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

page: 20
18
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I didn't bring up any riots, whatuknow, you did! I called you on your assertion that the 10th Amendment gave states the right to hinder peaceful assembly and free speech. You continue to frame the protesters as rioters which is untrue. There was a criminal element and I have acknowledged this, but there was also a large group of peaceful protesters who were forced away from the area near the G20 summit by the law enforcement. It is you who refuses to acknowledge there were peaceful protesters, you who refuses to acknowledge that the Pennsylvania constitution makes clear that the people have every right to protest peacefully, and you who went off topic.




posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by whatukno
 



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


endisnigh.............

And when the criticism or questions gets to uncomfortable, you start with the crybaby, whining and namecalling. This is ATS not your college debating club for Christs sake. There are no formal rules of debate here.
The only rule is to stay within the T&C. Why don't you just put us on ignore and make us your foe. That would solve your problem.



If you can't run with the big dogs stay on the porch!







[edit on 5-1-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


See, another example.

I enjoy debate, this is not debate it is slinging mud.

You are right though, I should quit taking it personal.

You know all the leftwing totalitarians keep saying the God fearing are going to kill the president.

Everyone of them are just a bunch of NAZI wannabes. They hope they can get them to start an uprising so they can put them in the ovens at the FEMA camps.

BETTER?

You just want us to stoop to your level so that you can point out SEE!

You are much t0o obvious to me. And I will not ignore you, that is what you want. You do not want anyone pointing out your fallacies. You may not be paid for your work but you still serve the same purpose.

DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

You even stated earlier you wanted the free for all attacks, because it is what you want.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Actually you brought it up.

I was responding to you trying to get me to for some reason take some weird oath. Some strange pledge of allegiance to your cause.





[edit on 1/5/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Actually you brought it up.

I was responding to you trying to get me to for some reason take some weird oath. Some strange pledge of allegiance to your cause.





[edit on 1/5/2010 by whatukno]


There is absolutely nothing about the post of mine that you linked that is off topic. There is nothing in that link that mentions anything about Pittsburgh, or rioting or any of the nonsense you went off on a tangent with.

As to your claim that I was attempting to take an oath, weird or other wise, I was responding to your evasiveness to my question of whether you could drop the hyperbole and find something in which we might agree. Clearly you're not willing to drop the hyperbole.

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



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



As to your claim that I was attempting to take an oath, weird or other wise, I was responding to your evasiveness to my question of whether you could drop the hyperbole and find something in which we might agree. Clearly you're not willing to drop the hyperbole.


If a person is wanting to change this government through constitutional means, I.E. electing candidates that more conform along constitutional lines and work towards establishing a more constitutional federal government than yes I could agree.

As for the assertion that free speech zones are unconstitutional, I have to disagree. While it is important to be able to practice our right to peaceable protest. The right of the citizens of the community also must be addressed. When a protest causes even one person from being able to freely go about their business when that business has nothing to do with the protest, it undermines the freedoms of that individual.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Thank you for that clarification and willingness to find agreement. In fact, I was tempted in my last post to challenge the whole permitting thing but you make a valid point with the right of people to continue to do business as usual. Of course, what I mean by "free speech zones" are those horrible chain linked fence scenarios where protesters are corralled into some kind of make shift cell. Parades are permitted all the time and when there is a parade the planned route for that parade will impede the daily flow of some peoples business. I live in Los Angeles, where film companies are constantly blocking off whole city blocks from the public to shoot their scenes.

There should be no reason that protesters can't be afforded the very same consideration and treated with the same respect. Thanks again for finding a way in which we might agree with each other. That's a revolution I can get behind!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Hi there everyone,

I'm not sure what to say.
About 2 pages ago, we seemed to be headed toward a review of Endisnigh's document.

What happened?

Here we are again. A pet peeve firefight, accusations going back and forth, and nothing productive going on.

Some person shows up and floats some fodder, people just the take BS and run with it.

How about a dose of reality. There are no agent provocateurs on either side on this thread.

What I see is a fight between Whatukno with Jean Paul, Whaa duking it out with JD, Endisnighe jumping in when he feels put upon.

So what are you doing guys and gals?

In terms of the OP and the ensuing free for all. We gain nothing by fighting personal battles. It's easy to type a bunch of nasty stuff, and ram it in.

It's easier to fight, than to debate the document "ON BOTH SIDES"

Actually, we could leave out all the personal attacks and have an interesting discussion about what Endisnighe produced. I have read through it a few times, and I have a bunch of question, comments, and food for thought I would like to be able to discuss without all the distraction.

Don't get me wrong. Most people that come to ATS, and other forums like a good flame war. It's part of Internet tradition to fight the good fight.

In this case, we have an opportunity to perhaps have a discussion that sheds light on the thinking of both ideological camps.

So far we are not using the opportunity to elucidate on the point, but we sure are ready to waste it wagging our appendages at each other.

Personally, I don't think this is going to work. Not as it is being done. I'm the OP but I have no illusions of leadership here, I only speak for myself. I have never had a U2U with anyone on this thread, or a private email.

There is no stacking of the deck here on either side that I know of.

I'm not going to join the fight here, unless somebody launches some spurious personal attack, or accuses me directly of something.

The OP was specific in what it asked, If you get your Revolution, Then what?

It did not say, Liberals, and Left wingers, come on over so we can trick, and goad self defined, Patriots / Birthers/ TeaBaggers, Whomever into revolting so we can then get them all put into FEMA camps.

The Left, the Liberals, and the Democrats are not advocating a revolt, peaceful or otherwise. They have the GOV. Most of them want things just as they are, some want Obama to be more Left, some want Obama to be more centric, but I have never heard a leftist, or a liberal advocate the removal of the elected administration.

If you came to this thread, and you identify with the groups named on the OP, then you either advocate some sort of revolution, violent or non-violent, or you came here to dissuade other right wingers from doing so.
Possibly you are here to explain your ideology.

If you are not here for any of those reasons then you are only here to vent. That's unavoidable, but I would hope it would be the minority of people.

I get the feeling there are people on both sides that genuinely want to discuss their ideology. As much as Endisnighe's ideas freak me out, I think it's better to discuss them with him, than challenging him to a modern day duel. I have seen what the guys who wrote the document were saying as they wrote it.

There was no smoking gun evidence that they are all a bunch of idiots, or committed Revolutionist, or totally insane. What I saw was people putting their minds together to accomplish something. Regardless of what I may feel the document represents, it wasn't a conspiracy to deny me rights. That in my opinion would be the net result, but the agenda was not intentionally to take my rights, but to get more rights for them/us according to what they believe.

Deathshield can tell you I have no problem posting what he considers an insane accusatory post. We ran into each other on another thread. He told me I am completely insane, and should look in the mirror to see my own hate and some other character flaw(s). Fine no problem DS, I'm not going to spend time, arguing my sanity, that would only reinforce your characterization. No I'm not crazy, you are...Sounds like 6 year olds.

On this thread, DS told us all his background. I could have taken a few cheap shots at him on that thread, but there was no point to it other than revenge for calling me whatever. But most important of all, that thread was about a video and accusations of racism. I responded to him with a milk-toast post, and went my merry way. I don't hate the guy, he disagreed/disliked my post, and if it came to blows eventually, or bullets, so be it, but we are not there yet.

I believe the people already here, could write a point for point, rational rebuttal to the document. That would be the best way to do it in my opinion.

I have a lot of opinions, like everyone else here, but not all of them are appropriate in this thread. Context is everything.

I want to make a proposal to you all that may make sense to some of us.
I just created 2 new threads that will satisfy our need for debating, and let this thread be on topic. Post there if you feel you want to discuss outside of the rather narrow scope of this thread.

1. Hypothetically Speaking, You Want a Revolution?, State Your Case.
Link

2. You are POTUS, take the Bully Pulpit and show us the way.
Link

This way there is no question about, who wants what, and nobody can say it's a Right wing, or Left wing reverse psychology baiting.

If the threads are ok with ATS, have fun.

Ziggy



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I would like to state the I feel the left are the ones who are opressive. You want EVERYONE to live as they see fit and EVERYONE to chip in monetarily to help guide morals and ethics but those two things (moral and ethics) are very subjective and you will never get 300 million people to agree on every issue that requires moral and ethical lines. You say what will the revolutionists do with the ones who did not want it? I say nothing, it isn't a matter of controlling people it is a matter of freeing people and allow the individual states and communities to live as they see fit, if you want socialized medicine go to California, if you want to be responsible for your self go to Texas for example, let each state has it's own flavor, it is the only way to peacefully resolve opposing opinions of government control.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by equistar]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by equistar
I would like to state the I feel the left are the ones who are opressive. You want EVERYONE to live as they see fit and EVERYONE to chip in monetarily to help guide morals and ethics but those two things (moral and ethics) are very subjective and you will never get 300 million people to agree on every issue that requires moral and ethical lines. You say what will the revolutionists do with the ones who did not want it? I say nothing, it isn't a matter of controlling people it is a matter of freeing people and allow the individual states and communities to live as they see fit, if you want socialized medicine go to California, if you want to be responsible for your self go to Texas for example, let each state has it's own flavor, it is the only way to peacefully resolve opposing opinions of government control.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by equistar]


Hi Thanks for posting.

Is this a response to my OP? or to someone in particular?

I agree you'd be hard pressed to find anything 300 million people would all agree with, not even the need for breathing.

That's why "I" believe we need something called "Governance" in some fashion. The alternative is Anarchy.

I know some will disagree. The book "Lord of The Flies" comes to mind.

I thought every State already had it's own flavor. Your reference to Texas, would tend to indicate you believe it to have it's own flavor already,

I'm of the opinion, that "having" to move to another State to find my own personal freedom, flies in the face of what the "United States" represents.

I'm staying put where I am, I like my State, and I'm going to try to work on it the way the Constitution stipulates. I like the Constitution.

There are laws in my state that I don't agree with. We have elections, and representatives, I have seen the system work and fail. When it works, I'm happy, when it fails, I do what I can to change it.

We just had a failure of the system here but we let it happen, our bad. Now we have to deal with it.

We all want to live as we see fit. No matter what you do, this is not possible, even if we repealed all the laws, burned the Constitution, and declared a free for all.

How long before 1 person decided to step on the next person's (?) way of life? We could call whatever we want a right in a state of Anarchy.

A right implies that there is some mechanism to sustain it. If the only mechanism is self defense, then only the strongest, best armed person, or organized group would rule. Is that what you advocate? I don't think so.

This entire question is precisely about States rights. That is the proverbial Elephant in the room. The difference of opinion for the most part has to do with an age old question.

What should the role of centralized government be? If there was no disagreement there, we would not be having this conversation.

Who do you trust to lead? Your President, your Governor, your Senator, your Congressman, your Mayor, your Police Chief, your Sheriff? your Neighbor, Yourself?

If I start with the President, Not really.
The Governor, no.
The Mayor? No way.
The Senators? are you kidding?
The Congressmen, not the ones from my State, or any State.
The Police Chief? No in fact a recent one is in Jail
The Sheriff? I don;t even know who that is where I live. So no.
The Neighbor? If I trusted them I would not have a lock.

Personally, I only trust myself in that context, but, I'm 56, too late for me to take over my fiefdom. A younger stronger guy will eventually come and kill me, take my stuff, game over. Law of the Jungle.

It's no easy trick to be free. I don't have answers for you, mostly questions.

In my case, out of all the mentioned officials, I trust the President more than the other ones.

You can disagree, but is that not my right under the Constitution?

On this thread, one guy says, I want gay people to be able to get married.
Another says, no, they can have a union with all the rights of married people but no 'Marriage.

Both have a point of view, both are Americans, they agree on a lot of things, but not Gay marriage. So who's right? In an Anarchy, it's a moot point.

Let's explore causation. Why are so many people opposed to it being a Marriage as opposed to a Union. There is only one answer to this, Religion.

Ok I get it. Marriage is said to be a Religious rite. But is it? Depends who you ask. But let's say it is. Ok then, if you were not married by a Priest/Minister/Witch Doctor/etc, are you Married? Depends who you ask again.

So it's really about the word/concept, what the "label" represents.

If you love freedom, why do you have a problem with the Gay people who want to be married? Are you not imposing your will, dogma, and religious conviction on the Gays? I think you are. I'm not Gay, or religious, so I say, let them get Married. I was married by an official of the State, legal, binding, everybody was happy. No problem. Got divorced same way.

What's a Common Law Marriage? Common Law.... Is it Legal, you betcha. Is Common Law valid? I would think so, but again depends where you are.

In Spanish Married is Casado, the literal translation is "enhoused" meaning housed, or in the same abode or residence. In English it comes from the Latin mas Link meaing "man". First found in English in the 13th century. Not exactly enshrined in religion. For the purists we have Matrimony
Link from the Latin "mater" or Mother

According to History, to call it a Marriage, would be OK it has absolutely nothing to do with a woman if the Gays are male. But by the same measure then you could not accurately call it a Matrimony if the gays are male, but in the case of Lesbians it would be fine according to history and language.

Illuminating when you actually research it. If the objection is based on Religion, it has no basis because the words origins have nothing to do with Religion. Plain and simple, it's a denial of rights to Gay people based on ignorance of the Etymology of the 2 words. Freedom of Religion does not apply in this case, only freedom of way of life. So tell me who's rights are abrogated when Gays get married?

So my friend, welcome to the thread.

Ziggy



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
It's not the system in place that is failing us. The system itself needs no overhaul. Here's what needs to be done..

1. LOBBYING is a conflict of interests. It needs to be made illegal.
2. THE FED has become all powerful, corrupt, and is operating outside their charter.
3. POLITICAL offices should be voluntary and non profit!!
4. ELECTIONS should be for anyone. Set aside a budget for campaigning for the final two candidates. Both sides get the same amount to work with. To get to those final two.. hmm.. I don't know.. how many people try out for American Idol?? How fast do they get down to the final few? Sounds like a reasonable time line to me.
5. TAXES for the US' public services only!! Just ONE tax. Not every time money changes hands. The way it is now calling it double dipping is laughable.
6. ONE bill, one law. All the off topic addendums they add to bills they know will be passed into law is WRONG.

So that's what you do. Not a different system, just make it work like it's supposed to. Take ALL the profit out of government. Leave economic institutions to their own devices with broad generic laws, leave people in control of their lives, and deal with the rest as it comes.

Government has no place in morals or ethics!!! To each their own.. NO legislation against things people do just because it offends someone. You worry about you and I'll worry about me. If something I do directly takes your money or property then it is wrong. If something I do directly offends you then STFU and stay away from me..


[edit on 5-1-2010 by PayMeh]

[edit on 5-1-2010 by PayMeh]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by PayMeh
 


Simple and effective really isn't it. So many are out to fight against those very changes though.

The only thing I have concern for though is lobbying. I understand everyone means the lobbying done by K Street where money is interchanging hands and muddles the politics. That part of lobbying needs to be controlled and reigned in.

The general public, along with non-profits, should still retain the right to lobby their public officials. No exchange of gifts, money or personal favors.

As a everyday citizen, I should be able to either by myself or with a group, lobby my representative. Not pay him off, not offer sweet loans or perks.....just lobby.

To wholly outlaw and ban the people from influencing their representatives I find to be a direct attack on free speech as stated in the First Amendment.

Again: money, gifts, and perks should be excluded. The People or groups of people that wish to influence their representatives should have every right to do so.

That said.....one must change the corporate structure.......



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Of course.. The funded lobbying is what I meant to say needs to be made illegal. Public "for your consideration" lobbying is what makes the system work. The sad part is the system was corrupt as far back as Andrew Jackson who BTW was the last publicly elected common man president. Fought tooth and nail against paper money... led with his heart and held true to his convictions regardless if it rubbed others the wrong way. It's a shame they got the last laugh and put him on the 20 dollar bill..


[edit on 5-1-2010 by PayMeh]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PayMeh
 


For true and quite sad isn't it that a lot can be traced back so far in terms of where things are wrong or perceived wrong.

I wasn't saying you were meaning all lobbying, but some will take it as such if things are not clearly stated. I commend your clear cut, simple list because they are basic things that all could work on to break down, change and fix within our current limits of elections, legislation, local/state issues and so on.

Glad to have discussed with you Paymah!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


Hello Ziggy, I have been reading this thread with great interest, Endisnighe has made some very good points and I would say the the fourth branch of government is already in place it just hasn't been enforced for it is the voters. Any other branch of government would leave open for more cronyism and corruption.

I personally have never said that I oppose gay marriage, it is a religious rite and if a church says they can get married, they are married and two people can get rings and make vows to each other if they so desire that type of possession. As far as marriage goes I say if you want to make a contract with another human being under the rules of religion go right ahead but what right does government federal or local have to do with it unless it wants to give an unfair advantage tax wise to whoever it gives the subsidy to (individual or married couple). Whoever one chooses to find love and compassion with is really not my concern, making marriage a taxbreak is, I think we should either have a fair tax or flat % tax on individuals only, just because you are married should not mean you get a tax break.

One has to start with their local government, their city council, one must become interested in the laws which are dictated by the active voters in that town. If you by some reason are in the minority then you have the freedom in the US to move to a different town where maybe you have a bigger influence and are surrounded by people who embrace your political ideology. I say that is the beauty of the US. You say well I don't want to move but the majority want to force me to pay what they considered my 'fair' share to help my neighbor succeed (even possibly at the detriment of your own success), again I say that's the beauty of a Democratic Republic. If it was controlled by the Federal Government then where could you go to find the views you desire? I only used CA and TX as examples only, it could be any state. Why should EVERY state conform to the rules that less than 500 people get to decide on? Why should a senator in one state be able to make laws that affect residents in another state? The citizens did not vote for that person nor did they have any say on whether that senator could be voted in so why should he decide the type of taxes, regulations, and subsidies that affect you? Montana has no speed limits on some of their roads, New York has limits on all roads, that's what I mean by flavor. New Hampshire you have open carry gun laws, the laws are different in CA, why can't healthcare be the same?

To try to play holier than thou and pretend to know what is best for every individual is very pompous and I find the faith of the Progressive and especially the Progressive Atheist to be very evangelical indeed, by that I mean they are like the Jehovah witness or Evangelical Christian who try to guilt you into believing what they believe is the only way to be whether it is Jesus with his heaven and hell or the fearmongering of man-made global climate change. If I had to classify myself I would say that I am a carnivorous agnostic libertarian and anyone else can be whatever the hell they want to be as long as they leave me alone. Don't tell me I can't eat meat, don't tell me I have to eat veggies or harmful carbs, don't tell me I have to go to the doctor and if I do get sick let me negiotiate without a middleman if I so choose. I do random acts of kindness on a regular basis but would be resentful if you told me who and how much I had to do and give.

Remember the Golden Rule people, I don't care what your beliefs or faiths are, that statement will take you far.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I really wouldn't know where to begin in terms of new policies. I do however believe strongly in political transparency. By that I mean no politician ever would be able to have a personal life while he or she is in office. Further I support a full character and background disclosure of all politicians. No one that has ties with any corporation or business would be allowed to run for office. If one should want to run for office they will be given a federal grant of funds for the sole purpose of promotion and staffing. One who holds the prospect of being president should have knowledgeable experience of all living classes that they would rule over and must be a verified educated person. Also, any politician should go through a probation period at the start of their term where in if the constituents are unhappy they alone can remove he/she from office with a vote of no confidence.

Such things would ensure a competent, trustworthy, and uncorrupted ruler.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Hanzilla]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by yenko13
Stick to the constitution

Lower taxes

stop illegal immigration

Put troops at the southern border where there is a war worse than The middle east

stop the gays from teaching school kids

no bail outs

no welfare for more than 6 months

rewrite the trade laws to favor us instead of them

"Stop the gays from teaching school kids?"

ATS Staff, I will not be angry if I get a warning for this post...

Yenko, are you being ignorant on purpose, or are you that callow and evil, that you really hold that view? Why have blacks teach? Let's roll back the changes we made for them.

This whole movement is so dumb...

It's only supported by wackos who post on the internet, and then after they're done with their rants, they grab their coffees to go watch House in their warm homes in the suburbs.

You people ARE JOKES.

Not one of you are able to do what you say. You spit... You actually spit on what the Founding Fathers did.

Stop playing pretend and grow up.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

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



Well this could go two ways, I will post as if the Patriots/Birthers/Teabaggers won and took over the government.

First off, mass graves for anyone that had any Left leanings would have to be dug. Probably would be dug by hand by Slaves thanks to the 13th Amendment being thrown out for the "original 13th Amendment".

Massive book burnings would be held to burn anything like "The Origin of Species"

Public Schools would be shut down, history and science books burned.

Congress and Government would resume thanks to "special elections" and the only party remaining would get down to business.

English only laws would be passed.

Christian only laws would be passed.

Anyone found speaking a language other than English or practicing a faith other than Christian would probably be shot or hung. (more mass graves)

Thanks to the 13th Amendment being thrown out, and all subsequent amendments that aren't a part of the only few laws that would be in existence, Women and anyone else other than white landowners would loose the right to vote, anyone else would be considered property.

USA has massive military and 99% of the budget would go to that military. All persons too poor to afford private education would be conscripted into that military and sent to war with anyone that isn't the United States. After the mandatory 10 years in military life, the conscript would return to life in the United States where they would only be able to hold jobs that fit their social family status.

Pretty much sums up what this country would look like if the above people won a violent revolution.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



Either you are a troll or you are the worst debater i have ever seen in my life. Again, construct an argument that is not made out of strawmen.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by DeathShield
 


Thats just how I see it if the above people won a violent overthrow of the government. It may be incorrect, but I doubt it.





new topics
 
18
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join