but 2005-Civil War is about to fall flat on its face with the exception of one event. If a nuke or large mass scale terrorist attack were struck within the continental U.S. between now and the end of the year, I'm pretty sure you would see Civil War because when the # hits the fan, the # hits the fan.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   
John Titor
"Do you think the Electoral College should be continued?"

Q: Are some areas of the United States safer than others?
"Take a close look at the county-by-county voting map from the last
elections."

"From the age of 8 to 12 [2006-2010], we lived away from the cities and spent most of our time in a farm community with other families avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard. By that time, it was pretty clear that we were not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined."


www.snopes.com...
On the eve of the Civil War (which began in April 1861), the United States was very sharply divided along regional lines. Going into the 1860 campaign, the two major parties both essentially split in two, each creating a northern and a southern wing. In the subsequent presidential election the northern Whig/Republican party (represented by Abraham Lincoln of Illinois) didn't even appear on the ballot in most southern states, and while the Southern Democratic party (represented by John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky) did make the ballot throughout most of the north, they rarely drew more than a relative handful of votes in those states. All four candidates captured at least one state's electoral votes, a rarity in U.S. election history.

The electorate in 2004 was not nearly so sharply divided along regional lines, however — an electoral map just makes it appear that way because of the "winner take all" nature of the U.S. electoral system.

Both the popular and electoral vote totals in 2004 were quite close (President Bush won the popular vote by a 51%-48% margin, and a single strongly-contested state such as Ohio could have tipped the electoral vote balance in the other direction), and although the states won by each candidate were largely clumped into regional clusters, both candidates generally ran very strongly even in the states they did not win. An election map with finer gradation (i.e., displaying results on a county-by-county basis rather than a state-by-state one, and providing color shading to reflect the closeness of the vote in each area) produces a better picture of how strongly both candidates in the 2004 election ran even in states which they lost:

According to exit polls and analysis of county-by-county election returns, the sharpest geographic distinction between the two candidates did not primarily correspond to region but to size of community: Senator John Kerry had a substantial 60%-39% edge in large cities (representing roughly 13% of the total U.S. population), while the reverse was true in rural areas (representing roughly 16% of the total U.S. population), where President Bush garnered a 59%-40% majority. What we saw in the 2004 election was more of an urban vs. rural division, regardless of state.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roth Joint
John Titor
”None of the things I have said will be a surprise. They were set in motion ten, twenty, even thirty years ago. Are you really surprised to find out that Iraq has nukes now or is that just BS to whip everyone up into accepting the next war?”

This is contradictory, and again, who said Iraq had nukes? John Titor. He is wrong about that.




“After the war, the main problem was distribution. Can anyone tell me how many companies in the United States still manufacture bicycle tires today? Anyone who still has a bike in 2008 will find out.”

Yes, this is very vague. What is the purpose of bicycle manufacturers in the US?


Maybe you just need to think a little harder...

Currently, Titor has no understanding we the US is in the middle east.




He made his remarks in a time period (2000/2001) where everyone believed that Saddam was indeed in possession of nuclear weapons which ultimately appeared to be BS (just as Titor "predicted" it) in order to prepare the public for an Iraq war and make them more willing into accepting that war.

I still have yet to see evidence that we attacked Iraq because they had nukes.



Furthermore it’s interesting to note that Titor made a clear distinction between that war and the US civil war! Clearly he meant this next war (Iraq) taking place before the US civil war when everyone could still be united and whipped up into accepting that war…….

According to Titor the civil war should be happening as of now.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
This is contradictory, and again, who said Iraq had nukes? John Titor. He is wrong about that.



Originally posted by Frosty
I still have yet to see evidence that we attacked Iraq because they had nukes.

You've got to be joking. What are "weapons of mass destruction" and "nuclear arms" as G.W. Bush used to call them so vigorously in your eyes? Guns? Grenades? Balloons perhaps? Maybe you thought it was Saddam's moustache?

Here's a nice article:
www.tehrantimes.com.../4/2005&Cat=4&Num=003
The case could shed new light on Bush administration thinking ahead of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which the White House largely justified by charging that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was actively pursuing nuclear arms.

No such weapons have been found in Iraq, and U.S. arms investigators have concluded that Baghdad abandoned its nuclear-development program soon after the 1991 Gulf War.

More at:
www.tehrantimes.com.../4/2005&Cat=4&Num=003



Originally posted by Frosty
Currently, Titor has no understanding we the US is in the middle east.


Maybe John Titor has no understanding of....mmmmh....lets say... gardening, otherwise he would have told us. Or maybe he has no understanding of cooking because he most certainly would have given us a tasty recipe. Or perhaps he has no knowledge whatsoever of Oprah Winfrey because he absolutely would have discussed one of her TV shows with us.



Originally posted by Frosty
According to Titor the civil war should be happening as of now.

We have discussed this before on this thread. Why don't you first read it? It's only 44 pages short. Hey, it doesn't hurt you and it keeps you off the street!

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Roth Joint]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
The street! That's something you should try Roth Joint, go outside. Get a life.

You're getting angry and insulting people now because they don't believe in your rediculously far fetched RELIGION LIKE believe that John Titor is a Time Traveling prophet, get over it.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJustice
The street! That's something you should try Roth Joint, go outside. Get a life.

You're getting angry and insulting people now because they don't believe in your rediculously far fetched RELIGION LIKE believe that John Titor is a Time Traveling prophet, get over it.


Have I perhaps touched a soft spot or simply where it really hurts “NoJustice?”

Is that why you are calling Bush an “American Psycho” but thinks it’s great he wants nuclear power plants?


Isn't it interesting how much energy people invest in order to try to "debunk" a story that must be a "hoax" according to them?

If Titor's chronicles would be so insignificant, then why so much effort, why so many many posts, why would anyone bother at all? Why would you bother at all “NoJustice?”


Apparently this thread really excites you and here I am thinking you were “bored and it's getting no where?”


As far as “insulting” people, well, I guess I am just a little smarter in “putting my finger on the spot” … I suppose you’ve tried it as well albeit it a bit childish, but hey, keep on practising!



Originally posted by NoJustice
Hey Roth and WheretoHide I have a question, do you go out in public and tell people about this stuff? coworkers? or what about your parents? or is it a "secret" internet thing that you know about.

"Hey mom, there's something I want to tell you, but...I just don't know how"


And also, serious question, how old are each of you? Just curious. There's no reason you should be ashamed to tell.




[edit on 5-8-2005 by Roth Joint]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006
You should try to see what its like in BLUE STATE. I live in New Jersey and most of the people that I encounter say XXXX Bush, and there is a lot of unrest. The people are pissed about a lot things...Illegal War, Torchuring Prisoners, Land Seizure, Bolton, Roberts, Patriot Act ... ect.

I would guess that a RED STATE everything would be ok, because you give Bush your "UNWAVERING" Support...but you should really see what its like in a Blue State before you say everything is Peachy in America.


Land Seizure or Emminent Domain is a Liberal Concept, take a look at the judges who disented, Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia, O'Connor was the swing vote. All the liberal/left judges voted in favour of this tactic. Here in Texas, the state legislature has already passed law forbidding ED; Texas is a red State.

Bolton, the only reason democrats appose him is due to the fact they personally hate him and know he will stir things up in the UN regarding war in Iraq and oil for food.

Everything here in Red State isn't ok, we still have blue states we are working on.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Land Seizure or Emminent Domain is a Liberal Concept, take a look at the judges who disented, Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia, O'Connor was the swing vote. All the liberal/left judges voted in favour of this tactic. Here in Texas, the state legislature has already passed law forbidding ED; Texas is a red State.

So tell me cowboy,when will you stop selling crap instead of beef?

www.txfb.org...

August 5, 2005

Eminent domain bill fails in first session

Even though the Texas House and Senate demonstrated overwhelming support to prevent private property from being condemned for economic development purposes, the two chambers could not agree on how best to address the issue during the first special session of the Texas Legislature. As a result, SB 62 by Sen. Kyle Janek (R-Houston) died without a compromise being reached.

Texas Farm Bureau President Kenneth Dierschke had called for the Senate to join the Texas House in passing a constitutional amendment allowing Texas citizens to limit local governments' use of eminent domain for condemnation of private property for economic development. He said that without protections in the state constitution, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision could "set the stage for an assault on private property rights."

"No property is safe," he said during the first special session. "Texans should decide this issue at the ballot box."



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Believe it or not, but America has changed... time to wake up?

John Titor
"It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself in 2005."

www.theconservativevoice.com...

Will a real Conservative please stand up?

Monday, August 01, 2005 12:37:20 PM

by Larry Clark

We could do with a few less laws, especially the ones that have been passing lately, but perhaps our lawcrafters ( or crafty law makers as the case might be) might want to pass one requiring truth in political packaging.....but I doubt it. They don't even want us to know what is in our food, water, or the laws they do pass.
In addition they just keep passing laws that polls verify are actually opposed by the vast majority of average citizens:

Did the vast majority of citizens want CAFTA? No But there it is....
Do the vast majority of citizens want open borders and massive ILLEGAL immigration? No. But there's the Government permitting it to continue and the Congress putting forth initiative after initiative to legalize illegal behavior.

Do the vast majority of citizens want Government tax subsidies for transnational corporations to move manufacturing overseas? How does your Congressional representative vote on these issues? Yeah........

The list could go on and on, but yet another poll shows that the vast majority of people do not think Congress represents their interests......and they are correct. A more correct term for many Congressmen and Senators might be 'managers' rather than 'representatives'.

It come down to meaningless labels: These days Conservative is good, Liberal is bad

Conservative is Good, Bush is Conservative, therefore Bush is Good. Simple! The channels have been cleared of all confusion......J.

The Bush league is labeled Conservative because 1). They say they are Conservative 2). Corporate controlled media say they are Conservative 3). Conservative Christians voted as a block for the Bush league.

Perhaps Conservative Christians see Bush as a 'man of God', after all, he has quoted some Scripture in a speech now and then that is familiar to Conservative Christians, he claims he was 'born again', is said to have lapsed into speaking in tongues during a cabinet meeting, espouses a 'culture of life', and argues against Big Government and for lower taxes and Small Business.

Some of the above simply can't be verified, we would just have to take Bush's word for it. However, we can assess his honesty in the context on his statements on Iraq's WMD, the reasons for initiated a war with Saddam's Iraq, and his stated reluctance to commit U.S. troops and U.S. wealth to war.

His other stated positions above can be examined by his actions.

For example, there is his stated support for a 'culture of life'. In code talk we all know that those words indicate support for citizens that oppose legalized abortion.

But in plain English the phrase would suggest a person:

* That would not support the use of weapons that contained depleted uranium that poisons civilian populations as well as the soldiers that are exposed to them, cause birth defects and cancers. How could one be opposed to abortion but support weapons that cause women to birth untold numbers of severely deformed children, cause childhood leukemia, and whose poisonous effect persists for countless generations?

* That would not have deceptive death totals for his war that count a soldier dead on the field but not one that dies in transit to a hospital or one that dies off the battlefield while in treatment for battlefield injuries.

* That would not support legislation that allows corporations to pollute the environment and poison citizens without assuming responsibility for their actions. How could one support a 'culture of life' and also support corporate profit over health?

* That would not support legislation that hides pollution and restricts the collection of data on corporate pollution.

* That would not promote the drugging of children under names like 'New Freedom initiative' to address illnesses that have no physical basis.

* That would not restrict elderly people on fixed income from obtaining needed medicines at a lower cost from Canada.

It would seem to me that such a person that promoted the items in the bullets above does not, using plain English, support a 'culture of life' at all.........rather it highlights a person who cynically supports a culture of corporate profits at the expense of the life, health, and wealth of citizens.

Then there is Bush's position against Big Government. In code talk, that use to mean less Government funded economic assistance programs for citizens.

In plain English being opposed to Big Government would suggest a person:

* That would not support a Nation ID card to monitor citizens while non-citizens openly cross the borders in massive numbers with Government intentionally ignoring law.

* That would not appoint people with corporate interests to regulatory agencies to craft administrative regulation to benefit corporate interests at the expense of citizens.

* That would not use Government money to produce propaganda that gave the appearance of being a news report or a non-governmental infomercial.

* That would not support judges that rule a citizens property can be taken by government and turned over to corporate interests for their development and profit.

* That would not require that state governments fund the hospital care and schooling of illegal immigrants to subsidize cheap labor for corporations.

* That would not support REALLY BIG transnational treaties with non elected quasi-governing power like the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA.

* That would not support the regulation of harmless dietary supplements as required in the 'Codex Alimentarius' (and embedded in CAFTA). Further, would not use massive Government funding under the Highway bill to entice reluctant Congressmen to vote for these trade agreements with supra-national governing bodies.

* That would not (as mentioned above) support social programs to screen school children for Government funded costly psychotropic drugs

* That would not support legislation that destroyed family farms and small business to advantage large transnational corporations.

* That would not support the enactment of legislation that encroached on fundamental civil liberties or created the enormous growth in Federal institutions aimed at policing the American population.

* That would not support the centralization of power and decision making at the Federal level or mandate by Federal law spending at the State level of government.

It would seem to me that such a person that would promote the items in the bullets above does not believe in restrictions on Big Government, but rather government in the service of large transnational corporations at the expense of the economic and social welfare of citizens, as well as Big Government that will use power to police its population in support of corporate profits at the expense of civil liberties.


Bush supports lower taxes? His administration argued that a tax cut was needed because Government should not be taking 'our money'. But after the passing of his tax cuts his administration reduced revenue sharing with the states so the reduction in Federal taxes for the middle income taxpayer was in reality shifted to State and local property tax increases. Also, the Federal deficit ballooned and we were all straddled with a debt with an interest load that outweighs the present reductions. The consequence of getting to keep 'our money' has been the division of wealth in this country has increased.......

In reality the tax break benefited a small percentage of very wealthy individuals at the expense of the general population.

What do these things tell you?: Do not all our Congressional representatives have above average incomes? Are not all our Senators millionaires? Don't they do better than the average investor in the stock market? Isn't the Congress a career path for wealth with an excellent salary and excellent health and retirement benefits. Don't many former Congressmen stay past their elected terms to earn generous salaries lobbying their former colleagues? Are these the actions of people who's intent is to serve the country, or the actions of people who's intent is to serve themselves at the expense of the country? If a thief robbed you and you went to the police and they dismissed your complaint as the 'politics of envy' would you not think you had been twice robbed?

In Scriptural language you know the tree by its fruit.
How would I describe the Bush Administration and his most adamant supporters in Congress. They are Corporatists who only support particular social issues to gain the emotional support of segments of the population as window dressing while they advance in their actual goal of profit and control. They view the Constitution and the spirit it embodies as an inconvenience they must publicly profess to support while they go about its deconstruction.

So in plain English I ask what is a Conservative?

In the context of the American Republic I suggest that aside from emotional social and religious issues that have been used to distort the meaning of the word, there are some fundamental positions that might be used to identify someone as Conservative:

* A person who respects the law and the spirit of the Constitution.
(e.g., guards the borders against economic invasion)

* A person who respects that each citizen has specific rights that the Government has no authority to limit.
(e.g., does not support legislation that tries to restrict the spirit of the Bill of Rights.)

* A person who believes in the primacy of a democratic Republic as the governing body for its citizens and does not recognize the governing power of any other body above the governing power of the Constitution.
(e.g., does not support trade agreements that supercede our national sovereignty.)

* A person who believes the actions of Government should support the common welfare of its citizens and not the power or profit of a segment of the population at the expense of the general welfare.
(e.g., that does not support 'free trade' at the expense of the economic welfare of citizens.)

* A person who believes individual civil and property rights have primacy over the rights of legal entities.
(e.g., does not support the right of Government to take an individuals property to promote the profit of others.)

This last item in a clear example of how far this Government and the interpreters of its framing laws have removed themselves from the principles of the Constitution. The Supreme Court argued that a local government could seize property of individual citizens to turn it over for development by business interests because it would increase the tax base of the local governing body. They argued that what was of benefit to government was sufficient.

However, the framers of the Constitution intention was to limit the power of Government to seize property ( and provide fair compensation when they did) to only those instances where such seizure was in the interest of the general welfare of citizens, not the interests of the Government itself of the interests of other groups that may profit from that seizure.

For example, if a person owned property in a valley that needed to be damned and flooded to provide water for the community the Government could invoke eminent domain. The consequences benefited other citizens directly, not the revenues of the Government or the profit of other individuals over the rights of the owners. (And what does one make of language in WTO agreements where community resources as water are defined as commodities that can be owned and controlled by private interests. Where the water of a community can be taken and sold elsewhere even if that means the community has insufficient water for its own needs?)

In the case the court ruled on, there was no such direct benefit to other citizens but only the increase in revenue stream for Government and profit for business interests. So people who had lived in well kept homes for decades had their homes condemned, they did not receive the value of their homes as recorded on the tax roles, were financially punished for legally resisting the grabbing of their property and experienced intimidation.

When was it our Government became our Rulers and not our Servant?
When was it that the profit of transnational corporations became the focus of our lawcrafters. When was it that globalism took precedence over the common welfare and the continuance of our Republic. When did we get Bushwhacked?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Here is just a quick thougth.
KEY provisions of the voting rights act expire in 2007. Don't think anyone will give up the right to vote. This could definitely start a "civil war"'.




top topics



 
31
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join