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.

 

Of All The Liberties You Have Lost, Because Of The 911 Conspiracy. Which One Do You Miss The Most?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Oh, gotcha! So if you're a slime ball - the constitution gets suspended.

I don't need to talk to you anymore.


The constitution didn't get suspended..he's having his day in court.

But anyway ..back on topic.

What liberties have you lost?




posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
How does this equal zero rights ala some kind of police state? Theres a good chance that the guy is a slime ball.


Because even slimeballs have rights under the U.S. constitution. The founding fathers wrote that document to protect suspected slimeballs from unfair treatment.

Last time I checked, you are innocent until proven guilty. That includes suspected slimeba'' Padilla.


You guys are really paranoid.


Well, with attitudes like yours, regarding the constitutional rights millions have died for, how can we not be paranoid, especially when your mentality reflects a very dangerous trend towards massive citizen acceptance of tyranny?



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   


Well no. The anology is completely false.
There is no gun.

When cornered..resort to old standbys? Shifting the burden of proof.

You made the claim that the 6th no longer applies to US citizens.

The burden of proof is on you to provide examples and evidence to support your claim.



you just cant get more dense then that. Analogy...but there is no gun. Of course there is no gun, ITS AN ANALOGY. Just because you dont know something doesn't mean its not there waiting to get you. Just because they tell you there is no "gun" doesnt mean there isn't some guy with a gun behind you.

Its like you just turned around saw the guy with the gun and pretend he isnt there. I have never seen an elephant before...so they don't exist either right? I dont know anyone whos seen the president in person, and i haven't so the president must just be a TV character right? The whole mindset is completely stupid. Just because YOU or some one YOU KNOW hasnt seen it, by no means concludes it doesnt exists or never happened.

Ive never seen a person cut their finger off by accident, I dont know anybody that has seen it either...so it must never have happened. How do you survive with that mindset anyway?

About the proof, I merely wanted to show you how stupid your mindset sounds. I flipped it on you. Just because you or one of your friends hasn't been effected doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But in the end, if you want me to prove that some one I know has personally been effected by this that I know of, well your pretty much out of luck. even if I did I wouldn't know how to prove it to some one with your mindset.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta



And please clairify on the whole killing me part, thanks.


You're kidding right?

There appears to be a bunch of Islamic fanatics who seem to want to bring back the 'ol Caliphate and are willing to kill anyone who gets in their way. Do you really think that if they had a nuclear weapon they wouldn't use it??

I ask a question a couple of posts back that none of you seem to want to address.

What would you suggest be done to disrupt the numerous organizations that would like to kill all infidels?

How would you keep track of their activities and plans?


oh, that's what you meant, i'm not feeling right. I'll post again tomorrow and try to answer your questions. I didn't know you meant the terrorists. Oops.....long story my friend, if your interested or just confused just u2u me.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Originally posted by Vushta
How does this equal zero rights ala some kind of police state? Theres a good chance that the guy is a slime ball.


Because even slimeballs have rights under the U.S. constitution. The founding fathers wrote that document to protect suspected slimeballs from unfair treatment.

Last time I checked, you are innocent until proven guilty. That includes suspected slimeba'' Padilla.


You guys are really paranoid.


Well, with attitudes like yours, regarding the constitutional rights millions have died for, how can we not be paranoid, especially when your mentality reflects a very dangerous trend towards massive citizen acceptance of tyranny?


Tyranny?? Please drop the 'drama mama' bit. lol.

He is being protected by the constitition. Hes having a day in court. Got it??.. I'll repeat it...Hes having his day in court. He is innocent until proven guilty...unless I missed his sentencing?? Has he been sentenced yet?

But anyway..again avoidence of the question. First Duhhs. What liberties are you missing?..i.e. what can't you do today that you could do 5 years ago?

And my question. How would you deal with the presence of terrorists wanting to kill innocent civilians? How would you keep track of their activities?

This is an example of the constitution being suspended exactly ..how?



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

About the proof, I merely wanted to show you how stupid your mindset sounds. I flipped it on you. Just because you or one of your friends hasn't been effected doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But in the end, if you want me to prove that some one I know has personally been effected by this that I know of, well your pretty much out of luck. even if I did I wouldn't know how to prove it to some one with your mindset.


Its not a mindset point I was making.
Its a fact. You made the claim. Its up to you to provide evidence to support it.

Sorry, but if you cannot point to anyone that you know or that anyone you know knows that has been subject to this 'cancelation of the 6th'..or even someone you don't know, as in reports via newspapers..news..or even the crapshoot of the internet, then you have no evidence to support your position and the most logical conclusion is that the only reason for someone to believe something that has no proof of existence is because they want to believe it for some reason.

You misunderstood my point.
obviously there is no physical gun.

My point was that in general reasonings like the one you're trying to make have no existence in the real world. Its like this.

A guy wears a necklace made out of garlic.

Someone asks him why.

He says "to keep vampires away"

The othe guys says "There are no vampires"

He says "See...it works"

There is no gun to your head. (threat of being carted away for nothing)

[edit on 12-8-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Since this post seems to have evolved, into what has happened to others!
I might as well jump in on it.
Here is an example of some one being charged with terrorism! Do I believe from what they tell us right now about these boys? Not 100%. They very well could be buying them and reselling them. Does it look out of wack? Yes it does. They should be able to prove that they resell these easy enough. If they can't however, I am glad some is, as Cters love to say, "asking questions". They will get their chances to answer their accusers!


CARO, Mich. - Three Texas men were arraigned Saturday on terrorism-related charges after police found about 1,000 cell phones in their minivan.

Investigators believe the men were targeting the 5-mile-long Mackinac Bridge, which connects Michigan's Upper and Lower peninsulas. But one of the men said they were only trying to buy and sell phones to make money.


news.yahoo.com...


So yes, while this may suck for these guys, if they are telling the truth!
I, and I believe most reasonable people, would understand this ! With out screaming "police state"!

IMUHO!

PS Leapofdreams STOP U2U ing ME I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY TO YOU!



[edit on 12-8-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
But anyway..again avoidence of the question. First Duhhs. What liberties are you missing?..i.e. what can't you do today that you could do 5 years ago?

And my question. How would you deal with the presence of terrorists wanting to kill innocent civilians? How would you keep track of their activities?

This is an example of the constitution being suspended exactly ..how?


I already posted what liberties no longer exist on like the second page.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Airports suck. Personally I miss going with familly through an airport terminal to see them board before they leave and seeing the aircraft. As of now you cannot get through the terminal without a plane ticket. Oh and this countries government sucks big time. If theres a civil war, ill probably be in it



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


I already posted what liberties no longer exist on like the second page.


You mean these?




I miss being able to attend public finctions without having my person and belongings rifled through and searched.

I miss being able to travel without having to give biometric data like some common criminal.

I miss being able to open up a bank account without a background check.


Those aren't rights.
Those are convienences.

But again...what do you suggest as measures to handle terrorists?

[edit on 12-8-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Thats where your wrong, they are no conviences, they are alot more.

If you want security, then america simply wasnt meant for you. Give me liberty or give me death, heard of it before? You had the right to do whatever you want so long as you didnt restrict anyone elses right to do so. That was the prinicple of this nation which was founded. Sadly, people who cannot handle responsiblity rather ruin this country then admit the fact that they cant do it themselves. Too complacent. Whatever you would like to call it, the only thing that was american was the right to do whatever so long as you didnt restrict anothers right to do so. This is a philosophy you probably dont agree with, but it is the core of american ideals.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Thats where your wrong, they are no conviences, they are alot more.

If you want security, then america simply wasnt meant for you. Give me liberty or give me death, heard of it before? You had the right to do whatever you want so long as you didnt restrict anyone elses right to do so. That was the prinicple of this nation which was founded. Sadly, people who cannot handle responsiblity rather ruin this country then admit the fact that they cant do it themselves. Too complacent. Whatever you would like to call it, the only thing that was american was the right to do whatever so long as you didnt restrict anothers right to do so. This is a philosophy you probably dont agree with, but it is the core of american ideals.


Things are alittle different now. I would love to wander on blind and think it was not. That would not make any sense. It is evoloution of reality!



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Thats where your wrong, they are no conviences, they are alot more.

If you want security, then america simply wasnt meant for you. Give me liberty or give me death, heard of it before? You had the right to do whatever you want so long as you didnt restrict anyone elses right to do so. That was the prinicple of this nation which was founded. Sadly, people who cannot handle responsiblity rather ruin this country then admit the fact that they cant do it themselves. Too complacent. Whatever you would like to call it, the only thing that was american was the right to do whatever so long as you didnt restrict anothers right to do so. This is a philosophy you probably dont agree with, but it is the core of american ideals.


When was this?



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
things are alil different now...exactly the problem. The ability to create further laws were to destroy the loopholes our forefathers couldnt see ahead, but there lied the biggest loophole of all. By attempting to make sure they could correct any loopholes in the future they made it possible for the power in time to create more loopholes to benefit them. Thats the only thing that has changed. More loopholes, more power to the government, and wouldn't you know it...more problems with our country and government.

Vushta this was back when america didnt equal capitalism, but freedom. Now america practically is the lighthouse for capitalism and big business, not freedom.

The beacon of light changed colors through the night, and freedom is lost at sea.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I am not sure that I miss anything....yet. I think that this thread was posted a little too early. I don't appreciate the passive monitoring, via Echelon, or having to show up 3 hours early and take off my shoes to get on a flight. The day when this will be the biggest thread is coming. Our freedom of speech is no right at all, if we have to watch what we say, unless it is something slanderous. The right to freedom of religion is guaranteed unless you happen to be Muslim, then you might be considered a terror suspect, by the police or some people in the general public. Some of these rights that we are being "stipped" of just aren't as apparent as some people might want, but they are being eroded just the same.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh

Things are alittle different now. I would love to wander on blind and think it was not. That would not make any sense. It is evoloution of reality!


Well doesn't this speak volumes..."Things are a little different now." WTF...things are a little different now.

Well, then take my left tit and my right leg too, because "things are a little different now".

This is approaching the scariest thread I've ever been involved in.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   
sorry for the double quoting but it is necessary for the coherancy of this post

posted by tuccy

posted by wondernut
go try to climb the statue of liberty

Have no intention to visit USA in the short term, anyways where is the SoL mentioned in the Constitution? And who operates it?

it falls under the national parks jurisdiction and is a public monument
until terrorism scared everyone poopless it was open to the public all the way up to the crown, now the highest you can climb is to lady liberty's feet, grauvl at your will



go try to bring gatoraid on a plane

Oh the evil Gub'mint! Wait, it's not the govt, these are the air transport companies. So I cannot bring gatorade on board. Big deal. Esp. in the context. So I guess say bus companies are also in on it as they don't allow smoking onboard. Seems you are misunderstanding the term "liberty" here. The operator of the transportation services, or of the shop, or owner of your house, clearly states the rules by which you are to behave to get his service. Say if a house owner tells you he doesn't want you to have wild parties at night as neighbors won't like it when he rents you a house, he isn't cutting your libertes. He just sets the rules. If you don't like it, get another living. If you don't like the irline sets these rules, you may try another one or you may try getting a train or a ship in case you go over the ocean. If a shop owner doesn't want you to get your dog along with you into the shop, is he evil gubmint cutting your liberties? Or do you define freedom as "anyone has to do as I want and doesn't have the right to object"?

the problem is the government makes the laws that govern these companies, the airports are not banning liquids being brought on planes, the government is





go talk on your phone without being monitored

As I'm not interesting enough for the journalists or trade partners/enemies (don't have one), all I can fear is a warranted wiretap by the police or secret service allowed in a standard legal proces by the justice.

as every landline phone runs though the NSA, every american conversation is monitored, just not officially, kind of like guantanamo




good luck, cause those are 3 of the fredoms you lost just in the last few months

First two aren't freedoms. Unless you don't allow the other subjects of transaction freedom to decide what they want to do with their properties/subjects of care.

all three are freedoms you had before the "threat of terrorists" striped them away from you, just because you didnt use them does not mean you did not have the capacity, now you do not because of 9/11





securty comes at the cost of freedom by nature

Not neccessarily. Sometimes it comes just at the cost of better efficiency of given agencies within the same framework.

wrong. security always comes at the expense of freedom
to be more secure you have to be less free




after being a computer tech for 5 years i can assure you, there is no such thing as security, only its illusion and the idiots who believe it will protect them

locks dont keep theves out, they keep honest men honest
all the laws in the world will not prevent people from killing each other

One may argue that "no security" is worse than "breakable security". So for example because the police isn't able to prevent most of crimes and isn't able even to catch some criminals, it is as good as if there was no police, am I getting you right? Since the firemen aren't able to put out all fires and to save all their victims, they're creating just an illusion? Since a firewall can be broken by a skilled hacker, it means it is totally worthless?

somehow moy missed the point entirely, security is not the same as protection
firemen and police "protect" people from harm, security "prevents" people from harm by limiting the ways they can do it, aka striping you of freedom




edit:
and no i'm not a bad computer tech either, i'm an honest one
the only method of creating flawless security is to not make anything that needs securing
since that's impossible and all man made systems are flawed there can be no such thing as security.
"where there's a will, there's a way"
anyone determined enough will get past all the security you set up to protect yourself
the only sure way to protect yourself is to kill yourself before they kill you first!

Who's arguing that "where there's a will there's a way"? But this is true to an extent. If we're speaking of computer security, it's not an illusion. A firewall may not block a skilled and patient hacker who wants to get to you intentionally, but it may well stop the types attacking foreign data just for fun or not as skilled. Whereas if there was no security measure (as according to you any security measure is as good as no security measure at all), they'd get through.

some parts edited out for character limit

You know, real world is seldom digital with discrete levels, in this case 1 or 0. It tends to be analogue with a full spectrum of decimals between 1 and 0 but you'll seldom get clear 1 (ie 100% security) or clear 0. But do you think that say 50% is the same as 0%?

not at all, what i say is protection is necessary, prevention is not
computer security protects your computer from known attacks, it does not secure it against future attacks

you misunderstand security my friend
wearing a condom is security/protection
not having sex is security/prevention
protection keeps you safe as much as it can without limiting you too much
prevention kees you safe by limiting you

in trying to prevent terrorist attacks our government is limiting us in ways you couldn't immagine and disposing of our freedoms rights and liberties
if they would just do their job and protect us then there wouldnt be a problem

unlike in the sex example, you can still be harmed either way
one way just leaves you powerless to do anything about it
speaking of 1's and 0's it really is a verry boolean system
to prevent you from becoming a terrorist you must be striped of all liberties that may allow you to become a terrorist, ensuring your saftey and the safety of others

only when everyone is dead will there be absolute security
till then continue to use firewalls online and trust your cops and firemen
lets work to get back the freedoms we've lost

[edit on 13-8-2006 by wondernut]



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Sorry, but if you cannot point to anyone that you know or that anyone you know knows that has been subject to this 'cancelation of the 6th'..or even someone you don't know, as in reports via newspapers..news..or even the crapshoot of the internet, then you have no evidence to support your position and the most logical conclusion is that the only reason for someone to believe something that has no proof of existence is because they want to believe it for some reason.

actually there were 3 guys from toledo ohio arrested back in february 06
their court date is set for may 07
1 and a quarter years to get a trial?

WT*?
(didnt feel like being warned for abreviating foul lanugage to bypass filters)


now you have your proof
links:
Friday, February 21, 2006
3 Toledo men indicted on charges of plotting to kill U.S. forces in Iraq
Friday, February 24, 2006
2 of 3 terror suspects to remain in custody
Monday, June 19, 2006
May 1, 2007, trial date

:note:
it took almost 4 months to even give them a trial date!
1.25 years to get a trial is a clear violation of the 6th amendment RIGHT to a speedy trial



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
You want something to really blame for loss of freedoms? Try the political correctness BS that means the guy with the turban walks right through security (so as not to profile) while the grandma gets searched, even though only the turban wearing guys have been doing this stuff lately.


that's the problem with racial/religious profiling. People get it badly wrong. For example, the guys who wear turbans aren't Muslims, they're Hindus, probably Sikhs. Jews have more in common theologically with Muslims than they do!



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta


I miss being able to open up a bank account without a background check.


Those aren't rights.
Those are convienences.



Im so glad you consider basic privacy and civil rights to be mere "convienences".





top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join