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.
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 would be one of the rare few on this board that do.
We may disagree on things but I still respect you as a person.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by moonzoo7
It's illegal to call for the armed over-throw of our government,
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
Then how do you explain the United States, and how it was established, and the actions and words of the Founding Fathers?
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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?
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!
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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!!!