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.

 

Talk of Armed Revolution on ATS Inappropriate

page: 15
61
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


It is his tactic, interrupt, distract, and derail. He is best on ignore.

That much being said, I enjoyed reading the entire thread. Yes, I read it all. Well, ok except the few posts beneath this one...

I would like to interject one thought into this. If there were not unrest that was felt nationwide to some degree, then why have the states gone so far as to take moves to reconfirm their state rights?

Lets take a look at a few of these, shall we? Washington was one of my favorites, as it directly addresses Obama. Now, before you go off half cocked and start accusing me of things, just read the text:

TO THE HONORABLE BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
2 TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
3 REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
4 UNITED STATES, IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
5 SENATE AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EACH STATE'S
6 LEGISLATURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

We, your Memorialists, the Senate and House of Representatives of
8 the State of Washington, in legislative session assembled, respectfully
9 represent and petition as follows:
10 WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
11 States specifically provides that, "The powers not delegated to the
12 United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
13 are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and
14 WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal
15 power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the
16 Constitution of the United States and no more; and
17 WHEREAS, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers
18 between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as
19 one of America's most valuable contributions to political science; and
1 WHEREAS, James Madison, "the father of the Constitution," said,
2 "The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined.
3 Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and
4 indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external
5 objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The
6 powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects
7 which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties,
8 and properties of the people."; and
9 WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not
10 "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are
11 "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is
12 the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.";
13 and
14 WHEREAS, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that "the people
15 will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium
16 between the general and the state governments." He believed that "this
17 balance between the national and state governments forms a double
18 security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their
19 rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed,
20 they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional
21 limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between
22 them."; and
23 WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means
24 that the federal government was created by the states specifically to
25 be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states; and
26 WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as
27 agents of the federal government; and
28 WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the
29 Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
30 WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v.
31 United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply
32 commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
33 WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and
34 some now being considered by the present administration and from
35 Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;
36 NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve:
37 (1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under
1 the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
2 powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government
3 by the Constitution of the United States; and
4 (2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal
5 government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of
6 the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective
7 immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its
8 constitutionally delegated powers.
9 BE IT RESOLVED, That copies of this Memorial be immediately
10 transmitted to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United
11 States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
12 House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker
13 of the House of Representatives of each state's legislature of the
14 United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of
15 Washington.
--- END ---
www.leg.wa.gov...



Now, I would like to state a few things.

I think Obama was directly named in this, as there were strong suspicions that some of the moves that have been made - would be. I also feel that he was named directly in this so as to allow no room for discussion on exactly who they were talking about. It is all spelled out right there for you.

No quibbling about that, so if and when it comes time for Washingtonians to assert their 10th ammendment rights - there will be no doubt as to what the interpretted cause was, and who did it.

If you read the text of this bill, it defines quite succinctly the dilineation of the seperation of power from the states and the Federal Government, and if and when the states determine the Federal Government has overstepped it's bounds, it will act and react.

Such has been done also in Wyoming, and many other states. In fact, the 10th ammendment assertion from New Hampshire was called "The Shot Heard 'Round The World", and that was in 2009.

Do not fool yourselves for a moment into thinking that any revolution would be "unarmed" or "undefended", becuase as it stands right now, if my recollections are correct, 38 states have now defined their stance against the Federal Government.

If and when it comes down to it, do not think for a moment that a state would not defend its citizens, and do not think that all military would fire upon their own. In fact, we have the Oath Keepers as testament to that fact.

Now, having stated this, I believe the first front in any movement is to start with the state, and the citizens should empower their state representatives to move forward and to do the right thing. Seek out the writers of these ammendment confirmations, and make sure they know that you appreciate and stand behind their assessment. If you do not, then be sure to tell them that also, but expect them to adhere to the rights of the many over the rights of a few.

The worry I think that many have is that the many are becoming the few, and feel that their rights are slipping away, and that no one is listening. If this is how you feel, the find an advocate that is standing for what you believe in and promote them, and encourage others to do the same.

Never should an armed movement seem innappropriate if, as others have said, it is as a last resort, as outlined by our founders.

I have seen a lot of quotes, but I think one that is most important of all is this:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Canadians are always some of the most vocal American haters.

I find that weird since their govt is just a puppet of ours mostly and something like 95% of the population lives as close to the US as possible.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher73
 


Naturally American my lady love. I just got my Canadian citizenship because I do a lot of business up there, I love Canada and the Canadian culture, and I hope to retire to BC someday and become a Canucks season ticket holder. I'll be enjoying my hockey games, smoking my *gasp* legal substances, and enjoying life while you people will be slitting each others throats for nothing down here.


Enjoy.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by watcher73
Canadians are always some of the most vocal American haters.

I find that weird since their govt is just a puppet of ours mostly and something like 95% of the population lives as close to the US as possible.



At least they're not owned by China, nor does every single citizen have $300,000 and growing worth of debt on their head. Are you sure you know who your masters are?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
reply to post by watcher73
 


Naturally American my lady love. I just got my Canadian citizenship because I do a lot of business up there, I love Canada and the Canadian culture, and I hope to retire to BC someday and become a Canucks season ticket holder. I'll be enjoying my hockey games, smoking my *gasp* legal substances, and enjoying life while you people will be slitting each others throats for nothing down here.


Enjoy.


The same way Marc Emery is enjoying his legal substances? Or will be...
Not quite legal up there is it?

I thought Canadian culture was just US culture?

Seems odd that someone from a rich family would have to hope to retire there and become a Canucks season ticket holder. Maybe thats just me conspiring to theorize.

If you are as transparent in real life as you are in your posts you might want to head up now and stay there. Someone with your attitude will never make it if a revolution ever does start here.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic

At least they're not owned by China, nor does every single citizen have $300,000 and growing worth of debt on their head. Are you sure you know who your masters are?


You Canadians have a central bank dont you?

Ah yes...

The Bank of Canada (in French: Banque du Canada) is Canada's central bank. It was created by the Bank of Canada Act of 1934[1], a law giving it a monopoly on the issuance of banknotes. How much money it creates influences the value of the Canadian dollar. Its stated purpose is to "promote the economic and financial well-being of Canada."

Are you sure theyre not owned by China?

You dont seem to very well informed. All of your insults apply to your other homeland as much as this one.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher73
 


Hey I'm an American at heart, I think I would do just fine. As much as I love Canada, I do have to come back every once in awhile. It just doesn't feel right to me unless you see a fist fight break out once in awhile or you hear someone scream "# YOU!" Part of our American Exceptionalism. And trust me, as long as they continue serving happy meals at McDonalds, there will be no revolution.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by av8r007
reply to post by CuriousSkeptic
 


No # it's war. That doesn't worry me. What worries me is people like yourself that wouldn't do it in an honorable way. There is no need to blow up a god damn building to get the fireworks started so to speak. Get a grip.


Whose definition of "honorable" should be followed? would you risk your life, or pass on putting a hurt on the enemy in order to meet some strangers opinion of a an emotion?

re: the post... If talk of revolution is not ok here, then where? is it forboden? the bushbama era has finally put an exclamation point on the fact our vote is useless for persuading the DC mafioso to change the war mongering, immoral, killing, torturing ways they represent us as a people... at the very least people can vent their frustration and release a little steam.

bushbama were not voted into office by the people in any kind of fair open process, the electoral college and supreme court placed these clowns into power.. ONLY AFTER the MSM, corporate banker gangsters & 2 party mafia pimped them as the only legitimate choices.. it's a frik'n intellectually crippled joke to suggest being allowed to choose between a giant douche or turd sandwich is any real choice at all... or comes remotely close to representing the will of the people.

300+ million plus in the US and I'm supposed to believe ONLY 2 metrosexual skull & bonehead manicured eunuch party leader millionare puppet elitists are capable of running the nation?

If we had a real choice, between dozens of candidates.. bush & obama would be struggling used car salesmen... far from where they could kill anyone... except for the poor saps who were duped into buying one of their jalopies.

That said.. all you who care enough to bring ruckus upon the TPTP to effect change, as they say in the ghetto "I feel you" and you have my moral support.. but I'll be long gone on a tropical beach far away enjoying life with the teen bride I acquired by trading the village chief a pair of 501's & iPod...lol... we live on a big planet with lots of cool places to live, violence isn't my scene anymore... I'd rather die of old age than for someones cause.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Okay in a thread about Armed Revolution, let's get into Canadian vs. American economics. Why the # not?

American National Debt: $12,160,801,881,884

Canadian National Debt: $5,000,000,000

Next?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
Okay in a thread about Armed Revolution, let's get into Canadian vs. American economics. Why the # not?

American National Debt: $12,160,801,881,884

Canadian National Debt: $5,000,000,000

Next?


Next? Break it down by population of course.

All of the sudden you want to be on topic?

How about you just grow the eff up?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher73
 


I'm just trying to answer your questions since you seem to have so many of them. I mean if you want to get into a deep debate have at it and tell me what info you'll accept because so far you've just been jumping subjects every time I show why you're wrong. I really think you should just let me help you put the batteries in the remote, it seems a little complicated for you.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
reply to post by watcher73
 


I'm just trying to answer your questions since you seem to have so many of them. I mean if you want to get into a deep debate have at it and tell me what info you'll accept because so far you've just been jumping subjects every time I show why you're wrong. I really think you should just let me help you put the batteries in the remote, it seems a little complicated for you.


I deleted an off topic post of mine a long time ago which did nothing but insult you and asked if we could get back on topic in the edit. That was pages ago. YOU kept going, but like the rest of your posts youd rather blame everyone but yourself.

So I will answer the per capita question


$27,484 USD for every man, woman, and child in the United States

Keep in mind that we have a much smaller population, sitting at around 32,805,041, so our per capita debt load, coverted at today's exchange rate of $1 CAD = $0.863408 USD is around $21,055 USD/Canadian


Canadians owe a mere 6.5k less than us per person....yawn.

No wonder youre so eager to get back on topic.



[edit on 3-1-2010 by watcher73]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher73
 


Yes but Canada isn't engaged in Iraq and their debt has been falling dramatically since they've been quietly pulling out of operations in the middle east. Every Canadian has $21,000 on their head and that number is falling. Every American has $300,000 on their head and that number is rising.

Also the head of their economic department up there says they'll be out of the recession by mid-next year. I know we're already out of ours and prospering with the awesome sauce that is America (our leaders don't lie to us) I'm just stoked that by this time next year I'll have money and not confetti in my wallet.

Continue on with your Canada bashing, it's cute if a little obsessive.


[edit on 3-1-2010 by CuriousSkeptic]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
You guys have fun with this retard.

It must be nice to have citizenship in two countries and not be wanted in either.

Dont worry about having confetti in your wallet. No worries with your rich family.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by watcher73]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Call To Arms


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I agree with you 100%. I, too, am not worried at all about what might happen to the government as a result of these recruitment and solicitation threads. My concern is that (IMO) they violate the Terms and Conditions of ATS, yet nothing is being done about them.

I'm willing to weigh in on a few things here, although they are my own opinions and are thus subject to correction. In particular, only site administrators should be considered final authorities when it comes to any matter of ATS policy.

With that in mind...

Recruiting would presumably involve gathering personal data at some point, but that can take many forms. From obvious ones, like petitions (which can ask for names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. -- an ID thief's dream) to less obvious ones, like "visit this site" (to gather IP addresses) or "email me" (to gather email and IP addresses).

In the broadest sense, any call for political change, even encouragement to vote for a particular political candidate, could be construed as "recruiting", but absent some form of direct solicitation (which is the critical test), such an interpretation would be so all-encompassing as to effectively prohibit advocating any point of view, political platform or even broad concepts such as the existence of extraterrestrial life or the nature of climate change.

Thus general advocacy for revolution not linked with direct solicitation wouldn't in itself qualify as "recruiting" under the T&C, although more specific circumstances might warrant moderator action.

A Sense Of Incitement

That said, the OP has a valid point:


Originally posted by moonzoo7
It's illegal to call for the armed over-throw of our government, as well as for advancing the idea of killing the President. We are a Nation of Laws for a reason.

Technically, this is correct and doing either of these would be a felony punishable by imprisonment up to twenty years under the Smith Act in the U.S. (18 U.S.C. § 2385), although there have apparently been no prosecutions under this act for about half a century.

In the case of threatening the President, the more specific 18 U.S.C. § 871, Threats against President and successors to the Presidency, which allows for a fine and imprisonment up to five years, would probably be invoked.

A more general analysis of the issue can be found here: Advocacy of Unlawful Action and the "Incitement Test"

While it would take a licensed attorney to truly offer an exhaustive analysis and opinion regarding specific cases, the overall impression I get is that under current law, speech which is nonspecific, even speech that might seem threatening in some fashion, is generally protected.

On the other hand, speech which involves direct threats or direct advocacy of violence against specific persons, such as the President, or against specific groups or organizations, including the U.S. government, may violate laws in the U.S. and in other countries.

Such speech would thus be "illicit" and subject to action under the T&C on that basis.

Illicit Activity

From the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use:


Originally posted by SimonGray
2e.) Illicit Activity: Discussion of illicit activities; specifically the use of mind-altering drugs & substances, engaging in computer hacking, promoting criminal hate, dicussing sexual relations with minors, and furtherance of financial schemes and scams are strictly forbidden. You will also not link to sites or online content that contains discussion or advocacy of such material. Any post mentioning or advocating personal use of illicit mind-altering drugs will result in immediate account termination.

Although the provision lists specific examples, it applies to discussion of any illicit activity. Of course, we discuss illicit activities all the time on ATS, from common crimes to international conspiracies, but the key issue is that we discuss illicit activity on the part of others.

Using ATS as a place to advocate, plan, confess to or otherwise discuss direct involvement with criminal activities is definitely prohibited and may result in immediate account termination.

So ATS would not be the place to plot the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, for example.

The Better Part Of Valor

The question of what is appropriate to discuss on ATS is subject to a wide range of interpretations. Although the terms & conditions offer a lot of guidance, they can't anticipate or enumerate every specific case, and each member -- moderators included -- will tend to have differing opinions on how they may apply in a given situation.

When in doubt, moderators are encouraged to give members the benefit of that doubt. Thus we may choose not to act on some complaints that would seem (and may very well be) justified. We catch a lot of heat for that, but I still think it's the best way to approach enforcement.

Ultimately, when such questions arise, it's up to the ATS staff to use our best discretion and make the call.

Members are always welcome to U2U us or submit a complaint in cases where they may disagree with a decision, but the decisions are binding unless rescinded or modified by the staff (T&C 5b) Cooperation and 8) Right of Community Management).

In closing, with as long as this post is, there's plenty more to the issue, but hopefully this sheds some light on one moderator's perspective on things.








[edit on 1/3/2010 by Majic]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher73
 


Too bad I already have a girlfriend because I think I'm in love.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
When all the dumbed down slaves start starving and have to choose between gas for work or feeding their children and wonder why the government can afford to send thousands to kill thousands in useless oil wars and be killed. When they finally wake up to the truth that they all have been had and liberty starts to become in their minds just an illusion and death is eminent anyways the people will rise up and they will view the statesmen that ignored their pleas for less gov more liberty and a return to sound economic policy, as nothing more than pure sh ite for the garden. YES they will and they will revolt but it will be too late by then. Even the revolutionaries knew the time was right long before it got to that point of being too late. All these little programed,MSM coolaid drinking, cant think for themselves, liberals and conservatives that cant see they are living in a fascist state with a two headed political party, that need security and are afraid to carry any cash or even leave a door unlocked will be just be manure too, for those that aren't afraid to die for freedom. Id suggest when it comes guys like the OP get out of the way because America is a sleeping giant that when gets hungry will eat the fatted cows of congress for lunch. It may be this year with all the dire forecasts of food shortages, water shortages, dollar devaluation. Get over it OP Its free speech. Thats what makes freedom freedom. God help me but I hate moronic followers of TPTB. I hope to God Guys like you OP are the first to experience it because thats when real men and women of valor and patriotism appear and that may even be you OP. Trial by fire is coming will see how you feel when US troops are in your streets and the hell breaks lose. Im a woman, but I think men that talk like that are sissified babies that need to wake up. "Those that relinquish Liberty for security deserve neither" phew that feels better.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by Barkster]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Sitting in his living room remote in one hand and a coke in the other will not change a lot of things.
You can speak up for your rights or whatever reason, because of the Freedom of Speech, but you can't be such a radical expressing the need for an armed revolution, especially in a country like yours in which you can buy a gun easily.
No matter what you say, any embryo of armed revolution in the US will be crushed.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by MattMulder

Sitting in his living room remote in one hand and a coke in the other will not change a lot of things.
You can speak up for your rights or whatever reason, because of the Freedom of Speech, but you can't be such a radical expressing the need for an armed revolution, especially in a country like yours in which you can buy a gun easily.
No matter what you say, any embryo of armed revolution in the US will be crushed.


When a state gets some balls and starts nullifying federal laws that violate the 10th amendment, you'll have what meets the definition of a revolt.

When the states did that under Lincoln, he engaged in a war that killed more American's than WWII.

We'll see what the Feds do this time.

It will happen. Its only a matter of time until it does.

This time though, most of our military is from the south
They aren't going to be following orders to depose state governments.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by moonzoo7
 


Where does it say overthrow of government is illegal? Last time I checked, it was a right and duty.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Anyone remember this little document, or have you all consigned to bleat loudly and ignorantly while the rest of the flock walks right off the cliff with you?




top topics



 
61
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join