Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

keep THEM out...or keep US in?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Okay, I get it...
Listen, I'm really not interested in entertaining your ego anymore.
You still haven't answered my question and it would seem that you have selective hearing (or reading as the case may be).
But seriously, I don't really care.
Obviously, you came to this thread for discussing things that aren't what the thread was about.
And if you discussed these things on other threads, why do it here?
Why not go back to those other threads?
I'm sure that they would love to have you.
This was specifically about border fortification and martial law, yes?
Not the above arguments (which would seem are about semantics).
So, whatever bro.
It's all good.
If "winning" this means that much to you...
It's all yours.
Take the ball and run with it, just don't drop it...




posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
What question didn't I answer? Please, tell me. I'll stick around for it; other than that:

What crap-ola. I answer questions YOU bring up in your thread, and I'm the bad guy here?
I give you specific answers which you ignore, and I believe some would back up these allegations.

Geez.. try to explain something to kids nowadays.
Bye!

[edit on 7-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Uh huh.
Yep.
(must be nice to be right all the time...)
If I question an answer, how is that ignoring it?

And you still didn't answer my question.

[edit on 7/7/2006 by wu kung]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I dunno man...but living in NYC and seeing Cops walking around with machine guns gives me the willys. I remember growing up as a kid how we used to look at the Russians of the then USSR and make fun of them because their citizens had that crap to contend with and now here it is being done in the United States of America, so was it just that they were protecting THEIR citizens? The only other places I have seen military or cops walking around loaded to the hilt with weaponry are Jamaica, The Dominican Republic and Lebanon...all 3 gave me the creeps just being around that stuff.

I admit in the first few weeks of the 9-11 attack it did give me comfort seeing all that plus hearing the fighter jets roaring overhead every hour or so but then after a while it was like, damn, this is not how I would like it to be. I felt as though something was lost.

Pie



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
posted by andy1033


i think martial law would be an excellent idea to take the guns of americans. it is the only way really the government could do it.

then americans would be in trouble, because the government could do anything to you guys if they take your protection.


REPLY: It will never happen precisely BECAUSE of our 2nd amendment rights. We have them outnumbered.

So many people complain about the "freedoms and rights' we have lost because of Bush.
Print out the following and keep it until Bush leaves office, then compare these to those Bush puts in place (or those he already has done, if any):


This is a call for the people of the United States to defend their rights.
What are Executive Orders? They are laws established by U.S. presidents. These laws are not
passed by the House or the Senate and create an end-run around the Constitution.

These executive orders are simply printed in the Federal Register. After 30 days, these orders
become law and carry the full impact of any laws passed by Congress. These laws are
unconstitutional, because the Constitution does not afford any person the right to create laws by himself that negate the Constitution.

Executive orders:

10995: Seizure of all communications media in the United States.

10997: Seizure of all electric power fuels and minerals, public and private.

10999: Seizure of all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control of highways, seaports and waterways.

11000: Seizure of all American people for work forces under federal supervision including the splitting of families if the government finds it necessary.

11001: Seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, public and private.

11002: Empowered the postmaster general to register all men, women and children in the U.S.

11003: Seizure of all airports and aircraft.

11004: Seizure of all housing and finance authorities to establish Forced Relocation Designated areas to be abandoned as "unsafe".

11005: Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, public and private.

Signed June 3, 1994, by President Clinton.


The items below encompass all of the above executive orders:

10995) The Department of the Treasury
10997) The Department of Justice
10999) The department of Defense
11000) The Department of Commerce
11001) The Department of Transportation
11002) The Department of Energy
11003) The CIA
11004) The FBI
11005) FEMA.

This is all part of the new world order, to have the United Nations run us. This is also part of the Biodiversity Treaty.

And people here worry about Bush HA HA HA HA HA



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Zap, well met !
I gave you a Way Above vote. You are concise and spot on !
Please, keep up the great work !


Lex



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Okay.
So, what's with the attitude.
What makes you so much better?
Because you profess to know the Constitution?
If anything, to them, that makes you more of a threat than most people...



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1


REPLY: It will never happen precisely BECAUSE of our 2nd amendment rights. We have them outnumbered.



You seem pretty confident. I am not so sure about this. If they wanted it to happen I believe this administration would make it happen regardless of what you may think. Signing laws that have not even been passed is not a sign of people following the rules or going by the normal checks and balances system. If they wanted to disarm all american citizens I believe they could make it happen. The same way you say it makes you feel safe that cops walking around with automatic weapons, those guns can just turn the slightest bit in your direction and the safety will disappear and turn into something else. You would have no choice.


Pie



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
This thread started out with a good point and the title caught my attention, and made me think of the possibility of a different agenda for placing troops at our border.

But now it's mostly bickering between two members, and a lot of off topic subjects. Too bad, because this is an interesting angle.

We are entering into more and more agreements with Canada and Mexico to create a North American Union as outlined on the government site spp.gov, yet we are placing troops at the border.

Now I'm all for secure borders and if that requires troops then fine, but why then are we putting in a super-highway from Mexico to Canada with the first Mexican border checkpoint in Kansas City?

Maybe our troops are going to the border for another reason.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   

We are entering into more and more agreements with Canada and Mexico to create a North American Union as outlined on the government site spp.gov, yet we are placing troops at the border.

Now I'm all for secure borders and if that requires troops then fine, but why then are we putting in a super-highway from Mexico to Canada with the first Mexican border checkpoint in Kansas City?


REPLY: Hey!!! "just" a girl is something to be proud of. I know.... you didn't mean it that way.
You are correct, though about the arguing, but I can't help to respond to questions, especially if they originate from the thread starter.... then he refuses to directly respond. Oh well.

I have little problems with Bush, but the NAU (and his outlook on immigration) is something I wholeheartedly disagree with. It would have to be agreed to by the House and Senate, so I don't see it happening.

Could you link to info about that superhighway?



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Signing laws that have not even been passed is not a sign of people following the rules or going by the normal checks and balances system.


REPLY: A president cannot sign into law a law that has not been passed. If a president made an executive order doing what you propose, it would be public knowledge within 30 days, and those who monitor those things would pass it on very quickly. Also, remember that any law that is in contradiction to the Constitution has no standing before the court


If they wanted to disarm all american citizens I believe they could make it happen.


REPLY: As mentioned above, there is nothing in the Constitution mentioning a back door around the second amendment. I half expected to see something hapen during Waco (and maybe Ruby Ridge) but it didn't affect enough people, I suppose. Waco happened for two reasons: to distract things happening during the previous admin's extra-cirricular activities (China Gate), and because at the time there were strong efforts to get rid of the ATF (something I agree with). So, Waco was drummed up to justify the need for the ATF.


The same way you say it makes you feel safe that cops walking around with automatic weapons, those guns can just turn the slightest bit in your direction and the safety will disappear and turn into something else. You would have no choice.


REPLY: That depends on where you live. If you have a clean record, you have the Constitutional right to "carry open", with a gun on your hip, as long as it's in plain view (it's when you get in your vehicle that things change, unless you have it on the dashboard).

How serious am I about the scenario you mentioned? My son is in the Marines. If they were given the order to go house to house and confiscate weapons, and he came to my house, I would no longer have a son; he'd be dead. We've discussed this, and he knows it to be true.

Remember this: whenever you hear some anti-gun whacko say "If we allow so many people to carry concealed, it's 'gonna be like Dodge City in the old West." In actuality, Dodge City was one of the most peaceful towns in the old West. Why? Because everyone had guns. Those whackos just watched too many hollywood westerns.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Uh huh. Yep. (must be nice to be right all the time...)

REPLY: I never said I was, but being so close to it is not nice; it's a TERRIBLE burden. JUST KIDDING!


You still haven't answered my question and it would seem that you have selective hearing (or reading as the case may be).



And you still didn't answer my question.


REPLY: This last, and I'm back to the thread again: What question?



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   


Could you link to info about that superhighway?


www.humaneventsonline.com...

That's how I found it. There's a link on that page to the official NASCO site which, by the way, is:

NASCO



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   


Hey!!! "just" a girl is something to be proud of. I know.... you didn't mean it that way.


I didn't mean it in any way, it was a result of my lack of imagination on the day I created my profile.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Now with all of that nonsense going on with not being able to bring things on planes (any liquid or whatever); and that's not an infringement on civil liberties?
It's like 1984...

"Oh please, chip away at our civil liberties in order to keep us "safe"..."

More like keeping us safe by scarring us into submission...

[edit on 8/15/2006 by wu kung]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join