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: 19
18
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by whaaa
 


And for my info, what is Clear Channel.


If I am not mistaken, Clear Channel is the AM radio network that gave Rush Limbaugh his big break. If I am mistake, they are still a significant network in AM radio with stations in most, if not all states.




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by ziggystrange
 

Only the leftists are talking about the Conservatives starting a violent revolution, because they want the opportunity to crush them.

What the leftists fear most is a peaceful revolution like they had in East Germany and Czechoslovakia.


Thanks you for posting.

Interesting observations. I never thought of that.

I'm not sure that has anything to do with this thread but I'm sure you will have more to say, so welcome.

Ziggy

[edit on 4-1-2010 by ziggystrange]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



How do you reconcile these two contradicory statements that you made:



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.


With this:



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.


Confusing, really.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Dude you are practically a carbon copy of my political leanings.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Yep, confusing until you get into context.

The first is my attitude towards violence against the non violent.

The second is protecting private property.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



Exactly! As long as the violence is used by the state you advocate it by your own admission. Peace my foot. What utter arrogance and dis-ingenuousness. You are every bit as dangerous than any Tim Mcveigh. Just like Mcveigh you advocate violence against innocents to justify demonizing "anarchists". Thank you for finally being honest about your advocacy of violence against the people.


See the 10th Amendment for more details.

What you don't like the the state having more authority than the federal government? In this case that state would be Pennsylvania. Oh, but I guess to you states shouldn't have the right to defend themselves against angry rioting anarchists who are hell bent on destroying property.

So to reiterate my point, while Congress can make no law restricting freedom of speech, the sovereign rights of the state does give them that right. See, the state is different from the federal government because the state can make and enforce their own laws. See if it were up to me, I would have had business owners down there with shotguns protecting their private property from those rioters. I think that things would have went much better if a few of those anarchists lost their heads. Don't you agree?

Or is it better that they got hit with pepper spray, sonic cannons and bean bag rounds?

Just a thought, I mean would it have been better if the owners of the property these rioters were destroying decided to instead just start blowing these anarchists away? I mean there is the right to defend yourself and your property isn't there? They break my window, I blow their brains all over the sidewalk. Sounds about right.






I honestly believe that you are far smarter than you have come off the last few posts. Since you have claimed to know my politics then I am assuming you are being sarcastic when you ask if I don't like the state having more authority than the federal government, but just to clarify, both the state and federal governments exist by grant of the people and it is the people who hold the inherent political power. The states rights issue is an important one and the 10th Amendment makes clear that either the states or the people have any authority not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

You are again being disingenuous when you say:

"So to reiterate my point, while Congress can make no law restricting freedom of speech, the sovereign rights of the state does give them that right."

Do you expect me to believe that the states do not have constitutions of their own? Have you even bothered to read the constitution for the State of Pennsylvania? Indeed, within that state constitution is what are known as the Declaration of Rights of the Pennsylvania Constitution and they predate the Constitution for the United States and was in fact a model for the Bill of Rights where the 10th Amendment can be found.

Of those rights declared by this constitution there are 28 sections. Consider just a few of those rights:

Section 1 . Inherent Rights of Mankind
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 2. Political Powers
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Section 7. Freedom of Press and Speech; Libels
The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceeding of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

Section 20. Right of Petition
The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes by petition, address or remonstrance.

Section 25. Reservation of Powers in People
To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

You ask for my agreement that it would have been better if a few of those anarchists lost their heads, and what I will agree with is that there probably were a few anarchists amidst the mass of peaceful protesters at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh. However, just because there were a few criminals hiding amongst the people, this does not in anyway excuse law enforcement from behaving in other way than their state constitution demands they behave. They can not just abrogate and derogate the rights of all the people simply because there were some criminals acting criminally. Indeed, even the criminals are entitled to certain rights.

Section 8. Security From Searches and Seizures
The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable case, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant.

I'm running out of space and will leave it with an agreement. There is a right to defense of property and oneself

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by jdub297
 

Your leaders Rush and Beck, Sean and Savage love to trot out the dembs support "women killing babies" BS every chance they get and want abortion made a capital offense. Should I bring out the Palin youtube!!

And don't give me that BS that Rush and the rest of em aren't true conservatives. They are the mouth pieces for the GOP, TPM and the Religious Right.

If the "true" conservatives want any credibility they better start backing away from the hate promoted by those yahoos instead of defending them.
Any fool can see the hate and divisiveness and transparent call to violence by them against those they disagree with.
Your prejudice and ignorance would be frightening if they weren't so pathetic.

A true conservative believes in limited federal government and states' rights.

Has nothing to do with media propagandists.
Your fear renders your "opinions" worthless.

That doesn't mean that some states won't outlaw abortion or reserve "marriage" only to monogamous couples of opposite sex. The states should be free to regulate conduct within their borders.

You wouldn't know a true conservative if she hit you upside the head. You respond to your imagined and frightened perceptions
rather than fact.

When you grow up and grow some brains maybe your posts will actually offer something of value.

Deny ignorance!
jw



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
1. Audit and then Shut down the Federal Reserve System.

2. Print our own currency w/o interest. Restore a model of competitive US Banking that existed in the late 19th Century. The one the world envied, especially Bismarck in Germany, and drove us into being the most prosperous Nation in the world. (Until the Banksters got there envious hooks into US.)


3. Gradually reduce the volume of currency in circulation. Drive the value back up.

4. Set up a series of Chartered National Banks that will require review every ten years to prove they are operating in the public's best interest.

(NOTE: This was previously required or ALL U.S. Corporations until John D Rockefeller bribed this preventative measure out of existence first in Delaware, and New Jersey.)

5. Restore the US Constitution. Repeal every ACT that is outside the province of the Federal Government and every Executive Order that smacks of Dictatorial powers assumed by the Executive, Legislative or Judicial Branches. Restore the powers to the States where they were originally intended to be and rightfully belong.
Dramatically reduce the unnecessary size of this bloated Socialistic Beast called the Federal Government. It's only purpose is to feed it's ever growing sickness.

6. Dissolve all connections with the WHO and FAO and the UN. These entities were created solely for the purposes of creating a One World Dictatorial Government through the Powers usurped of 'CAP and Trade'. An "Air Tax" designed to make the people of this world finance their own slavery beholding to the "International Bankers".
WE never needed "International Bankers" to tie us into Trade Manipulations and Debt.

7. Remove the restrictions on US Farmers. Support private small farms with low cost loans. Get the Mega Corporations out of their Monopoly Stranglehold on US Agriculture.
Return to Centuries old "Best Management Practices" regarding fertilizing, crop rotation, etc..

8. Stop fluoridating the water supplies. Take Excitotoxins out of our food stuffs.

9. Rebuild our Manufacturing base, and the Infrastructure of our Country.

10. Remove all illegal Aliens from the US or offer them the opportunity to work off their sentences (in exchange for future citizenship) as indentured labor. ( like my Ancestors paid for their right to citizenship 200 years ago in exchange for passage to America.)

11. Imprison every Congressman or Senator who has accepted "gifts" in exchange for favorable votes to Lobbyists.

12. Make LOBBYING ILLEGAL through a Constitutional Amendment.

13. Investigate and Audit The Pentagon.

14. Pass legislation to tax the Communications Giants for the use of the free AirWaves the FCC and Congress gave them in the 1980's. Force them to break up their monopolies and divest themselves of cross ownership ( as they were before the 1980's).

15. Use RICO Laws against Corporations who buy up Newspapers, etc., to skew or hide NEWS to their Financial Benefit.

16. Repeal both "P.A.T.R.I.O.T ACTS, Shutdown "Black Water". Shut Down the "DHS".

17. Dismantle the CIA, as JFK wanted to. They are on the payroll of the Banksters

There are NO MONSTERS under your Bed. The Terrorists are OPERATIVES. It's just the Agents of the Illuminati. (like the Banksters)

You know, the same ones George Washington wrote about in his personal letters.


They are still here.


A Constitutional Republic requires vigilance, as Franklin and Jefferson pointed out.

We don't need heroes, just an aware citizenry.


PS.. The Non Profit Foundations... Rockefeller, Guggenheim, etc... they have to go, too.
They erase far to much knowledge from our textbooks to be allowed to continue unchallenged. ( Look up Norman Dodd, Congressional Investigator's interview with G Edward Griffin.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


In your list I do not see the clause where it states that a large mob of people can cause havoc mayhem and terror to a town. I fail to see the stipulation where it cites that a large group can riot freely and destroy private property.

Correct me if I am wrong.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I did not ever see any news reports of a large mob rioting and causing mayhem, unless you are referring to the police officers of that city. I saw Wolf Blitzer on CNN make several references to anarchists just as you have, but I did not see rioting and destroying private property. In fact, I remember watching the news footage of the "civil unrest" in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict and that would scenario fits your description, but of all the footage I saw in Pittsburgh, nothing comes close to what you are describing. There were a few isolated instances of criminal activity and large groups of peaceful protesters who were victims of the mayhem the police caused at that time.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
2. Print our own currency w/o interest.


So anyone can print money...


3. Gradually reduce the volume of currency in circulation. Drive the value back up.


Bit hard to reduce currency in circulation when anyone can print it!



5. Restore the US Constitution. Repeal every ACT that is outside the province of the Federal


Who decides which ones to repeal?


and every Executive Order that smacks of Dictatorial powers assumed by the Executive, Legislative or Judicial Branches.


Who decides which ones to repeal?


7. Remove the restrictions on US Farmers.


what restrictions exactly?


Get the Mega Corporations out of their Monopoly Stranglehold on US Agriculture.


who decides how large a farm can be? What happens to the assets of these "mega corporations", who pays them compensation for destroying them?


8. Stop fluoridating the water supplies.


So you are in the pay of the dentists!


opportunity to work off their sentences (in exchange for future citizenship) as indentured labor.


The start of slavery!


11. Imprison every Congressman or Senator who has accepted "gifts" in exchange for favorable votes to Lobbyists.


No trial necessary, no law broken, just imprison people you want improsoned!


Shutdown "Black Water". Shut Down the "DHS".


Who pays them compensation for shutting them down?


17. Dismantle the CIA,


who does their work?


PS.. The Non Profit Foundations... Rockefeller, Guggenheim, etc... they have to go, too.


so destroy anyone you do not like!

You really are setting up a nice fascist dictatorship there

[edit on 5/1/10 by dereks]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

In your list I do not see the clause where it states that a large mob of people can cause havoc mayhem and terror to a town. I fail to see the stipulation where it cites that a large group can riot freely and destroy private property.

Correct me if I am wrong.


I cannot see it either, they must be keeping it secret



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Ok this is starting to go off topic, but here it is.



So it's free expression to destroy private property?



I suppose a flaming dumpster in the middle of the night is free speech? What, is this a redress of grievance towards waste management?



And this empty police car was somehow oppressing this peaceful protester?

Don't believe the internet hype, These weren't peaceful protesters, they were rioting anarchists with the only agenda of causing destruction mayhem violence and terror to Pittsburgh. They publicized their intent weeks in advance on the internet, even going so far as to list the businesses they were going to target.

This is not covered under free speech. Sorry but rioting is not peaceable assembly. They had a permit and during that permitted time and place there was no problem between the protesters and police. But when these rioters decided that EVERYWHERE was their protest route, well, that's turning peaceable assembly into a riot.

The only reason they didn't get to the level of the riots in LA is because the police were well aware of what they were planning.

Free speech is fine, but just like everything it comes with responsibility.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Nice fallacious attack their whatukno.

You have this stuff down pat don't you.

You guys on this thread are amazing.

Attack, Obfuscate, Deny, Lie, Fallacy, etc etc etc.

Why did I even bother to participate?

You guys must be a collection of provocateurs. Just trying to debate with you gives me a headache.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Again, you point to a few isolated incidences to justify the mayhem the police caused and the abrogation and derogation of rights of what were mostly peaceful protesters. Those criminals should have been dealt with by law enforcement officers, but it did not excuse them for treating everyone as a criminal. This is nothing but obfuscation on your part. Rather than acknowledge that there are state constitutions that prohibit abrogation and derogation of peoples rights, you attempt to present riots where there were not, and while there was indeed criminal activity, it was no where near a riot.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



Like I said, there was no riot because the police cracked down on it before a riot could take place.

This is not obfuscation, this is just cause and effect.

But back to the point. Which would have been better, police using non lethal techniques to placate a riot before it gets out of control. Or property owners with shotguns blowing away people throwing rocks?



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Neither and what you are offering is a fallacious argument in the form of excluded middle. How about this, property owners refrained from blowing peoples brains out and perhaps relied on their right to use shot guns to warn vandals, while calling the police to report these isolated incidences and then the police could have actually been busy arresting criminals rather than abrogating and derogating the rights of innocent people? What would have been wrong with that?



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I guess I can see your point, after all the rioters did in fact warn Pittsburgh that they were going to riot. So maybe warning shots would be necessary. Or the police could have been out in force like they were to deter the rioters from going through with their plan to riot, and thus try and proactively save businesses damage.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


There was no riot in Pittsburgh and you continue to rely upon such mendacity to justify the unconstitutional actions of the Pittsburgh police.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What was unconstitutional? The Pittsburgh police were doing their jobs. Sorry, but the rioters did not have a permit to riot in the middle of the night, nor did they have a permit to protest at all times all over the city. It was a riot. That's it.

While we do have free speech in this country we also must obey the laws that let normal life and commerce continue. It's a balancing act, and these kids were just blatantly ignoring the law and decided that their right to riot trumped other peoples right to have a city they could roam free in.

Jean Paul Zodeaux, we need to drop this, because it's off topic.




top topics



 
18
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join