It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Lawmakers Threatened

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:19 AM
Good. The lawmakers and governemnt have been pushing fear and threats onto us for decades and decades, now its OUR turn. sorry, but handshakes and penmenship on paper is meaningless..unless you fight for what you want, yuor not gunna get it. that is how life really is, as opposed to this arrogent laid back clean life the system has created. it only leaves doors open so we get screwed even more without our consent or knowledge, aka more and more heavy taxes, money laundering, murder even. unless we are felt and heard, just like the nations childrens, they wil continue to mayhem*

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:22 AM

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by boondock-saint

Thats a revolution nowadays?

Revolution is just getting warmed up, stay tuned

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:32 AM

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by boondock-saint

Ok, lets make it easy on you.
Name a single person who has ever been denied medical care and died as a result.

I'll give u 2 !!!
my 2 uncles:
Buddy and Davis
last names withheld due to privacy
or is that right taken away too.

Davis died of Cancer at 63
Buddy died of Leukemia at 57

both were denied medical care cuz of lack of
insurance. Both died at home in bed.
And both could have been treated.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:39 AM
reply to post by boondock-saint

Treated, or cured?

Treatment doesnt guarantee survival, and at their ages, most likely it wouldnt have provided much in quality or quantity of life.

They died from cancer, not lack of insurance.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 04:00 AM
reply to post by boondock-saint

You do know what propaganda is right?

FOX tells you to be mad.

FOX tels you why to be mad.

FOX gives you popular people who say they are mad.

Doesn't anyone have the balls to think for themselves anymore?

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:44 AM
Um mm lets see, congress passes a law that most Americans don't want.................What other reaction did they expect? Did they think most Americans will just bend over and take up the what?

FAT CATS in Washington you passed a law no one wants...... WHAT DID YOU EXPECT????

FAT CATS in Washington you are forcing us to buy something..........WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT the people TO DO?

FAT CATS in Washington you sold out your country for some money and a little extra power......... WHAT DO YOU WANT the people TO DO?

SOMETHING of this magnitude is kinda difficult to swallow there FAT CATS in Washington, The people ARE TIRED OF THE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF their LIVES.

FAT CATS in Washington, all of you who sold out your country, STEP DOWN and see the great effect that will have on the nation, I believe no one else will bother your pathetic life, All you got to do is STEP DOWN.

If you don't STEP DOWN am sure the people will vote you out, and hopefully charge you for the crimes you have committed against us, selling out our interest for your own. Shame on you!

don't these FAT CATS receive threats everyday? Am sure they do so, WHY are you FAT CATS making a big deal of it?

And before anyone says am advocating violence, well am not...............

[edit on 25-3-2010 by morf991]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:51 AM
Now Palin trying to stir things up :

Sarah Palin's PAC Puts Gun Sights On Democrats She's Targeting In 2010

Sarah Palin, the other fake side trying to create trouble.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:49 AM

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
Now, when you say you're using Occam's Razor to see who's sending threats, that's just insulting.

I can't imagine why you would take that as an insult, but you're free to be insulted if you choose.

reply to post by SM2

You better read that Declaration again. No where does it advocate violent revolution. Secondly, making perfectly legal laws is NOT synonymous to the government becoming destructive to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Congress is not legally obligated to vote with the majority of the people. We ELECT them to vote for or against the legislation in our best interest. Some see themselves as direct delegates of the people and vote according to the people's wishes. Others consider themselves trustees, who vote according to what THEY think is best for their constituents, even if the people disagree. Both are absolutely legal and acceptable.

Finally, you abolish a government by voting them out. If the majority of the people disagree with you, that's really too bad. You lose.

Originally posted by Acid_Burn2009
I am lucky enough to have health care through the military since I am a reservist and even that is $200/month. I also have VA coverage for my disability and it's free as long I go to the VA for service connected issues, otherwise I pay.

Well, aren't you fortunate? I can't help but wonder what you and your friends are complaining about. If they don't have insurance, but have enough money to pay for their own health care when they get sick, then they have enough to pay for insurance or pay the fee for opting out, so the rest of us don't have to pick up the ball when they drop it. Secondly, if they have insurance, they aren't going to be forced to buy it! So, what's the problem?

Originally posted by brainwrek
Name a single person who has ever been denied medical care and died as a result.

Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:13 AM

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
I hear it on MSNBC and FOX that members of the house who voted for the health care bill are getting death threats. And so it begins, the wrath of the american public is starting, and some of these people are out for blood. They are also feeling threatened by having their picture with a bulls eye target on it, giving them pause to think about what they just did. Many are saying to calm down and do not do anything violent or rash, but I have a feeling that there are those who are going to force a change at the point of a weapon. Right now it is just small incidents, bricks through windows, verbal and email threats, but the more this goes, the more they are going to look at the possiblity of curbing free speech. According the news, they are looking into the threats seriously. And it is extending to the representitives families as well.

Open a court of common law, it is allowed for in the constitution - try them and hang them.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

You better read that Declaration again. No where does it advocate violent revolution.

Actually you may want to read that Declaration again.

Specifically these 2 sections.

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

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

Now, you were saying?

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:26 AM

Originally posted by brainwrek
Actually you may want to read that Declaration again.

I've read it many times.
As I said:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No where does it advocate violent revolution.

If you are reading violence in there, that's coming from YOUR brain, not from the Declaration.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:35 AM
Oh what babies! Why is no one concerned when conservatives or Republicans are threatened huh!! Not a big deal when union thugs beat someone up at a healthcare meeting. No body cares that conservatives who love their country are called "Tea baggers" and not Tea Party members. Oh if you don't know the term tea bagger is derived from a sexual act.

Everyone loves it when Bush has a shoe thrown at him - that was not a threat that was an act - liberals laugh. Could you imagine if someone threw a shoe at Obama. End of the world!

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:09 PM

Originally posted by hawkiye
Your "authority" goes so far as to who you or rather your district or country elect (depending upon office of course).

Wrong again it was to keep the delegations manageable but have the peoples voice. delegates were appointed as spokesman to convey the will of the people who they represented. Not do thier own thing. And they knew if they did anything other then the will of those who appointed them they would be yanked immediately. They also knew they had no authority to vote on anything in the personal lives of people. You need to study history. What you see today is not what they set up in most respects. The people today have no memory of how the free republics operated.

No, I'm not wrong, and it appears you have a highly romanticized version of American History, I don't know where or how you studied your history but I have a degree in it, not to mention my continual study. It is and was intended to be a safety net.

The federal government had no authority in the states or over the people it had 17 enumerated powers period it was mainly for mutual defense. The Constitution does not apply to the men and women on the land it was simply a restriction on the Federal government. i.e. This is what you can do and nothing more, if it's not in there you can't do it!

Ok, well how about you go back to the civil war and moving forward start throwing out every law and supreme court decision that has expanded the federal government. Look I have had the same desires of wanting to return to the fairly simple documents of our founding, but that is also to throw out all tragedy, experiences, and fighting to get at least a fraction of the federal protections that the people enjoy today.

Largely I agree that the federal government has gotten too big for its britches, but on an issue such as healthcare I believe that all people are entitled to it. That does not mean I believe it aught to be free for all, although many other nations have made that leap and make it work.

My primary grievance on this issue is the cost of healthcare. Every procedure every prescription is drastically more expensive in the US than ANYWHERE else. My prescriptions, if I didn't have insurance would cost me over $80,000 a year and that is not considering doctors visits, tests, and hospitalizations.

If I lose my current coverage, that is it, I am uninsurable I've checked, earlier on I tried to shop around to see if I could find a better rate or a better plan, but because I was rushed to the ER when I passed out at work and received my diagnosis I can not find any other company to take me and there is no way I could even keep a fraction of the drugs that keep me alive. Its very easy to be against health reform when your healthy, but when you have a chronic illness and have to deal with the hospitals, the doctors, the pharmacies you will quickly learn just how much reform is needed. One month I had a problem with my insurance, the company changed my plan number without my knowledge and I hadn't received the new card yet. It just so happened that this took place the same week I was to have my medications refilled, it was an unfortunate coincidence. Even though I have been a regular customer of walgreens for the past 4 yrs (since this all started) the only solution I could come to with them was to buy the pills out right, for a week that is all I could afford, and that was around 1500, I was able to get 3 days worth from my doctor's sample bag but that was all he could help me out with, which was most definitely appreciated, but far from a real solution.

Fortunately for me, the card arrived and I was able to get it sorted out, although Walgreens does not refund the money. This is the exact situation that made me realize what would happen if I were to lose my insurance, what would happen. I'm sure there are people that milk the system, but I doubt that is the majority, I see tons of people in my boat at the lab in the hospital, I see them every week when I go to get my blood drawn and the most discussed topic is the cost and how even when we have insurance we can get the companies to cover certain tests or drugs. It is ridiculous.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by searching4truth]

[edit on 25-3-2010 by searching4truth]

[edit on 25-3-2010 by searching4truth]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:55 PM

Originally posted by brainwrek

Could you please post the name of a single person that has "lack of insurance" listed as COD on their death certificate?

I have personally known two people who have died for lack of health insurance. One, because her cancer was diagnosed too late to help her -- in other words, she was too poor to afford insurance or regular check-ups.

The second because he kept putting off seeing a doctor due to lack of means to pay for the bill.

These are only two.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by brainwrek

Treatment doesnt guarantee survival, and at their ages, most likely it wouldnt have provided much in quality or quantity of life.

They died from cancer, not lack of insurance.

You must be a baby!

Mid-50's or early 60's is much too young to die of those causes. Believe me, people at that age have a great deal more quality of life ahead of them. They are just slightly beyond middle age.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Your definition of the term "throw off" would be what then?

Let me guess, to vote people out of office? That hardly coincides with the phrase throw off.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 05:07 PM
reply to post by brainwrek

It means to be rid of something, not to kill it.

The DoI is more of a breakup letter, and NOT a declaration of war, granted that was prepared for and expected outcome, but that is not how the document reads.

On the most basic level, England I feel you did me wrong, here are my complaints and reasoning, and now our relationship is over.

The said that they were prepared to give their lives, they were prepared for war, but if the King accepted this that would have been fine as well.

edit to add: Under British Law an act of revolt is an act of war, however the Colonists did not view themselves as being under British rule any longer

I think we all know what happened next.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by searching4truth]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 05:38 PM
reply to post by brainwrek

searching4truth has explained it well. The Declaration of Independence was the paper that declared their independence from Britain. The way they did it was to LEAVE the country and start a new government. The DoI explained their actions.

Here's a nice analysis.

# When government takes away these rights, the governed have just cause to overthrow or separate themselves from that government. The thought that people had a right to overthrow government was indeed revolutionary, although the premise had been stated by philosophers in the past--John Locke, for example. The Declaration contends that although the right to rebel exists, human nature dictates that people will not do so over light and transient causes, choosing rather to suffer than rebel in most cases.

# Great Britain is guilty of attempting to take away the aforementioned God given rights; therefore, the colonists are justified in separating themselves from Great Britain. Jefferson and the committee use deductive reasoning to make their case, stating first the principle and then supplying evidence (in the body of the document).

The passage of the health care bill does NOT attempt to take away our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration does NOT say, "If you don't like or disagree with what the government does, you are justified in starting a violent revolution, or overthrowing the government."

[edit on 3/25/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by Acid_Burn2009

Unfortunately, it is as I feared. and
and this one was nice!

After all, no self respecting anti-HCR person would swear and mock people.
But of course only Reps can apologize and get away with it.

And I know you all think it is all made up.

So why this:

But in all honest, I can not find that picture for that lead in to the thread "tea party goers go overboard.
Does that mean we have people here doing that stuff, hoaxing to encourage violence?
I really hope not. We've got enough scared people out here!

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:37 PM
I blame both of our self-proclaimed political parties they created this sports fan mentality for their own benefit and also incited the radicals on both sides of the fictitious political divide now that things are getting out of hand they make self serving pleas for calm.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in