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: 22
61
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Talk of armed rebellion is entirely a good thing as it is broadcast through the channels to Washington and the Powers that Be and gives them pause to think and wonder.

It’s very similar to when your girlfriend says I know you have been cheating on me, spending all your money on drugs and gambling again, and won’t even remember my birthday in 2 days.

Automatically the first thing you think is “Oh Wow, how the heck am I going to remember to remember her birthday in 4 days!”

It is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease!




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
people aint ready for revolution.............



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Welp, seeing as having a ron paul sticker can label you a threat to homeland security, im pretty sure that ats should by no means allow talk of violence against anything/anyone on the boards, for the sake of ats itself. You should be banned at once, and considered a saboteur to the site. Thats just common sence!!!



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
LOL

I'm sorry but life really, really, really has to suck before you can start a revolution or find yourself in one.

I don't care how poor we get the USA will always be a comfortable place except where self created misery is enabled... Water Food, Resources, Open Space.... all here, it will NEVER get "That" bad... aside from where we create it via greed...

And in tough times, Greed can be fixed... you can't make a Desert grow food though...


Revolution?

I have a Wii, a full fridge of food, I net access, 1000 channels of Cable a Huge local Library and i'm in a beautiful spot...

I get mad at a lot, and they get away with it FOR this reason...

But it will Take A LOT more... to get most of us to hit the woods with rifles to fend of an army in winter time...

Kids watching spongebob, i'm cooking a steak and opening a really nice wine... who the hell's running out for the revolt? A century ago their were Kings who didn't get to mack like I do...

They piss me off lol... But they would seriously have to do something nasty that directly affects me to get me out the door geared up and ready to go....

We actually hit those moments here on ats dreaming up scenarios... so people talk about it...

I Love "what if's"

But to date in 20 years + as a conspiracy theory kind of guy....

Nuthin...

Nuthin worth burying a good wine and sleeping in dirt and leaving behind women for...



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 



If you dated a skank that slept around on you, I would not be mad at you even if you knew going in what you were getting yourself into. I would still be mad at her for sleeping around and hurting you.


You should be mad at me, should say, WTF! Dude, that chick has been rode more than a circus pony, what were you thinking, and yes it is a problem if it burns when you pee!


We may disagree on things but I still respect you as a person.
you would be one of the rare few on this board that do.


But when it comes right down to it, I think the country and the people as a whole would be safer with 100 or so disorganized militias of 10 million people fighting a haphazard rebellion than having 50, 000 would be political assassins sneaking around trying to bring about their idea of change from the barrel of a gun.


Can't argue with that point. Seemed to have worked the first time.


It is said that we, as a whole, are about 9 missed meals away from pandemonium at any given time. Telling them to eat cake didn't turn out very well the last time. By letting the government know that they are constantly watched and evaluated will keep them from saying, here you can just lick the bowl.


Qu'ils mangent de la brioche

Parley?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Talk of armed rebellion is entirely a good thing as it is broadcast through the channels to Washington and the Powers that Be and gives them pause to think and wonder.



But remember the boy who cried wolf, or however that saying goes!



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this but I feel it needs to be pointed out. For those of you that keep insisting that the military must support the constitution and think that they will support any for of uprising to replace the "radical" government you my want to actually look at the constitution to see what it says about the armed forces and insurrections.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by moonzoo7
It's illegal to call for the armed over-throw of our government,


Then how do you explain the United States, and how it was established, and the actions and words of the Founding Fathers?


That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the 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.--
CONGRESS, July 4, 1776


Honestly, I don't understand how people in America today, just don't get it. Perhaps, a debate of sorts in is order. I would be willing to debate this topic, it's been years since my last one.

Another post, like many of mine, and thread repeat the same answer. Year, after year and still the same thing. History truely does repeat...

Same stuff, different day.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ADVISOR
 



Then how do you explain the United States, and how it was established, and the actions and words of the Founding Fathers?


Advisor, the American revolution was an act of high treason against the British crown. In all reality, it was illegal.

Thankfully we won the war, otherwise, our founding fathers would have most likely been hung for treason.


Honestly, I don't understand how people in America today, just don't get it. Perhaps, a debate of sorts in is order. I would be willing to debate this topic, it's been years since my last one.


I would be happy to take that debate, set it up, and I will be glad to debate you on that subject.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
LOL

I'm sorry but life really, really, really has to suck before you can start a revolution or find yourself in one.


Right on. Unfortunately the same truism seems to apply to virtually any sort of involvment in supervising one's elected representatives.

I know there are activists among the public, but America has a history of low voter turn out and an amazing disinterest in the activities of lobbyists and in the crimes and criminal connections of certain government departments and prominent political personalities.

William Shirer quotes a Roman writer, Titus Livy, on the decline of Rome:

We reached those last days when we could endure neither our vices nor their remedies.

p.17, The Collapse of the Third Republic, Simon and Schuster.

I hope that is not America's position.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
I believe that those that would usurp this Constitutionally Elected government do so because they have no ideas on how to change this government the right way.

You keep bringing out the phrase "Constitutionally elected government" like it's some form of "holy grail." Or have you forgotten that very few elections over (at least) the past 20 years have not been surrounded by controversial issues? These are the types of issues that concern actual accountability for a good, clean count of votes. Even as much as ACORN, for example, has been known to practice voter fraud, do you think there's no connection that Obama still openly supports ACORN's work?


Originally posted by whatukno
Because of the massive amount of voter fraud. Yes, I know it would be funny to elect ol Wukky POTUS, but the next day, while nursing a 5 alarm hangover, the nation would wonder "Why god, why!"

I sort of wonder why you seem to have such a "double standard" when first talking about "Constitutionally elected" representatives, then turn around & admit to the existence of "voter fraud?" So which is it really that you believe in? As those two statements contradict each other, they can't both be true.

So, after taking these issues into account, can you honestly say that you've done the research to actually confirm, beyond reasonable doubt as required by the Due Process of Law, that these elections really are performed according to Constitutional & Lawful procedures?

The main problem is that this nation was conceived with a government "by the people & for the people," yet we're not really electing "representatives" if those "representatives" openly flout the word of the very same people they're supposed to represent. The current practice in D.C. is nothing less than a criminal cartel, practicing "back room deals" & using taxpayer's money/credit to offer bribes back & forth, all to secure deals that the majority of People themselves refuse.


Originally posted by TheBorg
reply to post by whatukno
 

Would you at least admit that the Founders left armed revolt as an option to the People, if all peaceable means fail?

Unfortunately, some people tend to ignore the part about armed revolt as being the last option available under Constitutional Law. Peaceful methods have been undertaken already & have been getting continually stalled. Government Officials have even gone so far as to deny any accountability on their part. Everything that appears in the Constitution & Bill of Rights was included to have positive effect. That is to say, if the Founders didn't have some way for the People to enforce something in the Constitution, they wouldn't have put it in there in the first place. For example, the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances was meant to have a positive effect to get the government to comply with proper & Lawful Redress...Yet they continue to ignore any proper Petitions written to initiate any corrections.

Truth to be told, we're running out of peaceful options...Those that are in the works have been getting ignored, blocked & even derided by those who are lawfully accountable for their actions while under Oath. I've already mentioned a few of the last peaceful options in earlier posts...I merely feel pity for those people who can't drum up the patience that's required to see what overall effect they might have. So far, I've seen some positive results, but so far, not enough to make any significant difference in reigning in the criminal pundits.


Originally posted by atcwatcher
Remember this is a democracy of the people without which the world could not watch, could not imitate, and could not admire!

I can't agree with that particular part of your speech...The rest of it sounded pretty good to me, but this is one point I couldn't agree with. This nation was not founded as a Democracy & even more, would be a violation of Constitutional Law to become a Democracy. Please refer to Article 4, Section 4 if you have any trouble remembering what form of government we really should have. The corruption in government has also gone so far as to propagandize false ideas in the Public itself. All of their talk about the "support of democracy" & the "spread of democracy" around the world is really sickening, when every word in praise of Democracy is spoken under breech of Oath of Office. Even if We the People were to demand our government change into a democracy, they could not actually do it without violating the Constitution they swear/affirm an Oath of Office to serve. In short, not even an overwhelming public mandate to sacrifice any of our Constitutional Law is permitted; the only thing that would make it permissible is a duly ratified Amendment, which is something Congress would not be able to accomplish with all of the current corruption present.


Originally posted by redj1
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this but I feel it needs to be pointed out. For those of you that keep insisting that the military must support the constitution and think that they will support any for of uprising to replace the "radical" government you my want to actually look at the constitution to see what it says about the armed forces and insurrections.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

That is true, but you also have to consider the Oath of Office taken by all military personnel too. That Oath includes "defending & upholding the Constitution," "defending against all enemies foreign & domestic" & "obeying all lawful orders by designated superiors." Yeah, I'm familiar with that Oath (& you can even look it up to get all specifics) & what these three conditions also mean;
#1: If their "designated superiors" are flouting the Law & issuing Unconstitutional orders, then those orders must be disobeyed.
#2: When government officials act as enemies to the People & the nation as a whole, then they become "domestic enemies" & must be disobeyed; even more, they must be resisted.
#3: When their "designated superiors" issue orders that would cause a soldier to violate his/her own Oath to "defend & uphold the Constitution," then the soldier must honor that Oath above giving any honor to rank.
#4: The condition in Article 1, Section 8 first calls for executing "the Laws of the Union," which includes their own Oath of Office & all of the Constitution...When the "designated superiors" are violating Constitutional Law, they also revoke any Lawful authority that was granted by the Constitution. In short, soldiers would actually be obeying the Law & Honoring their Oath by resisting the government.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 




Originally posted by whatukno
I believe that those that would usurp this Constitutionally Elected government do so because they have no ideas on how to change this government the right way.


You keep bringing out the phrase "Constitutionally elected government" like it's some form of "holy grail." Or have you forgotten that very few elections over (at least) the past 20 years have not been surrounded by controversial issues? These are the types of issues that concern actual accountability for a good, clean count of votes. Even as much as ACORN, for example, has been known to practice voter fraud, do you think there's no connection that Obama still openly supports ACORN's work?


Well, come back and try that again when you learn the difference between voter registration fraud, and voter fraud. ACORN was accused of voter registration fraud. In fact there is a large difference between voter registration fraud and actual voter fraud. However, your not actually interested in the difference between the two. Because the difference would mean that this last election was actually for the most part clean except for the registrations of people that did not exist. Thankfully the fictitious could not vote, so the point of committing that voter registration fraud is in fact pointless, except to the people that were being paid per person they register.



Originally posted by whatukno
Because of the massive amount of voter fraud. Yes, I know it would be funny to elect ol Wukky POTUS, but the next day, while nursing a 5 alarm hangover, the nation would wonder "Why god, why!"


I sort of wonder why you seem to have such a "double standard" when first talking about "Constitutionally elected" representatives, then turn around & admit to the existence of "voter fraud?" So which is it really that you believe in? As those two statements contradict each other, they can't both be true.


In the above instance, we were talking about a fictitious internet based election system. I was merely showing the inherent problems with that idea, but the only way it seems that you could make a point out of that was to completely take it out of context, I did not contradict myself, you misrepresented what I said in a deliberate and quite failed attempt at creating an argument.


So, after taking these issues into account, can you honestly say that you've done the research to actually confirm, beyond reasonable doubt as required by the Due Process of Law, that these elections really are performed according to Constitutional & Lawful procedures?


I can honestly say that it is my opinion that these elections are performed according to Constitutional mandates. I as of yet haven't seen an instance where a person just assumes a position without actually having won an election.


The main problem is that this nation was conceived with a government "by the people & for the people," yet we're not really electing "representatives" if those "representatives" openly flout the word of the very same people they're supposed to represent. The current practice in D.C. is nothing less than a criminal cartel, practicing "back room deals" & using taxpayer's money/credit to offer bribes back & forth, all to secure deals that the majority of People themselves refuse.


Of course I am not arguing that point. Drivel that it is, you are essentially correct. But those that would choose an armed revolution first. Over other more preferable means do so with the intent not of restoring the government to the people's hands, but to destroy the United States and instill instead their own version of a government, one that I believe would be far more tyrannical and corrupt than anything we see today.

I believe that those that support the idea of an armed revolution have absolutely no intention of restoring the government to the free republic, but in fact create a military dictatorship with rights and freedoms for the few while forcing the majority to suffer.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Well, come back and try that again when you learn the difference between voter registration fraud, and voter fraud. ACORN was accused of voter registration fraud.

I don't have to "try again." You only pointed out a difference which makes no difference...Voter Fraud or Voter Registration Fraud is still fraud. Thank you for confirming the overall context of what I wrote, in that Obama is still supporting a "voter registration" organization that used fraudulent practices.



Originally posted by whatukno
In the above instance, we were talking about a fictitious internet based election system. I was merely showing the inherent problems with that idea, but the only way it seems that you could make a point out of that was to completely take it out of context, I did not contradict myself, you misrepresented what I said in a deliberate and quite failed attempt at creating an argument.

Again, you specify detailed points & ignore the overall context. Not all of the voting controversy revolved from the "electronic" forms of voting. There were entire sections of votes discounted due to "hanging chad" in the Districts that were using the punch-card voting method. You may even find that the "hanging chad" problem was not unique in the overall context that voters are increasingly becoming victims of fraud. So what's "Constitutional" in all of the varying methods being used to defraud the voter?

You pride yourself on performing detailed research in the points you specify, I grant you that much...But you do seem to be limiting yourself by not looking at the "overall picture" after linking related points together.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 



I don't have to "try again." You only pointed out a difference which makes no difference...Voter Fraud or Voter Registration Fraud is still fraud. Thank you for confirming the overall context of what I wrote, in that Obama is still supporting a "voter registration" organization that used fraudulent practices.


While I acknowledge that ACORN was at fault for a lot of voter registration fraud charges, there is a massive difference between voter registration fraud, and voter fraud.

When there is voter fraud, a candidate may be elected based on fraudulent votes I.E. Debold's debacle. But in cases of voter registration fraud, the problem only lies in the organization itself and has no bearing on the election process. The fictitious do not vote.


Again, you specify detailed points & ignore the overall context. Not all of the voting controversy revolved from the "electronic" forms of voting. There were entire sections of votes discounted due to "hanging chad" in the Districts that were using the punch-card voting method. You may even find that the "hanging chad" problem was not unique in the overall context that voters are increasingly becoming victims of fraud. So what's "Constitutional" in all of the varying methods being used to defraud the voter?


Yes, and I don't disagree with that, but what I was pointing out in the scenario you quoted me for is a fictitious election system over the internet. I pointed out the harm that could come from such a system, where people all over the United States in a drunken stupor might vote me into office. While for me this would be great, for the country I think you might hear the collective "WTF!?!" from the moon.


You pride yourself on performing detailed research in the points you specify, I grant you that much...But you do seem to be limiting yourself by not looking at the "overall picture" after linking related points together.


And I did link them all together, showing that those that support an armed revolution only do so for the specified purpose of usurping the constitution, destroying personal liberty, and eliminating the United States for what it actually stands for.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
And I did link them all together, showing that those that support an armed revolution only do so for the specified purpose of usurping the constitution, destroying personal liberty, and eliminating the United States for what it actually stands for.



Okay, then how about we take it from a different angle, shall we?

You say that the people that support the idea of an armed revolution are only doing so so that they can usurp the US Constitution, correct?

Well, you would be calling the very people that FOUNDED this country traitors to the cause that they fought and died for! For the record, I'm about to provide proof...

The Second Amendment was written for two major reasons. The first of which is to provide for the common defense, and the second was to protect the United States citizens from an overzealous government getting the upper hand on them, as they so obviously have now.

Exhibit A: The Federalist Papers No. 46, written by James Madison:



Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.


Emphasis mine.

Now, seeing as how this came from one of the Founders of this nation, it should come as no surprise when we see what was said by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers, No. 28:



If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.


Now, I'm no linguist, but from what I read there, I sense that he's not talking about a "Tea Party"... He's talking about the ARMED resistance that We The People have over an oppressive government. This was all predicated upon the presupposition that the American People would not allow their own government to get more power than they deserve.

Yet look at what we have now. We have rampant gangs, places one cannot go with a weapon, licenses that have to be bought just to CARRY them. In The Bill of Rights, it says that the right to keep and bear would "not be infringed". Well, it's been infringed upon, and in a big way.

Now, to some, this may not seem like a big deal, but to those of us that study our history, we know all too well what comes next. Stuff such as the Appropriation of Regional Governors comes to mind...

Times are looking tougher and tougher. I just hope that those that claim to know the history of this nation would make sure that they are up on all of the information, so that they can better help those that aren't by awakening them...

TheBorg
Concerned American

[edit on 13-1-2010 by TheBorg]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBorg
 


I do understand your point, and I agree that the founding fathers of this country were interested in the liberty of the people and the means to defend that liberty at all costs.

However, the motives I am questioning are the people who want an armed revolution today, not the founding fathers. I believe that those that are for an armed revolution today have absolutely zero interest in bringing back personal freedom, they have zero interest in preserving or protecting the Constitution, and in fact would gladly trade what they see as tyranny today for a much worse version of tyranny.

There is no doubt that the founding fathers wanted freedom for all (well all, except for women, and blacks, or anyone else that wasn't a white male landowner.) But I don't think that the revolutionaries today really want that, I think that an armed revolution today if they succeed would turn this country into something that resembles a Christian Afghanistan with Christian sharia law, and little to no rights for anyone but a few privileged individuals.

Chalk it up to wukky saying "I'm worried" and when I say "I'm worried" it basically means, "Oh [snip] this is going to be bad!" When those who want to take our last resort, and turn it into our first choice? You must question their reasoning.

[edit on 1/13/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


As one that has been trying to exercise every bit of my rights up to this point, I must ask a question...

What happens when those that we "elected" into office turn a blind eye and deaf ear to us? When we are no longer viewed as their constituents, but as "the governed", what option is left, pray tell? Voting them out you say? Happened before, and look how it turned out!!

I gotta toss this one out too...

What options do the American People feasibly have to redress their grievances to their government? Whatever you answer, could you please elaborate on how you think that could be accomplished? I'd be keenly interested.

TheBorg
Very Concerned American



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBorg
 



What happens when those that we "elected" into office turn a blind eye and deaf ear to us? When we are no longer viewed as their constituents, but as "the governed", what option is left, pray tell? Voting them out you say? Happened before, and look how it turned out!!


Vote better.

The problem today is that we have these two parties, they have no real interest in serving the people, just the corporations. Well, we just flip from one to another while real candidates are left in the dust.

It's not the independent candidates fault that they get no recognition, it is ours. The American people don't bother to look to see who the independent candidates are and what they represent.


What options do the American People feasibly have to redress their grievances to their government? Whatever you answer, could you please elaborate on how you think that could be accomplished? I'd be keenly interested.


First off, we have got to yank the plug on campaign contributions from corporations. We have to cut off the funds from corporate lobby groups. You would see our representatives snap into line real quick once we kill their cash cow.

During this health care debate, the American public was able to talk to their representatives in town hall meetings, but instead of logical, calm and civilized debate we got...



and



and



And they listened, no longer will there be an evil public option in this health care bill but "yay thanks" everyone gets ramrodded by the insurance companies. So they did listen, the problem is, people were acting foolish and uncivilized at these meetings.

So your voice does work, and they do listen, but they would listen better if the corporate lobby groups didn't have the ability to use a bullhorn two inches away from their ear.

So basically it boils down to...

1. Stop the two party system. Vote smart and vote for someone better.

2. Don't let corporations have access to the people's representatives.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
If someone was seriously planning an armed revoluton, by posting it on an internet forum shows they are incompetent to begin with. Real patriot need to get involved in government so they can be the change they want to see (and somehow have an incorruptible soul.)



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by genericname
Welp, seeing as having a ron paul sticker can label you a threat to homeland security, im pretty sure that ats should by no means allow talk of violence against anything/anyone on the boards, for the sake of ats itself. You should be banned at once, and considered a saboteur to the site. Thats just common sence!!!


Well, I happen to have one of those Ron Paul bumper stickers on the back bumper of my Chevy Van. Cops do not pull us over, they follow for a minute or two, then pass or turn around. Is this fear talking? I also have a pentgram sticker on the bumper, could this be what is doing it? I don't care one way or the other. I am a Free Man under the Constitution, and recognize that no Statue is above the Constitution. I can put anything I wish on my vehicle, and no body can tell be to take it off. I've been thinking of my own design for a bumper sticker....

POLICEMAN: PASSENGERS KNOW THE CONSTITUTION AND ARE HEAVILY ARMED.
VEHICLE NOT FOR HIRE. DETAIN AT YOUR OWN RISK.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join