It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Veterans a Focus of FBI Extremist Probe

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:42 PM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
A Democracy is the mob rule with no respect for minorities.

Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576

1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2: a political unit that has a democratic government

3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States

4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

This is a representative REPUBLIC not a Democracy. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a DEMOCRACY. Under a Democracy a dictatorship can be installed in a nation.

How do you come to this conclusion? If a man is elected by the People, and they like him and want him to keep doing his job, how does that make him a "Dictator"? A Dictator seizes power; it isn't bestowed upon him by the will of the People.

In a Representative REPUBLIC everyone must be represented even if the majority votes to take away the rights of minorities.

During the past eight years Bush started a war based on lies in Iraq. The "Minority", as you claim to uphold, was against this. How were the rights of the Minority protected?

The "Patriot" Act, with its illegal surveillance programs? With "Free Speech Zones?" Hm. Sounds like the kinds of things Dictators do.

Fact is, "everyone" is not represented in a Republic, despite what you might think. If they were, many of the events that led us to this point would not have happened. Minorities are frozen out of the process all the time. In fact, agents within this "Republic" have long used minority status, both racially-based and politically-based, to specifically remove the rights of varied minorities (homosexuals are one group that comes to mind).

And seriously, considering that even the Constitution can be altered and/or interpreted by what you call "mob rule", does "Republic" really even fit? Right now the Supreme Court says you effectively have no Constitutional right to privacy. It says so because the Court is currently 5-4 Republican majority. A year from now the makeup of the Court may be reversed, and then what? Ya'll get my point here?

How exactly?... by being undermanned, soldiers having to do double their duties because there is not enough money.

If you're referring to the specifics of the most recent wars, you're barking up the wrong tree. Troops in Iraq were undermanned because Rumsfeld refused to pool the full resources necessary to do the job in the first place. Never mind the illegality of the war itself; every competent General in the Pentagon was screaming that we needed at least 500K troops--sure, the number we eventually used was enough for initial combat in a conventional "shoot-em-up" fight, but it was woefully inadequate to the task of pacifying Iraq and fighting the insurgency.

Rumsfeld (and of course his "boss") wanted smaller numbers for two main reasons:

1. Rumsfeld wanted to prove that his years as a MIC lobbyist weren't for nothing, as a smaller force could effectively handle the primary combat operations using all the hardware he used to peddle as an industry hack.

2. There weren't enough troops ready for deployment to do the job. Not to say we didn't have the troops, period--we did and still do--but the full, adequate force for the job would have required us to pull troops from other areas where they're being used as a "gotta pay for this" budget line-item and to intimidate local populations. Either that, or there would have to be a Draft, which would have immediately ended all public support for the war.

The DEmocrats voted not to give money to the REpublican party which was going to be sent to offer more protection for our troops, and DEMOCRATS were using this as a political tool trying to make the Republican party side with the DEMOCRATS...

I call BS on this one. First, had the Dems been able to stop the funding, Iraq would be over. Second, The Democrats don't "give money" to the Republicans to "give to the troops". Someone who claims to know so much about civics should know better.

Now on the other hand, it was Republicans during the first six years of the Bush Administration who routinely held back full funding for veterans' affairs and health care, body armor, etc. It was Republicans who insisted soldiers use Humvees as inner-city-war-zone patrol vehicles--which is something they were never designed for in the first place (doesn't matter how much you slow it down by welding steel plates on it, it's still a damn Jeep)--rather than speed production of the Stryker AFV, which is far better suited to the task. It was Republicans who violated the soldiers' faith in their leadership by sending the same people back two, three, even four times, held soldiers far past their agreed-upon deployments, and reactivated retired soldiers through the Stop-Loss program, essentially using it as a "back-door draft" in order to avoid a real Draft. Not to mention the fact that rather than pay for the war by developing some reasonable stream of revenue (such as higher taxes on the richest 1% of Americans) Bush chose to put the whole damn thing on a credit card, thereby driving the National Debt to record levels and setting up any Democratic successors with a problem so huge as to be almost unresolvable without tremendous political will (a very deliberate act and a standard of the Republican playbook; look up David Stockman).

Obviously you have no idea what FREEDOM OF SPEECH means...

Instead of trying to tell people to shut up because you don't agree with them, you should be responding to other threads more to your liking....

Oh I know exactly what Freedom of Speech means. Republicans have been trying to destroy it for years. My comments were more generally directed toward the impotent wannabe-revolutionary rage I see on ATS on a daily basis.

Really?... i wonder why the main goal of Democrats is to not only install Socialist programs but to disarm ALL Americans...

You have no idea whatsoever what Socialism actually means outside what you've been told by your masters.

What you call "socialism" is an attempt to fix the very real problems we face, rather than the made-up ones, and to move Society forward rather than slide into obscurity and endless civil war through neglect.

The forefathers of this nation made it clear...

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

So perhaps you should be the one to shut up, since obviously you are not aware of what the forefathers agreed on, and bleed for to guarantee rights for ALL future generations of Americans...

And again, as every aspect of that "Republican Form of Government" is based on Majority Rule (Democracy, for those without the brains to put 2+2 together) the definition you provide is effectively moot, and more a question of semantics than actual function.

Read Thomas Paine and get back to me.

[edit on 4/17/2009 by The Nighthawk]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by Bejing

Well you have the typical liberal crapola twords those who serve this proud and great nation.

Why do you feel the need to drag liberalism into this?

It sure as hell wasn't Liberals who drafted the Patriot Act or the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 which basically state that political dissent and anti-authoritarianism can be equated to treason and terrorism.

Get a grip.

Who do you think opened the floodgates to these sorts of over-generalising perspectives on political dissenters?

If you want to point the finger, look in the mirror, and bingo there's your answer.

[edit on 17/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:34 PM

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by lee anoma
This was started under the Bush administration.
Why are you blaming Obama and liberals for this?

Easy, why didn't Obama and his administration put a stop to this and not release it? They don't seem to be putting up too much of a fuss; and this is the ammo they love to use to smear Bush.

Shifting focus a bit here?

So first the probe itself was a liberal attack against the rights of American citizens perpetrated by the liberals in office...but now that the proof comes out and it was commissioned by the Bush administration we get "well..uh...why didn't Obama stop it fast enough" reactions.

Bit of a straw man here.

So the Obama administration didn't move fast enough to counter every Bush era investigation or initiative within the first three months in office and because of this he is still guilty of being complicit in a probe he never authorized?

Okay I guess you don't know what it's like starting a new job where someone left off and the time frame it may take to go over the previous setups and the time it takes to determine which should be kept and which scraped.

Guess we'll let all the anti-liberal rants and Obama attacks based on the false fact that he initiated this probe slide.

Not mad about the probe anymore when someone else is to blame for it I guess.

- Lee

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:49 PM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
A Democracy is the mob rule with no respect for minorities. In a Representative REPUBLIC everyone must be represented even if the mayority votes to take away the rights of minorities.

I just had to say this as well: What you call "protection of the political minority" I call a form of dictatorship. Seems the only time Republicans are interested in protecting the "rights" of the "political minority" is when a small group of anti-social ideological troglodytes wants to prevent any kind of real reform that might lead to this great nation becoming even better, such as seeking peace rather than war, ensuring basic human rights, and limiting corporate power. No, a "republic" according to your definition is basically a system that lets a tiny group hold the entire nation hostage to their political will. Not exactly my cup of tea.

[edit on 4/17/2009 by The Nighthawk]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:24 PM
reply to post by The Nighthawk

Thanks for putting it out there! If only more people could see
and understand the dynamic of what is going on...
Unfortunately, everyone is too divided on all issues to ever
make a difference and thus play right into the hands of the TPTB.

Thanks again for the refresher of logic!

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

The government that we have in this nation now in the last 30 years is a mix of greedy fat rats and sell out whores that has nothing to do with what once either party stood for.

They are advocates for big interest and those that can pay to have one of their favorite ex CEOs working in any government administration.

They are recycle every four years depending wish party is in power but the their goals are the same.

The are bringing down the nation and its people for nothing short of greed.

Our system of government is corrupted, dirty and run no by the people and for the people but by the powers behind the government and for those that hold that power.

The sooner people realize this perhaps it will be a chance that this nation can be taken back from the dirty hands of this fat rats and into the peoples hand once again.

But by the way things are going all we the people are going to get is a plundered dying nation.

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:57 PM

Originally posted by lee anoma
So the Obama administration didn't move fast enough to counter every Bush era investigation or initiative within the first three months in office and because of this he is still guilty of being complicit in a probe he never authorized?

If it was released and Obama hadn't the chance to step on it, where's the statement from the Obama administration decrying it, claiming it to be wrong, that it will be torn up, that he will have someone do something to counter it, all that good stuff?

Has Obama made any statements about it, or is fist bumping Chavez more important than the vets that fought for his country?

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:53 PM
Hey guys, I am a Marine Corps combat veteran, own guns, and almost always have voted a straight Democratic ticket when I go to the polls..... Obama has done more in three months to improve and expand the V.A. than Bush and his cronies did during two terms in the White House. Yeah I know that there is always some big add ons to the existing hospitals and clinics, due to contracts awarded to campaign contributors to the GOP candidates, but services are becoming available to veterans that have fallen through the cracks and need help that has never been there for them..... I have been a disabled vet for forty years, and I can tell you that I know from experience that veterans get better care when Democrats are in office, and most of the votes against veterans receiving benefits and health care, are made by Republicans..... We are all under focus as extremist when we express ourselves in an extreme manner..... Doesn't make you wonder what is really going on when something like, Vets being investigated as extremist, becomes such an important issue, when in reality we are all likely to be under scrutiny.

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by GradyPhilpott

Thank you Grady for injecting a little realism & logic into the discussion.

The phony outrage over this is hilarious.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in