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.

 

ATTENTION Patriots / Birthers / Teabaggers / Whomever - If you did get your Revolution, Then What?

page: 16
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 


Absolutely. Like i tell most people and some of the more extreme "revolution" advocates i speak with "Write to your senators and congressmen, if they ignore you or the peoples will try to get them voted them out of office, the revolution must start from within. Our bullets and rifles must be pens and paper first."


Dadio made a very good point as well. I got too caught up with defending unrelated content.

What would i do after the revolution?

I would first put an end to the "war" on drugs.
Why? Because it is one of the greatest violations of our constitutional rights ever conceived of. So many injustices have been done in the name of "the war on drugs" over 500 billion dollars has been spent on it. Spending for it is now at 69 billion dollars a year.

There are no gangs fighting over whiskey territories. Drug prohibition creates a black market with enormous profits that attracts criminals and gangs. With drugs literally worth their weight in gold, as long as people can grow gold in their basement this will not stop.

...more to come later as i think deeper about the original subject.




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 

If a whiteman had of won the last presidential election; demb or republican there would be no talk of revolution. Oh sure there would be fiery rhetoric like there was with Clinton but for some reason a black man in the "white" house brings out racism disguised as patriotism and nationalism and a return to traditional American values.


It's not a revolution that is wanted; it's a scapegoat like the Jews in Germany and a race war against people of color.


God help us!!

Look! I am sick and tired of hearing the black wow is me oppression bull crap! People like you, who think like you, are the most raciest SOB'S in the world! You would have to be for that to be the first thing that comes to your mind anytime there is a discussion involving your race! You are a raciest because you never consider any other explanation from the vary start of the topic!

You are also contributing to racism because when you say things like you have you show me how ignorant, uneducated, and undeserving of respect you, and people like you are.

got it "home boyeeee" You are a raciest! not me!

edit to include quote

[edit on 3/1/10 by xyankee]

[edit on 3/1/10 by xyankee]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
It is an un-winnable situation.

For me, for most of us. Why am I so much an enemy? Why am I declared an enemy when all I want is to follow in the footsteps of the men who created this country and return it to its original status - a clean slate? What makes me so bad from all this?

I try to articulate my ideas, I believe I have the best I can. I may not be the best speaker, but I will not for a second question my ideals.

The Constitution of the United States of America - as it stands before you - is my plan of government. I do not wish to stray from that. I do not with to add any amendments unconstitutionally; I do not wish to do anything outside of my rights as guaranteed by that document and its precursor, The Declaration of Independence.

You don't know me as a person, perhaps that is one problem. Perhaps you don't understand that I hate racists and I despise tyranny. When I went to school when I was younger, as little as 7 or 8 years old, I was the kid questioning WHY the match problems had to be done in that fashion. I was the one who when I learned to type, refused to type by their standard because I wanted the choice to do it my way. Did I ever force people to see it my way? No. But at the very least I made the idea open to them and let them make their own decisions.

As a revolutionist, I wouldn't stomp into DC and declare myself president. I wouldn't try to add anything to the Constitution. All I wish to do is to make the path accessible for those that can bring about good change - LEGAL change.



For anyone who sees my posts as not advocating freedom, then I'm not sure what to say. Never have I, nor do I feel it is right to force another man to do anything. Never have I, nor do I feel it is right to kill another man unless under threat of death yourself. Never have I, nor do I feel it is right to treat another human being differently based on their religion, political views, nationality, skin color, job, gender, sexual orientation, race, or anything that might make them different.


To put it simply, the only thing I am advocating is freedom and peace. In our current state people are suffering, people are being kept from their freedoms, and unhappiness and discontent spread with wildfire. Some people say that peaceful revolution is the answer and they will continue saying that, even after any and all hope of such change is gone.

I look to the past and I see that peaceful revolutions have been successful around the world, but within these states even the most attempted peaceful revolutions and revolts have been strewn with violence, from the Civil Right Movements to the Vietnam protests. Back then people had an enemy with a face... the war... discrimination... today people know there is an enemy but that can't see it. As someone stated before, the enemy isn't at our gates, it has infiltrated our castle and it is running the show. How are we supposed to peaceful protest an enemy with no face, an enemy that lies within us ready to dissolve everything we stand for with propaganda and lies, anything it can do from preventing the one this it knows can stop them.




Armed revolution, trust me, is not the ideal way to go, but I feel that it is the only way to go. The government will continue to infiltrate the ranks of peaceful revolutions, they will corrupt the incorruptible, and just like so many times in the past the revolution will fail. When it does, people will ignore it, the will call for more peaceful rebellion and they will throw off armed revolution until it is too late.

Will they take our weapons first? Or will they sap every once of hope we have left until we just don't care anymore and we succeed to every one of their demands, worn out from their silent attack on our country.



Know that I only with for peace, I only advocate freedom, and if you believe otherwise then that is your choice, I respect that as I respect every personal choice.

Hopefully this posts allows you to understand my please a little bit better, but if not, this is all I have - this is my most vulnerable. I do not know what else to say.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DeathShield
 


The reason I picked Timothy McVeigh and the OKC Bombing is because that is exactly what has happened in the name of patriotism and the extreme right.

The reason I use Nazis as a comparison point is that Fascism is a Right wing characteristic.

The reason I worry about genocide with your revolution is because the extreme right is completely intolerant of anyone except themselves. This revolution of yours isn't about freedom, it's about the right wing wanting things done their way. There is no actual call for freedom here, the only thing that you people want is a government that is tyrannical and leans your way.

I don't buy your hyperbole about wanting freedom at all. It's really about asserting your idea of control and government on the will of the masses.

We even have one of your own wanting to abolish the 13th Amendment:


Originally posted by endisnighe
  • The Original 13th Amendment will be researched and if found to be thrown out illegally, it will be reinstated along with the one they replaced it with. If you want an explanation-GOOGLE IT!




  • Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

    1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


    So don't tell me this is about freedom, cause your side of the argument already has convinced me that this is about control and not freedom at all. There is no real want to return to the constitution here, all that is here is wanting to disassemble the United States and destroy this country.

    Many of the people that support this idea of revolt do so because they just want to kill other human beings. They don't care whether or not your revolution succeeds as long as they can put large holes in people.

    So when your side just wants wanton destruction, killing innocent people, the return of legalized SLAVERY, with the mayhem and horrors of a violent revolution, don't subject me to this poppycock about wanting to re establish freedom in this country, you don't mean it.



    posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:23 PM
    link   
    reply to post by whatukno
     


    Whatukno...you didn't read the quote correctly...."it will be reinstated along with the one they replaced it with."

    EDIT TO ADD: You have shown yourself purposeful in trying to slant what you read to your own liking. If you made an honest mistake, which I truly hope you did in misreading the quote you have used, I would hope through civility and decorum you would address that you have indeed, made a mistake. /END EDIT


    Speaking for myself and not others I would say that the intent to displace the 13th amendment as it is now, was not the intention. Was not mine at least when I read over what was said.

    I believe the call into bringing back what was originally considered the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution, not to overwrite the one that is in place, but rather bring back what was, and odd it isn't debated and discussed on a conspiracy site, a Constitutional conspiracy of sorts.

    I may be speaking out of turn regarding this, but I do not think one was calling to amend the constitution by repealing the 13th Amendment as it is now, but rather bring back what some consider to be the 'original' 13th Amendment.

    It is still under scrutiny of what exactly was the original proposed 13th amendment and the cause of it getting buried and not actually there. Some say the War of 1812, some say powerful dealings.

    I would wager a bet that the poster who proposed bringing back the original 13th Amendment was not suggesting repealing what is in the current 13th Amendment. Then again, what would I know. That is just my gut feeling on the situation.

    [edit on 3-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]

    [edit on 3-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]



    posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:46 PM
    link   
    reply to post by whatukno
     


    Whatyouknow, you constantly reveal your true intentions with your own language referring to those who you disagree with as being on a side and implicitly claiming a side for yourself, but what side exactly is that? Certainly not freedom. You are guilty of misquoting and attempting to impose your own cynical view of people on people who do want to be free.

    You reveal your true intentions when you claim that the will of the people have more authority than natural rights, and any poster who would argue the point with you becomes an echo of Timothy Mcveigh. You are no less an agent provocateur than those who advocate violent overthrow of government. You constantly reference Mcveigh because you want those who advocate freedom to suffer the same fate as that man. Even if they have no intentions at all of resorting to violence.

    Any posters who insist that change can happen peacefully, you ignore and pretend they haven't made any such argument. You are loathe to agree with this peaceful change because you are no more for peace than any other advocate of violence, the difference between you and the "other side" is that you advocate violence mandated by the "will of the people" all the while pretending that those people on "the other side" who are mandating the same thing don't count as people.

    Your hyperbole is no different than any others in this thread or any other like it, and the tragedy of that is that you willfully and purposefully work towards a continued divisiveness. There are no sides to freedom there either is freedom or there isn't. It has been pointed out to you that revolt does not necessarily dictate violence and yet you pretend this point has not been made and choose to continue flaming the fire with those who would willingly advocate violence. How does this make you any less an advocate of violence than those you take to task?





    [edit on 3-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:20 AM
    link   
    reply to post by ownbestenemy
     



    Speaking for myself and not others I would say that the intent to displace the 13th amendment as it is now, was not the intention. Was not mine at least when I read over what was said.

    I believe the call into bringing back what was originally considered the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution, not to overwrite the one that is in place, but rather bring back what was, and odd it isn't debated and discussed on a conspiracy site, a Constitutional conspiracy of sorts.


    The poster that wrote this I believe was referring to this. Thereby nullifying the existing 13th amendment, and thus, bringing back slavery.

    It does this in such a way as to make someone at first think it's a punishment for our elected officials to take bribes from lawyers. But when you add the existing 13th amendment to this "original 13th amendment" you get a wide open door to create slaves out of our elected officials by stripping them of their citizenship status.

    It's not a mistake, it was a deliberate attempt by the poster to try and garner support to reinstate slavery in this country.

    reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
     



    Whatyouknow, you constantly reveal your true intentions with your own language referring to those who you disagree with as being on a side and implicitly claiming a side for yourself, but what side exactly is that? Certainly not freedom. You are guilty of misquoting and attempting to impose your own cynical view of people on people who do want to be free.


    I am on the side that's for the legal, nonviolent change of our government through proper channels. It can be done, and I believe that it is our duty as Americans to do that. I am completely against the wanton destruction of the United States through civil war and revolution because of a disagreement with current politics.

    I am not the kind of person that goes reaching for their gun as soon as congress decides to pass a law that I don't like. I certainly am not the type of person that advocates blowing up buildings, or any act of violence against other Americans.


    You reveal your true intentions when you claim that the will of the people have more authority than natural rights, and any poster who would argue the point with you becomes an echo of Timothy Mcveigh. You are no less an agent provocateur than those who advocate violent overthrow of government. You constantly reference Mcveigh because you want those who advocate freedom to suffer the same fate as that man. Even if they have no intentions at all of resorting to violence.


    If one wants to see what the future holds, one has to look at similar points in history. That's what I am doing when I cite McVeigh.


    Any posters who insist that change can happen peacefully, you ignore and pretend they haven't made any such argument. You are loathe to agree with this peaceful change because you are no more for peace than any other advocate of violence, the difference between you and the "other side" is that you advocate violence mandated by the "will of the people" all the while pretending that those people on "the other side" who are mandating the same thing don't count as people.


    I'm not ignoring the calls for peaceful change, I have no argument with people who wish to change our government through peaceful means.


    Your hyperbole is no different than any others in this thread or any other like it, and the tragedy of that is that you willfully and purposefully work towards a continued divisiveness. There are no sides to freedom there either is freedom or there isn't. It has been pointed out to you that revolt does not necessarily dictate violence and yet you pretend this point has not been made and choose to continue flaming the fire with those who would willingly advocate violence. How does this make you any less an advocate of violence than those you take to task?


    The people that I am against in this thread and other threads like it are those that would harm other citizens, which includes elected officials, in order to force their idea of freedom on America.

    When posters talk about changing our government, and wish to do so in accordance of US Constitution I have no fight. There is nothing I can say because that is the right way to go about changing what some see as tyranny. But when people misconstrue the preamble to the Declaration of Independence as a clarion call for violence, I must object.

    I object because this violent way of going about changing our government in some uber-nationalist way is reminiscent of Nazi Germany. This makes me worry of genocide as the extreme right has shown for a long time the inherent xenophobia, exclusiveness, intolerance, and old fashioned hate for other cultures or religions in their ideology.

    If you were to say to me, I want to elect only representatives that fit my view of what freedom means. I would say, more power to you. That is how you change this government, it is constitutional and it is non violent.

    But when you talk about picking up your gun and starting a violent revolution and I know the political views you seem to express, it gives me pause and it makes me post against you because I don't agree with violence as the means to change this government.

    When posters tell me that their government does not listen to them and that's an excuse to become violent. I again have to post against them because they aren't trying hard enough. Making rich men listen to the people has always been hard, nothing worth doing is ever easy. Today politicians are out of touch with the people, and this makes it more difficult to talk to them. But it can be done.



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:01 AM
    link   
    reply to post by whatukno
     


    Well no arguing with those that wish to remain blind...Thanks for dodging the quote issue and actually reading it.....

    As it does, and I will paraphrase, that we should research the original 13th amendment and if found it was excluded, looked over, misplaced, whatever, we shall institute according to the laws of the Constitution, that amendment, along with keeping the the 13th amendment that is currently in place.

    Please....show me where my paraphrase and the actual quote you are gleefully passing on as a call to bringing back slavery are inaccurate.

    Try as you may to place that quote as a call to REPEAL the 13th Amendment and replace it with what some consider the original amendment, it is not.....I believe you understand that, but it will blow holes in your fight and in your argument.

    Now that said., I do believe there are some diluted people out there that wish the 13th Amendment as it is now should be ignored/repealed, whatever....the ones calling for Freedom and coming back to the roots of the Constitution via non-violent means that may or may not include 'revolutionary' type ideas (MINUS THE ARMED PART) are not the ones and you have shown that you know this, but continue to just bring out the broad brush.

    You and I are fighting for the same thing, but you continue to dissuade, dodge and divert where you were wrong in attempts to throw those that have shown you wrong in your logic to back off.



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:16 AM
    link   
    reply to post by whatukno
     


    There you go again, continually placing words in the mouths of others that you disagree with. You deceitfully claim you are for legal and proper means of change but only if that change is affected by the politics that you agree with, if you disagree with the politics behind that change then you will attempt to frame those who you disagree with as claiming to talk of picking up their guns and starting a violent revolution. The fact of the matter is that is exactly what you just did with me. You framed this as if I am one who talks about picking up my gun and doing violence and laughingly claim to know my politics.

    The fact of the matter is I don't own a gun and never have. I have never seen the need for a gun, but that doesn't mean I believe the Second Amendment only functions for collective rights in terms of "well regulated militias" or some silly notion of "hunters rights". The Second Amendment clearly exists so the people have means by which to protect their rights. But, when you continually take the type of language I just typed and attempt to frame it as more of the Mcveigh "homegrown terrorist" talk then this gives me pause and makes me wonder if maybe I do have a need for a gun after all.

    That's exactly what I am speaking to. It's not enough for you to simply argue that there are legal means by which to change government, you insist on labeling people who have every right to discuss the nature of the Second Amendment, as violent terrorists who seek to control "your side".

    While I adamantly agree with you that those posters who advocate violence simply because they feel their government isn't listening to them just aren't trying hard enough, I have come to recognize the nature of your politics well enough to know that you will never recognize this agreement between us and will do all you can to continue framing me as one who advocates violence with out attempting to affect change by all peaceful means available.

    You deem to lecture me that change can be done peacefully instead of simply acknowledging that I all ready know this and wholly advocate this stance as well, only because you disagree with my politics. You will do all you can to label me a dangerous violent foe of the people and will advocate an out of control government with Gestapo like tactics because it is you who sound more like the Nazi movement you love to label others with. You do this because you no more want peace than those you you are claiming to castigate do, and you will not stop until your satisfied that all those you disagree with are either incarcerated or executed by "legal means".

    If you are such an advocate of peace then I implore you sir, stop acting so divisively with all who disagree with you and make the effort to find that in which you can agree with from the "other side". If you rise to this challenge, then this peaceful means of change that you insist, and correctly so, can be done, most likely will be done. It is ironic you accuse those you disagree with of relying on hyperbole when you are just as guilty of it. Instead of making such alarmist accusations through implication why don't you try a more Socratic method and simply ask those you disagree with to properly defend their position and make the effort to lead them down the path of recognizing that peaceful change can happen?

    Of course, in fairness to you, I as well have stooped down to this hyperbolic rhetoric in taking you to task. Why not the both of us just drop the hyperbole and find a way to work together to advocate peaceful revolution? Why not use our differences to strengthen our agreements and show those who would recklessly and callously advocate violence without even attempting to affect change through peace, that demonstrably both sides can work together on behalf of freedom? I have no doubt you are more than capable of doing so. So, what do you say? Will you allow for both sides working together for the same cause or will you reject such a notion?



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:22 AM
    link   
    reply to post by ownbestenemy
     


    "supposed 13th Amendment"

    "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

    Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

    1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    So the other poster is trying to trick you all into turning elected officials and lawyers into slaves.

    Sorry you don't see it. But it is there.



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:29 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
     


    If you want to change this government in a non violent way, than I have no problem with you.

    The people I am addressing are the people that want an armed revolution. It's just that simple.



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:31 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Majestic Twelve
     





    ...Second, we could repeal the 17th Amendment. ...


    I don't understand this. It is the first I have ever heard about a controversy surrounding the right of the people to elect their Senators. I thought 'patriots' and 'teabaggers' were at least nominally PRO-democracy.

    Whose wish list is this ultimately coming from?



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:41 AM
    link   
    reply to post by whatukno
     


    Then would you defend the rights of those who advocate change through peaceful means from the violence of government? Will you castigate the dubious violence used upon peaceful protesters by law enforcement officers? Will you vocally and staunchly protest the unconstitutional methods of creating "free speech zones" or a governments prohibition of peaceful assembly? Or would you simply demand that those who are angry about these long train of abuses and usurpation's just keep suffering the abuse no matter what the cost? Do you advocate freedom or do you advocate disarming the people?



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:02 AM
    link   
    reply to post by whatukno
     


    Do you even know what facism means? No you probably don't you are throwing it around like rush limbaugh does with "socialism"

    Here are some definitions of fascism. If you want the sources follow the link and do a CTRL+F and paste the definition into the search box or bar that pops up.

    1. a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

    2.A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)

    3.a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism

    4.A political regime, usually totalitarian, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. ...
    www.google.com...:en-US
    fficial&client=firefox-a

    I am going to post this in large letters just in case you are having a hard time reading regular letters.


    I am not extreme right. I support gay marriage. I want to end the war on drugs. I am even open to the idea of socialized medicine. I believe in a democratic republic that guarantees civil and individual rights to all people of all faiths and of all skin colors and heritage that does not tax people simply because they own something



    Edited to add link and fix text size
    [edit on 4-1-2010 by DeathShield]

    [edit on 4-1-2010 by DeathShield]

    [edit on 4-1-2010 by DeathShield]



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:07 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
     



    Then would you defend the rights of those who advocate change through peaceful means from the violence of government?


    What violence?


    Will you castigate the dubious violence used upon peaceful protesters by law enforcement officers?


    Are you talking about the G-20 rioters? If you are, then, well, it's my opinion that the STATE officials should have used live rounds. I have no sympathy for Anarchists and rioters. They were rioting, and as such the state does have the right and duty to defend it's own citizens against the attacks of those who wish to do harm to the community. The G-20 rioters were in no way shape or form peaceful. But got an ass kicking as they so richly deserved.


    Will you vocally and staunchly protest the unconstitutional methods of creating "free speech zones" or a governments prohibition of peaceful assembly?


    While it's specifically written that Congress cannot make any law restricting free speech, it doesn't say that the states can't. See Amendment 10 for details.


    Or would you simply demand that those who are angry about these long train of abuses and usurpation's just keep suffering the abuse no matter what the cost?


    What abuse?


    Do you advocate freedom or do you advocate disarming the people?


    2nd Amendment pretty much spells that out.

    [edit on 1/4/2010 by whatukno]



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:12 AM
    link   
    Well I am here now to back my own posting up. I would repost the original but I am sure the CoIntelPro will just rehash the SOP of twisting the words.

    Slavery, are you kidding me?

    I am a slave, in better terms an Indentured Servant to my government. And so is every man woman and child for the next 100 years if we allow the debt masters to continue.

    Well you might be slightly right that I would want anyone in government to pay for their treasonous actions. This would only follow a legitimate trial.

    The original 13th amendment that was covered up due to the Civil War was probably one of the main reasons behind that war.

    History does have a way of destroying the truth.

    As for the existing 13th amendment, I wish to HELL it was enforced. Do you even know what Indentured Servitude means?

    Their are four requirements. The only one the government does not fall under is they must be a person.

    But, anyway, why do I or anyone else even debate you. You are not even a real person. I am assuming provocateur is your name and you are many.



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:12 AM
    link   
    You know what guys? I don't care anymore, if you guys want to go around blowing away Americans, and blowing up federal buildings, citing the Declaration of Independence as your excuse, it's your prerogative.

    Just don't whine to me about being oppressed when your on death row for high treason against the United States.



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:21 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by whatukno
    You know what guys? I don't care anymore, if you guys want to go around blowing away Americans, and blowing up federal buildings, citing the Declaration of Independence as your excuse, it's your prerogative.

    Just don't whine to me about being oppressed when your on death row for high treason against the United States.



    Their you go again, putting words into our mouths. Find me one comment that calls for revolt right now and I will back your position.

    Otherwise what you are doing is trying to censor peoples discussions on our government's blatant corruption and unconstitutional mandates.

    As for death row, what are your absolute line in the sand positions. Do you have any?

    It seems many of us cannot stand either parties corruption but as long as your party is in control anything goes?

    I will speak for myself, I am sure others feel the same way, I feel both parties since JFK have been instituting unConstitutional statutes for way too long.

    And I guess your type of provocateur really know how to push buttons, huh?

    Fallacies to the max and lying about what people have stated. At one time I ignored you, but that has all been removed. We have to keep eyes on the likes of provocateurs.



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:34 AM
    link   
    reply to post by endisnighe
     



    Their you go again, putting words into our mouths. Find me one comment that calls for revolt right now and I will back your position.


    Look them up.


    Otherwise what you are doing is trying to censor peoples discussions on our government's blatant corruption and unconstitutional mandates.


    I don't have the power or authority to censor your discussion, but apparently voicing my opinion to your opinion counts as censorship now?


    As for death row, what are your absolute line in the sand positions. Do you have any?


    Line in the sand?
    how cliché!


    It seems many of us cannot stand either parties corruption but as long as your party is in control anything goes?


    Well, let's see, no, it doesn't but that's not the point now is it? When "my party" does something I don't agree with, I let them know I disagree.


    I will speak for myself, I am sure others feel the same way, I feel both parties since JFK have been instituting unConstitutional statutes for way too long.


    Oh of course they are.



    And I guess your type of provocateur really know how to push buttons, huh?


    I am hoping one day some poster will completely snap and it will be reported on the news that Joe X was removed from his apartment babbling incoherently "Damn you whatukno!" . But as of yet, nothing I have said has worked.
    I'm kidding of course.


    Fallacies to the max and lying about what people have stated. At one time I ignored you, but that has all been removed. We have to keep eyes on the likes of provocateurs.


    I'm touched, really I am. But I haven't lied about anything.



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:50 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by whatukno
    reply to post by endisnighe
     



    Their you go again, putting words into our mouths. Find me one comment that calls for revolt right now and I will back your position.


    Look them up.


    Otherwise what you are doing is trying to censor peoples discussions on our government's blatant corruption and unconstitutional mandates.


    I don't have the power or authority to censor your discussion, but apparently voicing my opinion to your opinion counts as censorship now?


    As for death row, what are your absolute line in the sand positions. Do you have any?


    Line in the sand?
    how cliché!


    It seems many of us cannot stand either parties corruption but as long as your party is in control anything goes?


    Well, let's see, no, it doesn't but that's not the point now is it? When "my party" does something I don't agree with, I let them know I disagree.


    I will speak for myself, I am sure others feel the same way, I feel both parties since JFK have been instituting unConstitutional statutes for way too long.


    Oh of course they are.



    And I guess your type of provocateur really know how to push buttons, huh?


    I am hoping one day some poster will completely snap and it will be reported on the news that Joe X was removed from his apartment babbling incoherently "Damn you whatukno!" . But as of yet, nothing I have said has worked.
    I'm kidding of course.


    Fallacies to the max and lying about what people have stated. At one time I ignored you, but that has all been removed. We have to keep eyes on the likes of provocateurs.


    I'm touched, really I am. But I haven't lied about anything.


    Haven't lied. Is not the definition of a lie to present falsehood's?

    You in a previous post manipulated what I had said in another comment about the original 13th amendment.

    How is that not a lie? Must be your lack of moral fiber. Anything to get the reaction you so desire.

    I stand back and declare victory by your very admission of provacation to incite a reaction.

    Victory has been declared.



    Debate over. Come back with another fallacious argument or diatribe and sink your case further. It is always fun to debate others that use fallacious arguments. The instant one is used victory is complete.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    18
    << 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

    log in

    join