Mass Hunger Strike to Restore Constitutional Order Commences in U.S. Capital

page: 6
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


If you're referring to me, not understanding the Constitution, please explain yourself in detail to prove your statement or retract it.

2nd, I still haven't heard a real idea from you that is better then what those people are doing. If you have a better idea, post it please.




posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by duffster
I'm sorry to say this wont do any thing but make a few people hungry

The American government don't care about the homeless people on the street who go with out food for days so a few people going on a hunger strike it not going to achieve anything

The only way you will get any thing out of the Government is by Hundreds of thousands of people in one spot jumping up and down

[edit on 18-8-2008 by duffster]


I doubt the aim is to actually change anything.. these people cant be that stupid... its for publicity.. good or bad to draw more attention to it is all



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Whenever I hear "hunger strike" I remember Congressional Democrats teaming up with Hollywood to bring attention to the homeless.

Their "hunger strike" consisted of one person not eating until they got hungry, then they passed it off to someone else who did not eat until they got hungry. It was the most hilarious thing! I wonder if it is still going on?

Sound likes a bunch of children...I'm not going to eat...until I get my way. Don't like your government? Vote to change it! Want to starve yourself instead?....go right ahead! No sympathy here.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAP811Bush is in charge and all is right with the world.


Oh, and wanted to reply to this statement. If *you* don't believe bush is in charge, then lets see a show of your big *ahems* already.

Do more than just starve yourself in front of some cameras. Bush or whoever is really running the bigger show doesn't mind you doing that. That doesn't affect him while he is eating his 6 course meal laughing at your pointless arse on the news along with the rest of the world.

If you are such the big man that doesn't believe Bush or whoever is behind him is running the show, why not prove it?

Just the fact that you all feel the need to go starve yourselves and write/sign petitions to the "law makers" in Washington DC to appeal for your rights shows that you believe someone else is holding the rights to your life in their hands and that my friend is why I can say that you don't understand the true meaning behind the constitution.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by justamomma
 


If you're referring to me, not understanding the Constitution, please explain yourself in detail to prove your statement or retract it.

2nd, I still haven't heard a real idea from you that is better then what those people are doing. If you have a better idea, post it please.


reply to post by justamomma
 


refer to that post and the one posted by me following it for the answers to your questions on my explanation and the better idea that IS in accordance to the constitution.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ToolFanMael
 


lol you really think that don't you? All of the people that are going to participate in the hunger strike don't really want to change anything and are doing this for publicity??? Reality is calling. It wants you back.

After re-reading your post....Nevermind.. I think?

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Trustnoone1987]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by justamomma
 


If you're referring to me, not understanding the Constitution, please explain yourself in detail to prove your statement or retract it.

2nd, I still haven't heard a real idea from you that is better then what those people are doing. If you have a better idea, post it please.


reply to post by justamomma
 


refer to that post and the one posted by me following it for the answers to your questions on my explanation and the better idea that IS in accordance to the constitution.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by justamomma]


So obviously you were not referring to me.
Also, as I asked before-Do you have a better idea then those who are going to protest through a hunger strike??? Please be specific. Thanks.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by CAP811Bush is in charge and all is right with the world.


Oh, and wanted to reply to this statement. If *you* don't believe bush is in charge, then lets see a show of your big *ahems* already.


Never said I didn't believe Bush is in charge - only said my in-laws are happy he is and don't see a need to protest. I know of many others who share their opinion. In fact, I'm sure he's in charge which is why I feel we are in trouble.

Also, I never said I was going to go on a hunger strike. I haven't even declared that I agree with it. I'm only trying explain what I think their reasoning behind this is, flawed as it maybe in your eyes. Of course, I really shouldn't speak for other people and, since I'm not associated with this group, I really can't say what their motivation is.

Personally, I am becoming more self reliant and "divorcing" my self from the Feds (to borrow a term from the DoI). Also, I do involve myself in the political process, voting for who I feel will best represent the Constitution. And then, of course, I'm educating myself, including using information gleaned from sites such as ATS (link).



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAP811

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by CAP811Bush is in charge and all is right with the world.


Oh, and wanted to reply to this statement. If *you* don't believe bush is in charge, then lets see a show of your big *ahems* already.


Never said I didn't believe Bush is in charge - only said my in-laws are happy he is and don't see a need to protest. I know of many others who share their opinion. In fact, I'm sure he's in charge which is why I feel we are in trouble.

Also, I never said I was going to go on a hunger strike. I haven't even declared that I agree with it. I'm only trying explain what I think their reasoning behind this is, flawed as it maybe in your eyes. Of course, I really shouldn't speak for other people and, since I'm not associated with this group, I really can't say what their motivation is.

Personally, I am becoming more self reliant and "divorcing" my self from the Feds (to borrow a term from the DoI). Also, I do involve myself in the political process, voting for who I feel will best represent the Constitution. And then, of course, I'm educating myself, including using information gleaned from sites such as ATS (link).


Listen, I am not saying DON'T protest at all. But starving yourself for a few days is not a protest so much as it is a pathetic attempt ATTESTING to the fact you have given over your rights.

Are you paying federal taxes?
Are you completely non reliant on your government?
Have you rebelled any of the ridiculous laws they have implemented?
ARe you educated enough on documents that have been implemented into our lives that make us slaves to the federal government and not citizens of our states (as the intent was supposed to be originally)?

THESE are just a FEW of the things that not only our founding fathers did, but Ghandi did.

Neither of them implemented the kind of so called "protest" that is being implemented here and I am assuming it is because they were intelligent enough to see how utterly ridiculous and pointless it is.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
*SNIP*

Personal attacks, which this is, are a violation of the ATS T&C. You may want to read them before you get banned.

And I would assume at this point you won't be answering my reasonable questions?????

Mod Edit: Quote Cleanup.

[edit on 20/8/2008 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by jfj123
 


ahahahahahhahaha!!
I dub you biggest idiot of the year! Let me grab the stupid stick to make this official



Personal attacks, which this is, are a violation of the ATS T&C. You may want to read them before you get banned.

And I would assume at this point you won't be answering my reasonable questions?????


I would get banned for speaking the truth?

Let me hold your hand through this.

Go back to your questions and read them again as typed out to me.

Got that so far?

Now, read my reply to YOU.

You will notice a link, but first (and here is where it might have been tricky for you so I'll go slowly) READ... THE.... REPLY.... IN .... LIGHT.. OF .... THE....QUESTIONS...POSED...TO...ME.... BY....YOU

NOW

click

the

link

and

ACTUALLY

READ

*BOTH*

posts

which

will

answer

your

questions


Better?



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Be Nice


Originally posted by justamomma
I would get banned for speaking the truth?

No, but you can be banned for using personal attacks in place of cogent, topical discussion.

So please, let's confine our opinions to the topic of the thread, keep the tone of discussion civil and allow readers to draw their own conclusions about us as people.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by jfj123
 


ahahahahahhahaha!!
I dub you biggest idiot of the year! Let me grab the stupid stick to make this official



Personal attacks, which this is, are a violation of the ATS T&C. You may want to read them before you get banned.

And I would assume at this point you won't be answering my reasonable questions?????


I would get banned for speaking the truth?

Let me hold your hand through this.

Go back to your questions and read them again as typed out to me.

Got that so far?

Now, read my reply to YOU.

You will notice a link, but first (and here is where it might have been tricky for you so I'll go slowly) READ... THE.... REPLY.... IN .... LIGHT.. OF .... THE....QUESTIONS...POSED...TO...ME.... BY....YOU

NOW

click

the

link

and

ACTUALLY

READ

*BOTH*

posts

which

will

answer

your

questions


Better?


Yes you can get banned for insulting people. I thought this would be apparent but evidently not.

I do find it amusing that you can't answer simple questions but instead result to insults. Trying to bully and intimidate people may work on the playground but not here my friend


I didn't realize I needed to dig through your previous posts in hopes to find what may resemble the answer to my questions. Common courtesy would dictate a simple re-post which I have done for others on many occasions without the need for personal attacks.
Unfortunately it seems more important for you to insult people then have an adult conversation involving common courtesies.

My hope is that you spend a bit of time reading the ATS T&C so you can learn what type of etiquette is expected and required of you here. I wish you luck in your endeavour


This is my last response to you unless it involves a civil discussion.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
It states in the blog for this ,that no cell phones (in case you wanted to call in take out ! and no teeth whitener's ? ) If your not eating whats going to stain your teeth ! lol

MattiFikation ( hopefully your going to be there ,and you are way overweight to lose some , if not we don't want to really hear about it )

Truth

[edit on 20-8-2008 by vertol]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Why do you care so much?

You tell people, "quit starving yourself" based on what you perceive to be their misunderstanding of the Constitution. But in the same words, you also seem to be suggesting that they should not be using their freedom of speech or assembly, nor their freedom of petition - the violation of the latter being what this hunger strike is all about.

If you think the hunger strike is a bad idea, then don't go on it. But what right - no, what nerve do you have to tell other free, peaceful people that they can't do something that neither violates the law nor infringes on anyone else's rights?

It might work, it might not work. The fundamental argument isn't whether or not it will be effective (although that is certainly the goal,) it's whether or not people have the right to do it.

Bottom line: A hunger strike is a form of peaceful assembly, and people have the right to that in this country whether you think it will work or not.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Why should I do ALL the work for you? I have pointed the way as laid out by the constitution. If you *really* understood the constitution and what it spoke to us, you would not be asking me these questions of "what should we do?" and you would not fall for this BS hunger strike.

Read it. Learn it. Study it. Look at what our founding fathers thought needed to be done when the government tightened its grip. Hell, at the very least since you are all citing ghandi as your "legendary hero" for this brilliant plan, study what he ACTUALLY did to help India gain independence from Britain.

I assure you that petitions and liquid diets were not on the course of action for gaining independence.

Educate YOURSELF!! If you want my views... they are written out (very clearly) on page 5.

THE THING IN YOUR HEAD IS THERE FOR A REASON.... I PROMISE!!



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 



Are you completely non reliant on your government?

It has nothing to do with being self reliant. You can be as self reliant as possible but if you have a government that ignores your Constitutional right and abducts you because they believe you MAY be a terrorist, then tortures you for a long period of time before finally releasing you without even an apology, being self reliant simply is of no help. But of course the current administration wouldn't do something like this would they? Deliberately violating Constitutional law ??? Surely I'm just making this up !!!

NOPE

Here's just one example:


The Federal Government Kidnapped an Innocent Canadian Citizen and Sent Him to a Syrian Torture Cell for Ten Months

The federal government has acted lawlessly in targeting persons, sometimes on the basis of mistaken identity, kidnapping them without ever making an arrest or seeking charges in any court, and then shipping them off to foreign torture cells. In a highly publicized kidnapping, the federal government seized an innocent Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, while he was switching planes at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. The federal government held him in solitary confinement for nine days without charges or any access to an attorney, and then flew him through Jordan to Syria.

The federal government did not stop the Syrian government from brutally torturing the Canadian citizen that the United States sent to Syria. In a Syrian torture cell, he was tortured repeatedly, including suffering repeated whippings with a two-inch thick electrical cable, before being released by Syria ten months later. The Syrian government said that it found no connection between the Canadian citizen and any terrorist or criminal organization or activity.

Upon his return home to Canada, the Canadian government not only did not charge him with any offenses, but instead opened a formal investigation into why a Canadian citizen was rendered by the U.S. federal government to torture. After the thorough investigation, including a review of all documents held by the federal government, the Canadian government determined that there was no reason that Mr. Arar should have been detained or subjected to any mistreatment. The Conservative Prime Minister of Canada recently made a nationally televised apology to Mr. Arar and his family, and provided $10 million Canadian dollars to him. At the same time—and, according to the Canadian government, based on the same “evidence”--the U.S. federal government is keeping Mr. Arar on a no-fly list, despite having no charges against him.



The Federal Government Has Kidnapped and Shipped People to Torture Countries Such as Syria, Uzbekistan, Egypt, and Yemen

Unfortunately, the kidnapping and torture of an innocent Canadian citizen is not an isolated example. At the same time that the United States has condemned numerous countries for torturing and abusing their citizens, the federal government has shipped persons to those same countries based on nothing more than a promise that they will not torture them. The federal government has shipped its kidnapped persons off to a “who’s who” of torture violators--including Syria, Uzbekistan, Egypt, and Yemen.

The number of persons rendered by the federal government to foreign countries that engage in torture is large


Try being self reliant when someone is beating you with 2 inch thick electrical cables.

www.aclu.org...

also

US Says It Can Kidnap British Citizens At Home
www.nowpublic.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by justamomma
 


Why do you care so much?

You tell people, "quit starving yourself" based on what you perceive to be their misunderstanding of the Constitution. But in the same words, you also seem to be suggesting that they should not be using their freedom of speech or assembly, nor their freedom of petition - the violation of the latter being what this hunger strike is all about.

If you think the hunger strike is a bad idea, then don't go on it. But what right - no, what nerve do you have to tell other free, peaceful people that they can't do something that neither violates the law nor infringes on anyone else's rights?

It might work, it might not work. The fundamental argument isn't whether or not it will be effective (although that is certainly the goal,) it's whether or not people have the right to do it.

Bottom line: A hunger strike is a form of peaceful assembly, and people have the right to that in this country whether you think it will work or not.


As I have stated before... Do what you want. Waste your time and your energy... but if you are claiming to do it in the name of America, I feel I should at least deny your ignorance.

1. This isn't going to make a dent in any of the goals cited as being the purpose.

2. The constitution doesn't support laying guilt on the world through any methods, let alone a disgraceful one such as this.

3. Ghandi did not use this method to help India gain independence from Britain.


I wanted the truth out there. That is why.

Now you have the truth. It is obvious that lying to yourselves and others and denying the TRUTH that has been posted is more important to you so that you can receive your pats on the back while accomplishing nothing excepting making fools of yourselves... by all means..

Starve away!!



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
If you really want to send a message, here is how:
No one drive over 40 MPH for a month, and reduce by 5 MPH each month that at least one aspect of our constitutional rights are not restored.


As the price of gas and the economy slowly begin to wind down the powers that be will realize that they may have the power to economically starve us into submission and steal at will, but they don't have the power to pull out of the nosedive, and will be brought down with us. We still have the MAD option. Mutually Assured Destruction. This is a reasonable plan in any industrialized nation.





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join