Forever Terror, Forever Tyranny!

Originally posted by tmac100
Why didn't the forefathers think of this? Why did Hitler also want to plant a global democracy everywhere while he was yet taking away the liberties of his own people? How come American man cannot see that while Bush claims to be pushing democracy everywhere, the people himself over here are under daily suspicion and being snooped (AS BEFORE 911, which Mountain Man and the other unbelievables have yet to address).

Why didn't Mountain man realize that working to free just one country contrary to American law would cost $400 billion dollars to then start with another country and another country? Why can't Mountain man see that, like all his other friends, these question will be ignored in even pretense that he doesn't see it?

When his Inquisitions are built, will he bankrupt it trying to free countries?

I am not interested in what the treason sees.

Oh lordy we got us a preacher...

Bush hasn't taken away liberties and bush is not a king. Congress makes laws not bush. What liberty of yours is gone? Go on keep avioding factual answers and keep preaching nonsense that makes you feel good.

You worried about losing liberties, then worry about those who want the common man to not have access to firearms... Those are the people who want you to be a slave. Criminals don't care or follow a three day waiting period and they typically don't buy their gun from a store. If you can disarm the populace then you can shove down their throat anything you want...

Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region whether he could face the US militarily or not.

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 30-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by intrepid
No Tone that wasn't directed at you. Now that AMM has packed the attitude away things can continue. tmac, if you refer to anyone by anything other than their proper username, you will be warned.

Trying to follow rules here.. What did I say? Could you quote it for me so I can know.

Madman, when Bush was asked by an "independent investigation" of 911 that took place at least a year after the fact according to your X-ray vision and common sense, and, even though under the weight of 3,000 graves of people he failed to protect, claimed that he refuses to testify under oath or alone, did you have the the vision to ask the man if he has anything to fear or is hiding anything? If not, how come you can know that American citizens may have something to hide by demanding their information to be private.

Did you or did you not know that the Nazis and communists always were sticklers on collecting the private information of their enemies?

Please clearly answer the first question first, for why you didn't have the X-ray vision to ask Bush if he has something to hide just by delaying an independent investigation of the most major internal tragedy in the United States for at least a year.

Of course you see nothing wrong with this unprecedented claim of the rights to snooping by the government it has already been doing for a long time before 911, and which this country failed to practice and even prohibited for the much greater portion of its existence.

For those of you who want to see dialogues where the same tactics were being used as here to the deliberate ignoring and riding over the issues for a treasonous agenda, check out my website. In that case the major dialogue was whether or not non-Catholics should be killed. When we met similar people like here who witnessed people claiming all non-Catholics must die, those people kept exclusively condemning us for revealing that people posted this and never said anything about those who condemned the lives of billions of people.

The same disease of the Inquisitions is obviously over here, for the same tactics that were used in other discussions is being used now.

Oh lordy we got us a preacher...

Bush hasn't taken away liberties and bush is not a king. Congress makes laws not bush. What liberty of yours is gone?

American man now has to join the others and accuse us of his own priestcraft:

Go on keep avioding factual answers and keep preaching nonsense that makes you feel good.

You worried about losing liberties, then worry about those who want the common man to not have access to firearms... Those are the people who want you to be a slave. Criminals don't care or follow a three day waiting period and they typically don't buy their gun from a store. If you can disarm the populace then you can shove down their throat anything you want...

Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region whether he could face the US militarily or not.

Oh simmer down! Saddam is not trying to attack us with WMDs. What WMDs has he sent to affect you in your bunker! Go on keep avoiding factual answers worrying about Saddam and then telling us we must not worry about anything you worry about!

I don't have to worry about any of those things you mention when you and your pals stalk the newsgroups to worry about what I'm gonna do to you when I ask you simple questions.

Readers, as you can see, there is a delible connection to Bush and these posters. Bush would not want to get tangled with people he accuses who can prove he is the real monster and terrorist, so he arranges matters so no one can defend himself. Therefore Bush can kill that person even if innocent. If American man ruled the world, bet your bottom dollar he would do the same thing. But right now he can't do that, so he has to use artful training in order to do what he can to escape very convicting questions over the internet. It is that reason why Bush wants to destroy innocent people, as he has already done, in secret.

That is why Cheney, after shooting his friend in the face, dismissed the Sheriff who was there to investigate and didn't talk to anyone for 14 hours. Secrecy was necessary for him too then for "national security." You puzzled by this and don't know that Cheney was drinking? You would know if I was drinking if I was able to dismiss a Sheriff like that and not talk to anyone for 14 hours!

[edit on 30-6-2006 by tmac100]

original quote by:American Madman
Both are subject to review read your privacy disclosures with the banks and phone companies. Making them legal. Plus they have more to worry about then to just manually read over my conversations with my friends they are using data mining with machines that only report back information deemed as worthy...

I do, unfortuantely, understand the disclosures with my phone and bank.. I dont have either conract in front of me.. but unless I am mistaken they still are only allowed to turn in my records for both If the police/govt issues a warrant. I am going off to vacation later today(driving from the keys to Maine) so I wont be able to check the fine print of my contracts until after ive returned. If I do Ill post that part of the contract online if it validates what I said above. If not Ill just post that I can pull my foot out of my mouth. It wont be the first time..lol

The problem I have is that IMO the current leadership cannot be trusted to not use these methods in other capacaties than the WOT. If it is all kosher and legal then why did our politricksters lie about the phone tapping.. remember first it was only international calls..then few months later it becomes millions of Americans.
Thats but one example of the mistakes/lies.. that they are feeding us anymore and I cannot trust them to be forthecoming about any abuses they may perform.

EDIT* BTW thanks intrepid I was just making sure.. the more aware I become of the line of Denying Ignorance, and all that the mentality entails, the finer that line becomes.. so thanks


[edit on 30-6-2006 by TONE23]

Originally posted by tmac100
Madman, when Bush was asked by an "independent investigation" of 911 that took place at least a year after the fact according to your X-ray vision and common sense, and, even though under the weight of 3,000 graves of people he failed to protect, claimed that he refuses to testify under oath or alone, did you have the the vision to ask the man if he has anything to fear or is hiding anything? If not, how come you can know that American citizens may have something to hide by demanding their information to be private.

I have no doubts bush has things to hide like every american. Never said he didn't. THe topic is violating the constitution not whether bush has something to hide. And just because some survailence and easier access to critical information has been provided does not mean your life is an open book. Democrats and Republicans and people in general keep tabs on their friends and foes its called gossip.

PLUS YOU SAY IT YOURSELF this survailence has gone on unofficialy long before bush so lets not blame bush for all the evils of the world and particularly the survailence as if he were the first or last to possibly bend the rules. I say this a libertarian teacher btw not some avid upper crust bush brown noser.

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 30-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by tmac100
Oh simmer down! Saddam is not trying to attack us with WMDs. What WMDs has he sent to affect you in your bunker! Go on keep avoiding factual answers worrying about Saddam and then telling us we must not worry about anything you worry about!

I don't have to worry about any of those things you mention when you and your pals stalk the newsgroups to worry about what I'm gonna do to you when I ask you simple questions.

Readers, as you can see, there is a delible connection to Bush and these posters. Bush would not want to get tangled with people he accuses who can prove he is the real monster and terrorist, so he arranges matters so no one can defend himself. Therefore Bush can kill that person even if innocent. If American man ruled the world, bet your bottom dollar he would do the same thing. But right now he can't do that, so he has to use artful training in order to do what he can to escape very convicting questions over the internet. It is that reason why Bush wants to destroy innocent people, as he has already done, in secret.

Yeah your on to me I was trained in alaska for debating on ATS. The shadow gov instilled skills into me to whoop up on you in these forums which is why you still haven't answered any basic questions about your accusation, and have tried to deflect. Your long and worthless rant accusing me to be something and not answering basic straight forward questions tells me and most likely any readers of this post all they need to know. I'm actually george bush's roomate cousins nephews son. Does that make you feel better? I mean aren't all who disagree with you connected to bush somehow.

BTW you still have not answered my simple one line question....

What liberty did bush take from you? I didn't know that question was a how did you put it "priestcraft". Saddam supported terrorism... No he didn't attack me directly. Has bush sent police to your house?

[edit on 30-6-2006 by American Madman]

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

[edit on 30-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

This thread has strayed so far into politics, talking about Bush, Cheney, etc., that I think it will be better off in PTS.

Good call Tread... PTS is where it shouldve been from the start

Topic: This really isnt about Bush(at least for me) this more about PNAC and our collective political representatives, as a whole.

Could someone point out to me where on this thread I broke any rules...

I haven't called names

I haven't pushed any agenda

I just asked the topic starter to further explain his or her position

I did read the quote link and will trim to the exact quote.



[edit on 30-6-2006 by American Madman]

mod edit: please check your u2us

[edit on 30-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Why are they no rules against deliberate deceit? Because that is exactly what you did. When I issued a point, you evaded it and often came tirading saying, "Simmer down!" and then such and such is not the case without proving your point. Most of the points I submitted you made sure you didn't address as if you couldn't see what I wrote. With then the inability to see what I wrote you spoke as if you had all the answers and all credibility.

tmac100, look up to your member center, it says you have X# of u2u's, that's private communications. Click on it.

Originally posted by tmac100
Why are they no rules against deliberate deceit? Because that is exactly what you did. When I issued a point, you evaded it and often came tirading saying, "Simmer down!"

Excuse me, you said bush stole your liberties.

I asked which ones.

Very simple question and you have deflected as hard as you could ever since even admitting in one of your posts that the survailence went on before bush. All you have done since is accused me of being things.

And yet still:

You have not put down one liberty bush stole from you...

I asked a simple question
you can't give a simple answer.

and yet you accuse me of deciet which you can't even point out btw.

Thank you
Have a nice day

[edit on 2-7-2006 by American Madman]

Originally posted by intrepid
tmac100, look up to your member center, it says you have X# of u2u's, that's private communications. Click on it.

Or, even easier, tmac100,
click here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bush can now, upon an accusation put me away in jail forever. I can then disappear off the face of the earth without my family even knowing what happened. If they demand to know, the government can tell them to screw off.

Bush can then own me, try me in secret, take me to a foreign country even as a slave.

Whosoever cannot understand that these are liberties taken away will learn once they are merely accused by Bush who has demonstrated his honesty already worldwide. If Bush gets on the books that he can kill all Jews, and it is not enforced, does that mean that liberties are not taken away?

The Supreme Court struggles to empower him with these powers because he failed to protect the American people and despite Bush's talent at lying. This is no accident. They also saw Bush even claiming that he didn't think anyone could have known that the levys at New Orleans would have fallen due to Hurricane Katrina after Bush was shown even on video in conference with people who were telling him about the self-same dangers. These are not the people manning our high offices of public trust that we always knew. And that is one reason why Bush is so cocky.

If ever you give a man such powers, you are supposed to make sure that man is a perfect man. Next, the man has to be completely honest. How can the Supreme Court struggle to give the whole farm over to President Bush and Americans cannot understand that those who do this are not American? In every way these issues are solved when the people who pushed them are in some way candidates to suffer from them. The Supreme Court Justices will not see that the measures contained in the Patriot Act can never be an American principle and can never be just until they themselves are its victims. Bush can never see it unless he himself suffers from the unjust rules.

Now is time for my questions to finally be addressed.

[edit on 2-7-2006 by tmac100]

First off, I asked some questions to American man. My questions came first. One way to refuse to answer is to ask others afterward with no intention of ever answering mine.

Bush stole our liberties on paper. If a certain dangerous rule is not enforced, the prudent will still see the danger. If I was a Protestant, and a law is then passed that says all Protestants must be killed, but yet is not enforced, not only will I not wait till it is enforced, American man would not either if the law was against him.

If a law appears on the books that all Blacks must be killed, but yet is not enforced, neither I nor American man would conclude that no rights were taken away. What is going on now is that the Patriot Act is put on the books. It cannot now be enforced because good constitutional soldiers themselves will never dare enforce it. Then the war in Iraq was brought to make sure that certain soldiers wind up on the front lines so that they can beg for body armor, with many posters on the internet not noticing, except if we beg for them to be armed. Then they notice that we must be attacked on the claim that we don't support the troops.

With the Patriot Act, there must be some reason why, although they claim terrorism was always with us, they didn't get to do this snooping before. Is it because they couldn't think of it or didn't think of it and Bush is brilliant? Why not just look at the Communists for all the entire life of their regimes and anyone would learn how to "concoct" the Patriot Act.

I will never dare to say that people in our government didn't think to do this snooping business before, because they always did. This is not a motion away from Nazism or Communism. By deciding to snoop the American people, the administration has made the Communists and Nazis seeming light bearers to good government in security. My simple questions to American man that were given before his were:

Who would reward a president who fails to protect the American people with powers above the Constitution?

Who would stage an "independent investigation" of the most major internal tragedy at least a year after the event?

If terrorism was always with us, and the claim is that Bush presents the most effective remedy against it, is it true that at the very time America started, it should have reverted back to the Inquisitions?

Others are: What would intelligent people think of men who would chide the American people for objecting to their privacy being violated, asking them if they have anything to hide, but then when Bush, as protector, is called to give testimony under oath to the 911 "independent" investigation and refuses to do it under oath or alone, remains silent and don't ask him if he has something to hide?

Why would American man tell us to simmer down because no soldiers are banging on our doors since we are obviously now not under Martial Law, telling us we must wait for that actual condition to develop before we worry about the situation, while forgetting that, as a supporter of Bush, pre-emptive action is always necessary in order to attack people who have not done anything wrong?

Was the government already snooping the American people before 911? If this is true, why then did 911 take place? If this is not true, why then when 911 took place, Bush didn't say that a major act of terrorism took place and we now need to construct snooping devices?

[edit on 3-7-2006 by tmac100]