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.

 

Revolution has begun - What side are you on?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
:Snif: :Snif: This smells like a list building exercise to me. Does anyone else smell bacon?

Even if it's on the up and up, remember, TPTB can and does patrol sites like this, looking for threads just like this.




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyred
There will probably be more than two sides.


Agreed.

Initially, assuming no foreign involvement, many groups opposed to the government will band together, but if things near a favorable end for the rebel side, if not immediately after, these temporary alliances will fall apart.

First, many have similar but different ideas as to what freedoms need to be restored. Worse, will be all the other groups that will try to establish their style of government in the formers place: communist, socialist, etc. instead of allowing a slow transition, we may help open the door for them to walk right in, especially if after the fact, foreign nations already run by style-x decided to help their cause.

This is why, unless States are banded together in groups to oppose the federal powers, any form or revolution by masses of people will most certainly fail.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Most likely. However, by nature of this site and the specific forum, anyone already here was on the list. I don't think they are too particular about what each person posts as compared to the fact that they are posting.

They are fairly broad in list making and classifying along these lines. This is why we end up with veterans, children and wheelchaired old ladies on no-fly lists.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Ever hear the expression, "Don't Poke The Bear"?

The OP is basically asking people if they want to commit open treason against the US government.

Smells like a set up to me.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Its not illegal to hypothesize about a situation. Yet, anyways. Is it treason to remove treasonous politicians?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by azrael36
 




Its not illegal to hypothesize about a situation. Yet, anyways. Is it treason to remove treasonous politicians?


Well, it depends on how they are removed.

Are they removed after observing all Constitutional requirements for removal of the official? Or are they removed by an angry gun wielding mob?

There is a big difference.

If the former, no, if the latter, if you subscribe to the idea of "innocent until proven guilty", then yes, it's treason. When you just assume they are guilty of a crime and have no trial, isn't that just as bad or worse than what you accuse them of doing?

[edit on 6/30/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
This question reminds me of when we used to play Cops and Robbers, or Cowboys and Indians when we were little.

I think we did the 1 potato, 2 potato, 3 potato 4... back then



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


It's only treason if the rebel cause doesn't win. If they do, its heroism.


A somewhat new approach to the constitution needs to be considered. Unlike years past, when a mans word was his bond, a handshake sealed a deal and people felt compelled to stay within the understood spirit of an agreement, today's 'legal loophole and technicality' lawyer-politician system, spirit is irrelevant.

So, while many politicians may find loopholes to restrict, control, fiscally bleed and manipulate the people, most would agree they are clearly traitors to the spirit of the constitution.

EDIT:

Originally posted by whatukno
When you just assume they are guilty of a crime and have no trial, isn't that just as bad or worse than what you accuse them of doing?


If the judicial system is set up by and controlled by those in power deemed traitors by the peoples opinion, how can they be tried? The founders knew the answer is they can only be tried by the people and by force.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Wolf321]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 



So, while many politicians may find loopholes to restrict, control, fiscally bleed and manipulate the people, most would agree they are clearly traitors to the spirit of the constitution.


So no trial then?

Just shoot first and ask questions latter?

No jury of their peers? No Impeachment? Just go in guns blasting?

Hmm, doesn't sound like the side I want to be on, doesn't sound like that side has any intention of "Following the Constitution".

[edit on 6/30/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


Smart money is on the Mexican side.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Governments use violence to accomplish their goals why? Because its effective. They have people so brainwashed to be nonviolent, meanwhile they wage endless wars.

Nonviolent protests accomplish nothing, the politicians and TPTB continue to ignore you and will do so until the end of time. This is why they push non violence, because as long as you buy into that line of bull# you are no threat to them.




Advocates of nonviolence they frequently say that nonviolence works and the principle examples they use of that are ghandi in india and martin luther king in the US. The problem with that is this constitutes a great historical white washing, that in fact the resistance in india was incredibly diverse and ghandi was a very important figure within that resistance, but the resistance was by no means pacifist in its entirety. There were a number of armed guerrilla groups, a number of militant struggles, very important riots and other strong clashes which were a part of the struggle for indian independence. So on the one hand ghandi basically got negotiating power from the fact that there were other elements in the struggle which were even more threatening to british dominance. So the british specifically chose to dialogue with ghandi because he was perhaps for them the least threatening of the important elements of resistance, and if those other elements had no existed they simply could have ignored ghandi.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Just in case you missed it...


Originally posted by Wolf321
EDIT:

Originally posted by whatukno
When you just assume they are guilty of a crime and have no trial, isn't that just as bad or worse than what you accuse them of doing?


If the judicial system is set up by and controlled by those in power manipulating or ignoring the Constitution and deemed traitors by the peoples opinion, how can they be tried? The founders knew the answer is they can only be tried by the people and by force.


modified parts italicized.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Wolf321]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
rebellion
against tyranny and deception




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by sodakota
 


great site man preciate it! nothing works like ***local*** honey for allergies that crap nearly killed me or least wanted to-support the bees! think I read something the other day about it being sent to 3rd world countries for bandage alternative etc etc?

If you find honey, eat just enough— too much of it, and you will vomit.-25.27

Eat honey, my son, for it is good-24.13



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Reading this is really rather frightening. If I don't shoot at the establishment does that mean I'm with them? Just how the hell do you think you're going to decide which "side" someone is on?

Furthermore, people don't even care enough to vote for the right people, accept lie after lie, think this all is inevitable and out of their control, allow this government to do as they please, and you think they're going to pick up guns and shot at the "establishment?"

Can you not find better and creative ways to take back our country? A financial overthrow? A public referendum? Mass protests?

Sheesh, I'm beginning some people are just itching for a reason to use all these guns they love so much. And I'm a gun owner.



Peaceful protest has always been ignored. You owe your liberties and freedoms you enjoy today to those who took a stand, physically, against their tyranical leaders.

There's only so many times people will ask and not receive before they decide to take without asking.

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense." - Orwell



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
I refuse to answer. It is no secret that this site is monitored. The next domestic terrorist report just may have your post from this thread listed as an example of our "extremism" and I just don't need Homeland Security coming to my door this week or any other week.

When the time comes, you'll know my answer.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
I'll join the side that pays the best and will most likely win.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

No corporate influence in the capital.


I got an answer for that one.

Here's what I would like to see:

We need a law that says Only individuals can lobby elected officials not corporations and corporations cannot contribute to an officials election campaign.

No potential elected official can even have contributions to run. we need Federal paid for ( yes our tax dollars) postings on who the candidates are and what they stand for. This includes travel and all expenses for the campaign. Each will get a set amount to work with and that's all they can use. Private citizens and corporations will have a cap put on how much they can spend to advertise a candidate of their choice. There will be strict rules they have to follow on the size and style of the advertisement.. this way it's all balanced and fair.

Media Must give equal time to each candidate.

If we had laws like that, this country would be a much better place with elected official who actually care about doing the right thing by the people.

I would gladly give my tax dollars to this. This type of thing should be what our taxes are used for. It would be a lot better than how things work now.


[edit on 30-6-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
This thread caught my eye as a "call to arms."

I don't like guns, nor do I own any. I was raised by a staunch NRA member, so I know about safety and how to shoot and re-load spent casings and I can cut the bull's eye out of a target in one sitting.

Trust me, you don't want me to aim a gun at you. You don't pull a weapon unless you intend to use it.

I hope to prevent the day when I would feel compelled to arm myself.

There was a thread here recently asking about this "no-confidence" vote they have in the UK, and whether or not it is in use in the US.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've been searching seemingly in the wrong places to find out how and who actually casts this vote.

I'd like it to be placed by each candidates name on each ballot being cast. To me, this seems the way to rid ourselves of this kleptocracy we are subjected to. And not just the elections coming-up not soon enough, but all elections everywhere all of the time in the future.

dictionary.reference.com...

These creeps in office are passing laws that only benefit themselves.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   
There are an estimated 200 million fiearms within the US. Anybody planning an armed conflict within the US is going to lose. The last thing we need is to start shooting our fellow Americans. There are plenty of other people out there in the world actually shooting our kind right now, so I say drop the revolution/civil war idea.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join