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.

 

Powerful Questions That Saves Lives Summed Up

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
[Reworded]

We know that acts of war even called TERRORISM existed ever since. *SNIP*
Let's try it again:

People tell us that terrorism is now here. They claim that, unlike all the other presidents before, President Bush is the only president who takes the most effective approach to deal with terrorism. President Bush therefore "concocts" the Patriot Act that comes directly from the Inquisitions and which were already well in practice by the Communists and Nazis for SECURITY. He says that the Patriot Act is CONSTITUTIONAL and that it is a VITAL LAW.

1. If it is such a VITAL LAW, how come we never needed it before President Bush. We now marvel that there were no more terror attacks FOR FIVE YEARS since President Bush failed us, and people insult their own IQs telling us we must reward a president who fails us. HOW COME TEN, TWENTY, FIFTY YEARS UNDER THE TENURES OF OTHER PRESIDENTS MADE THIS NEVER A CONCERN FOR US: We were never under the threat of government snooping nor being arrested and detained without due process on a mere accusation from a President who fouled up so many times and made so many mistakes, people tell us the conclusion must be that Michael Moore is such an embarrassment!

2. If the Patriot Act, according to Bush, is "CONSTITUTIONAL," why are his supporters telling us that the issue of TERROR, that you lie daily telling us was always with us as it is being pushed today, makes it "outdated?"

3. If Bush supporters tells us that the reason 911 took place was because President Bill Clinton failed to protect us because HE HAD LAXED POLICIES ON TERRORISM, HOW STRONG WERE THE POLICIES AGAINST TERRORISM OF ALL THE OTHER PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM??

I'll leave it just there for now and challenge the IQs of the opposition. We ask that you move no further UNTIL YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS CLEARLY AND CONCISELY, especially since lives depend on them.

But the biggest summup of the question:

4. IF PRESIDENT BUSH TAKES THE MOST EFFECTIVE STANCE AGAINST TERROR BY USING THE PATRIOT ACT COMING FROM PRINCIPLES STRAIGHT FROM THE INQUISITIONS, HOW WOULD THIS COUNTRY HAVE BEEN SINCE THE BEGINNING IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE SUBJECT TO ARRESTS, IMPRISONMENT AND DETAINMENT ON AN ACCUSATION WITH NO DUE PROCESS FOREVER FROM A PRESIDENT WHO FAILS TO PROTECT THEM?

============

How would America have spent its 200 years already used if the principles of the Patriot Act from the Inquisitions were always around to combat what people are telling us is the issue of TERRORISM that was always around?

How come Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and all the other forefathers of America didn't understand that the most effective way to combat the issue of TERRORISM that we are told was always around was to revert back to the Inquisitions?

Why did Benjamin Franklin then tell us that they who consent to submit a measure of their liberties for security deserves neither liberty nor security?

Was America founded on Bush policies to reward presidents who fail to protect the American people and becomes proud of his failure?

Don't come back with a repetition that the issue of TERRORISM was always around. Come back with answers to these clear questions for the saving of lives!

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 15/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Please use the existing thread to continue conversations. Don't start a new thread every-time you wish to reply to Crakeur.

Thanks,

Thread Closed



new topics
 
0

log in

join