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.

 

Play time is over.

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I must ask a question to all constitutionalists who want a revolution. What will you do about the millions of liberals after the revolution?

Will you give them voting rights? Will you ban their parties from the electoral process? Will you do the gulags? What do you plan on doing with the liberals and socialists?




posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
There will be no real revolution. There is no plan, no leaders, no consideration for the aftermath except abstract BS rhetoric dressed up to sound patriotic. What the revolutionaries really want is power on their terms and the elimination of people of color who they view as useless eaters.

It won't be a revolution, it will turn into a race war with the crazies taking over and the cities burning, blood lust, armed mobs and blood in the streets.

Either that or Martial law, troops in the street, checkpoints, everyday life controlled by facist. Either way....


God help us.



[edit on 24-3-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Why would we do anything to the liberals? It just doesn't make any sense.

For someone who would promote "freedom for all" such as myself, the liberals will be just as free as anyone else. Voting, doing what they feel is right... hell, you might find that the freedom contained withing "freedom" allow you to be even more liberal than you are now.

Anyone is allowed to believe or do what they would, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. Why is it that liberals feel they would need to instill social programs upon other people in order to successfully live their lives?

That was unfair, because some conservatives would as well but you get my point. As long as you can live and respect other peoples beliefs and lifestyles, then yours shall be respected as well.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


Well i'm not a actually a liberal but wouldn't their voting ruin your idea of constitutionalism? That's all i'm trying to point out here. The only way for them to vote and for their party to abide strictly by the constitution is for them to not have a party. That is the only option which would mean we are no longer a free country.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 



I also want to make it clear that if there is to be a revolution or civil war because of your total disregard for anyone besides yourself I will fight you back.


This is just one of the many little facts that these internet revolutionaries fail to realize.

reply to post by gwydionblack
 



You speak of it as a right/left issue but it isn't. IT NEVER HAS BEEN!


Yes it is...it always has been...and it always will be. And you are a pawn in that game. You have been used...you are being led by the nose and you don't even realize it. This is why none of you revolutionaries know WHAT you are fighting for besides vague concepts that you don't have a solid specific definition for.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by hawkiye


How typical of a 'constitution lover' to paint me as a communist. Then say we live in a social democracy. That's just hilarious!


You say that like the constitution is a bad thing. Perhaps that is a little slip showing your true colors. I got news for you socialist democracy is communism despite the BS you have been spoon fed to believe.


The problem is that in America the culture is pure selfishness and anything short of me-me-me is considered socialism and communism. The founding fathers made Americas constitution the way it is because we were farmers and lived in the country. We did take care of each other voluntarily and there was no me-me-me bulls**t. That is not the case today, today it's about me-me-me and of course you will support libertarianism which means I will be selfish and I will allow you to be selfish too, the law will be that everyone's allowed to be selfish to make sure I can always keep what I have.


Really so you feel because people are too selfish today that they should be forced to be charitable... See this is the problem, whether someone is charitable or not they have a right to do as they please with the fruits of thier labors period.. But of course this is more BS spoon fed by the media mantra. And of course you assume to know how charitable I and others are when I would wager to bet I have done more charitable work then you. Just because the people who built this nation were mostly farmers does not mean the same principles of freedom they espoused are not applicable today.


Socialism means caring for other people and we don't interpret taxation with representation as theft, but of course you won't agree because you will bitch and cry about someone taking your money. Why don't you ask all the libertarian countries are doing? Somalia seems like a good place to start or even Estonia. Of course we all know those two countries are succeeding.


I notice how you never address any points in any meaningful way. You seem to not understand the difference between forced and voluntary. First all any means of forced taking whether you call it tax or not is theft and of course you will never address that because you can't, there is no argument against it. Theft is theft and no amount of whining and crying that I should willingly allow my money to be stolen or I am somehow a bad guy who is not very charitable can change that.

I don't live in Somalia and of course they are not libertarian countries they are conglomerates of war lord controlled dictatorships who rule by force and apparently you missed it but I am against force and so are libertarians. While I don't classify myself as a libertarian we do agree on many things.

Also it is always the last resort by those who cannot support thier argument, to resort to arguments such as; that if we stop stealing peoples fruits of thier labors in this country we will somehow end up like those sh** holes which if course is laughable since you even mentioned that we operated just fine in our early years without forced theft. No taxes were levied on the people in this country it was all excise taxes on foreign imports. And precisely because they understood the constitution does not allow direct tax on the people.

And of course if you actually had a clue how are monetary system works instead of the spoon fed drivel you believe you would understand we don't need any taxes to operate our government these days. Here is a hint look up CAFR funds or CAFR1.

So I'll ask one more time what do you have against all things being voluntary and taking personal responsibility? I won't be holding my breath for any meaningful discussion though.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



Yes it is...it always has been...and it always will be. And you are a pawn in that game. You have been used...you are being led by the nose and you don't even realize it. This is why none of you revolutionaries know WHAT you are fighting for besides vague concepts that you don't have a solid specific definition for.


So the right to not be plundered and stolen from under color of law is a vague concept?

The right to travel without interference is a vague concept?

The right to make a living and keep all the fruits of my labors without being extorted under color of law is vague?

The right to be secure on my person and property?'

The right to not be harassed for growing certain kinds of plants?

etc etc. etc

On the contrary it is you socialist commies with your vague and bizzare beleif that you have a right to take my stuff against my will just because you pin some government color of law label on it that is vague and.

I really have to laugh at the commies here that think they are going to fight against freedom Some of you seem pretty mentally challenged and really have no clue what you are talking about.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I'm willing to listen to what you have to say. I tried looking up CAFR and CAFR1 and I failed to understand it. Maybe I didn't find a good link or whatever but could you explain it to me like CAFR for dumbies?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I will reply to you alone and ignore the stalkers.



Perhaps it would be best if you thought outside the terms of the current system. In a system that is purely under Constitutional rule, in all actuality there would be no need for a liberal party nor a conservative party. There would just be people concerned about the affairs of a country.

This is terribly hard to comprehend because we have lived under this system for so long that the way it works has become embedded with the left/right paradigm but you have to realize this above all else - the left/right paradigm is a manufactured creation. When all men are free there is no extreme separation of left and right, at least there shouldn't be.

If one person would choose to be liberal in their actions or views, then they can be. You wouldn't need a extreme liberal in office just to get legislation passed that would allow you to use recreational drugs because you already are allowed. This is just one small example out of a plethora of much bigger pictures, but hopefully you can understand where I am coming from. The same goes for conservatives and anyone in between.

Yes, regulations at a state and local level will be necessary as some are today, however their laws would not trump the supreme law of the Constitution. No law would. The federal government would become a tiny shell of what it is today.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
Many of you on ATS are supporters of revolution against the government; you see it as the enemy.


I think you are assuming too much. I see many more people here who are more concerned with changing things through education than revolution.

I think you are trying to bait people.


Originally posted by Misoir
What we are beginning to see is a scary rise of lunatics and many are right here on ATS, some of you scare the hell out of me and when I hear about these attacks I can't help but think that this kind of stuff could be caused by some of the rhetoric right here on ATS.


I think you are trying to lead people into some kind of agreement with your statements. I do not agree. I do not like your implications, either.


Originally posted by Misoir
I will not get applause for my thread from people who will call me a government agent, a socialist or the enemy. You support a revolution and the overthrow or radical changing of our government to fit what you deem as correct.


Hit dog hollers. If the shoe fits, wear it.



Originally posted by Misoir
I also want to make it clear that if there is to be a revolution or civil war because of your total disregard for anyone besides yourself I will fight you back. The left will fight just as hard as you. If you want your revolution it won't just be the government you are fighting you will have to fight the left because we damn sure won't go quietly. We will fight you from Phoenix to Washington. We won't back down, I won't back down. This country belongs to us, all American people, not just you and your political ideology. You better be ready for us to fight you, it won't be as easy as you wish.



Well, that's a lot of doublespeak from someone who says he doesn't want revolution and then writes 6 paragraphs about what a tough guy revolution fighter he is and how he's chomping at the bit for a fight.

This is a trolling post.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


I understand what you mean. If all people are free to do as they chose liberals would have the right to smoke pot, live without religion and help each other while conservatives would be able to be religious, ignore marijuana and help churches. I understand what you're saying. But what about the people who are for big government? We all know there will always be big government people and they will organize so what would you tell them if they wanted a party that is for larger government and more economic equality?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
I must ask a question to all constitutionalists who want a revolution. What will you do about the millions of liberals after the revolution?

Will you give them voting rights? Will you ban their parties from the electoral process? Will you do the gulags? What do you plan on doing with the liberals and socialists?


I am glad you have accepted that we will win the revolution. ;-) You can have voting rights as outlined in the constitution and your organic state constitution. You just don't get to vote on every aspect of everyone else's lives or rights nor can you vote yourself the fruits of others labors. Those things were never up for a vote in the republic and those votes that congress has made on any of them are null and void.

If you want your own little socialist paradise commune you are free to do it as long as it is voluntary. You just cannot force anyone to participate or pay for it against thier will.

Do you have a problem with that?

See it's not as bad as you think now is it?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
The problem is that in America the culture is pure selfishness ...(snip) That is not the case today, today it's about me-me-me and of course you will support libertarianism which means I will be selfish and I will allow you to be selfish too, the law will be that everyone's allowed to be selfish to make sure I can always keep what I have.


Should a person not be free to be selfish with their own possessions? I think when left alone, and when they see a need, American people are probably the most generous you could find. Ref Hurricane Katrina, the Tsunami in Indonesia, recent earthquakes in Hatti and Chile. Why do you think Americans seem more selfish? I think it is because we are tired of government growing over the past decades, taxing more and more and exercising authority in places they don't need to be within the lives of a free people.


Socialism means caring for other people and we don't interpret taxation with representation as theft, but of course you won't agree because you will bitch and cry about someone taking your money.


When someone says something like 'socialism means caring' I see one of two things: a) I want the government to give more to me; or b) I am too lazy/selfish enough to give on my own, without being forced or making others have to contribute too.


The only way for them to vote and for their party to abide strictly by the constitution is for them to not have a party. That is the only option which would mean we are no longer a free country.


Assuming there would be a revolution of sorts, it would not likely be what you imagine. It would most likely be a series of political assassinations, and some riots. Assuming it would somehow be successful in putting people in office who restore government to a rights securer instead of a rights decider, then their amendments to the constitution would only tie up loose ends to prevent their erosion by any future socialist-like candidates.

The only problem I would see post revolutionary change, would be when all those people and corporations milking the government are off the payroll, they are going to cry and have to start being responsible for themselves. Oh wait, I guess that isn't really a problem... except to them.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 



So the right to not be plundered and stolen from under color of law is a vague concept?


Have an example? Because I'm assuming you mean you don't want to pay taxes...but I bet you want to enjoy all the benefits that they provide.


The right to travel without interference is a vague concept?


Agains...a specific example would be great. I'm trying for the life of me to think of where I can't travel to without interference within our nation...and I'm coming up blank for a reasonable example.


The right to make a living and keep all the fruits of my labors without being extorted under color of law is vague?


So this must mean taxes...right? You don't want to pay any taxes? Or are you ok with some...just not all? Do you enjoy the any of the benefits that taxes provide? Interstates? Libraries? Schools? Anything?


The right to be secure on my person and property?


You want to carry your gun everywhere you go...right? You think ANY "arms" control is bad...right? So where is my nuke...I want a nuke as the 2nd ammendment says I should have...and a tank...where is my tank? Do you think those are reasonable requests??? Or do you think there is a line? If you do think there is a line...why do you think it so odd that some peoples line isn't exactly where YOUR line is?


The right to not be harassed for growing certain kinds of plants?


You want to grow your own marijuana? Maybe your neighbor wants to grow a whole backyard of opium? And...along with your above point...he wants to post armed guards on his roof 24/7 to protect it. This is the world you want to live in?


On the contrary it is you socialist commies


LOL...why not throw in "nazi" in there too??? Don't hold back...call us all Hitler. And WHY...just because we have different opinions than you do...I can only assume you hate the first ammendment.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Well big government is unconstitutional I'm afraid. That is how we ended up in this boat in the first place. Some wise guy (or guys) decided to forget about the 10th amendment and just let the federal government declare themselves with endless power.

There are ways to gain economic quality without a huge federal government. Perhaps less power would persuade people to think more on a state and even a federal level in order to do things within the bounds of the Constitution.

Under a strictly adhered Constitution the government in power at the time would in no way get larger or smaller than what it currently was, that is unless an amendment was officially ratified that achieved such. One again, big government for the sake of big government is a modern issue that should never have existed in the first place. It goes against Constitutional law in its entirety.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by gwydionblack]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Alright just for a minute let's put the whole revolution thing aside for a minute. I would like some answers on a few questions, if that's ok.

What would you do about the corporations limitless powers?
What would you do about the limitless greed of bankers and CEO's?
What would you do about the safety of consumer items?
What would you do about the protection of the workers?
What would you do about the growing income inequality?
What would you do about the power of corporations in government; lobbying, contributions, etc...?
What would you do about the poor/unemployed/underemployed?

Edit to add:

What about the police? If they are privatized wouldn't more arrests mean more money, and wouldn't that mean police would look for more reasons to arrest people? What about the prisons? If they are privatized wouldn't they make more money by having more inmates? I think you get where I'm going with this, they would all be working together to make more money. It would not be good at all.

[edit on 3/25/10 by Misoir]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


If federal taxes are abolished why should anyone pay state taxes, The same principals apply.

How will the VA be funded.
Veterans retirement
Prisons funded
Mental hospitals
the infra structure maintained
the elderly poor supported
handicapped children
mentally challenged adults













[edit on 25-3-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
In all honesty a political meltdown in this country would be one of the best things to happen in a long time.

People are frustrated with politics, when it's actually expected that representatives vote along party lines. There is something wrong.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
What would you do about the corporations limitless powers?
What would you do about the limitless greed of bankers and CEO's?
What would you do about the safety of consumer items?
What would you do about the protection of the workers?


These are not clear enough to address.


What would you do about the growing income inequality?


There is always going to be income inequality in a free market/free society. With our jobs being sent overseas, and other jobs having workers come in from other countries, both labor and skilled/technical/professional, is it a surprise that the middle and lower classes are getting lowered? Take care of those issues, and that inequality wouldn't seem so vast and unfair.


What would you do about the power of corporations in government; lobbying, contributions, etc...?


I don't know how that whole aspect works now, but I would personally like to see the professions of lobbiest to be as illegal as prostitution is now. I also don't think corporations should be allowed to give money, or be politically active. I see the constitution and government being set to be run by and ensure the rights of individuals not corporations.


What would you do about the poor/unemployed/underemployed?


Part of this I already addressed. That only leaves the poor. That's an issue that would take volumes to discuss and resolve. But to put it simply, education, job growth, encourage individual responsibility.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Wolf321]

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Wolf321]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
I understand what you're saying. But what about the people who are for big government?


Taking the liberty of answering this, but I stated earlier in this thread... If the people(any people) of this country would like the powers of the federal government expanded into a new role there is a process written into the constitution to allow that.

These rule changing articles are known as constitutional amendments. Passing a constitutional amendment requires a greater majority in congress, as well as ratification by every state, but this majority agreement allows the amendment to redefine or change the US constitution. Any other paths to circumvent, change, or damage the constitution are considered of the highest crimes in this nation(at least on the books
).

If these "big government" people have such influence they can use the legal means of effecting change within this nation, just like those using their 1st amendment rights to challenge this latest atrocity from D.C.

I am not speaking of these threats made towards the representatives and their families, I will never condone such behavior. However there IS a big difference between threatening violence, and expressing great anger at our representatives.

Remember that every representative in this nation takes an oath to Uphold the constitution, an oath that is legally binding.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join