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.

 

The US Government Kills Americans - And You Love It

page: 4
72
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You were saying that the states have a right to secession from the union, I was just showing that you have that right too.

Just giving you options. Maybe also, you might want to check with a therapist or psychologist. It seems to me that you are becoming more mentally unstable.


I'm mentally stable, but thanks for caring.

So were Jackson and Lee, unlike Grant who wanted to enslave people.




posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by topdog30
Not another anti-american thread....


he's talking about Americans being murdered by the federal government... sounds pro American people to me.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by soleprobe

Originally posted by topdog30
Not another anti-american thread....


he's talking about Americans being murdered by the federal government... sounds pro American people to me.


rock on brother.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


achk; you double posted. make up your freakin mind.

I actually specifically blame you; individually, particularly, and specifically. Not just you, but the rest of you too. It is America's responsibility to police it's government. If it is peopled and governed by functioning idiots with driver's licenses then it is our fault; mostly yours...I drink too much to accept blame.

Mostly I am sick of the one sided blame game on this board. Same question to all of the other finger pointers; propose an equitable solution.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWrongStuff
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 



You can simply serve other people anywhere, anyhow. Is it not more honorable to take the initiative and make the specific choice in what way and how much you will serve someone else than it is to simply do only as you are told and no more?


hmm...to be hypocritical and prove my point or remain true and concede a point to a foe? that is a question.

I will take the middle road for the moment. You were overly toxic in your reply. Political Insanity is one thing. Useless and condescending remarks resolve nothing. I will drag this board out of this bottom feeding cesspool.

Same question to all the finger pointers; provide an equitable solution.




I apologize. I was not trying to be toxic. I meant no offense. I am just defending the honor of others in the event that you believe that only soldiers deserve honor. Forgive me if I offended you.

I have A solution. But I highly doubt our ability to pull it off. Go Here for what I believe to be the only (and very general explanation) intelligent way in which we should live. Include in that explanation that I have provided, for the security and defense of this country as the Constitution literally allows.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWrongStuff
 


That's right, there is no "one sided blame".

This is the State vs. The People.

This is not republicans vs democrats.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It just seems that every time I read your threads, you remind me more and more of Brad Pitt's character in 12 Monkeys.

Let's take your OP for example, you assume that the US viciously has slaughtered Americans in the various wars that we have been at. However, the reality is, the enemy is the ones that kill those Americans and not the US itself.

Certainly it can be argued that the US does in fact go to war unnecessarily on many occasions. And I would have a hard time arguing against that.

But I don't believe that the US Government is purposely trying to get Americans killed in these wars, it's just that when you are in the military, you may actually die in combat, it's kinda an accepted job hazard.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


That's ok.

Every time I read your responses I'm reminded of George Orwell.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It just seems that every time I read your threads, you remind me more and more of Brad Pitt's character in 12 Monkeys.

Let's take your OP for example, you assume that the US viciously has slaughtered Americans in the various wars that we have been at. However, the reality is, the enemy is the ones that kill those Americans and not the US itself.

Certainly it can be argued that the US does in fact go to war unnecessarily on many occasions. And I would have a hard time arguing against that.

But I don't believe that the US Government is purposely trying to get Americans killed in these wars, it's just that when you are in the military, you may actually die in combat, it's kinda an accepted job hazard.



I think the point is not whether the military is doing their job and aware of their mortality... but rather that the people in the military, before they were military, were People who were told that they were needed for a reason and it's not the reason they were told. They put themselves into servitude under people with their own personal agendas. Meaning that those People sacrificed their lives in order to provide the District with more power but not to actually provide for the true defense of the nation.

A lot of people literally believe they are defending the nation when they join... and that is honorable.

But to realize what it is that you actually did... it doesn't degrade the honor that you have, because your honor is real. But now you know that you can help others to realize what they would be doing. Serving the District and its interests which are steeped in blood is not an honorable thing once you know the truth of it. It is in fact a much worse job when you come to that realization. Die in the name of debt? Who would do such a thing?



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I actually consider myself a social anarchist. A true socialist. The Constitution is a piece of paper.

Since I keep pressing others for a solution and no one has a real world solution I am going to just throw one out there.

First we take the entire House and Senate out for a nice round of getting shot in the nuts...sorry ladies...next we wait for the presidential primaries. Once all of the candidates have nominated themselves...because why wouldn't they think they were qualified...we take them all out and...shoot them in the nuts.

We then allow all the best military leaders to fight to the death and take the final two and crown them king...starting to sound familiar?..we can then allow the designation of 5 ephors to replace the congress...and just like the Spartans, we put them on trial every year at the end of their service and make them answer for every decision they ever made.

Or we can just put foot to butt on our current congress and executive branch...i really like the idea of shooting them in the nuts though...maybe a submarine.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWrongStuff
 


And you're talking about me like I'm toxic?

You're full of toxin.

You would just end up creating the same government we have now eventually.

So basically, you want the United States of TheWrongStuff.





It is amazing how that worked out the way it did.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


So, yeah. I'm an IT Consultant. That whole not needing tech people; really? You should reevaluate your attitude. Our perceptions determine our reality. Yours could be happier. I highly recommend you learn to grow...um...stuff that is entirely not illegal...thats it.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWrongStuff
 


If you are intelligent enough to be an anarchist, then you will eventually come to the understanding that socialist anarchy as a socio-economic system is impossible beyond the size of a commune without the use of violence.

I'm all for socialist anarchy, as long as I am not violently forced to participate in it.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by Starbug3MY
 


I believe Mnemeth is showing the utmost respect for the soldiers who gave their lives. He is pissed off that they died in vain.


'died in vain'...

I said that to an australian air force something or other once...

he didn't feel I was in a position to decide for him whether HE felt like HIS personal actions were in vain. There are soldier out there (at least in australias armed forces) that put their lives on the line to save the civilians of the country they're deployed too...(instead of killing puppies & waterboarding their kids..) obviously he was right and I learnt a valuable lesson.

Interesting that according to MSM americas pulled out without finishing the job while australias been left to finish training the troops, building schools, etc...we always get pulled into americas bull#....

-B.M

[edit on 28/8/10 by B.Morrison]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


There isn't a smiley face of me yawning so just imagine it. Your solution almost immediately called for exclusion so I can imagine where your government will end. Mine sits in perfect harmony; people just need to take personal account of themselves. You may have softened up your pitch when called on it, but the fact remains that your post wasn't remotely constructive.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Mnemeth, I'm not really that big into the civil war, but hearing minimal evidence about why it was fought from both sides makes for a real interesting theory war, so I thank you for that. But more importantly, I'm having an issue for accepting you as an "anarchist". If you continue contradicting your political ideology, I'll have a problem believing anything you want me to believe.

Heres my problem:

You started as a prototypical neo-con, but watched a speech given by Ron Paul and became an "anarchist".

Ron Paul is an ex-libertarian, and by party policy loves himself some U.S. Constitution.

You then make statements like "Since I'm an anarchist now, I don't recognize the validity of the U.S. Constitution that upholds my rights." (after having a life changing viewing experience from a libertarian (see above))

But you openly contradict your "anarchist" ways when you say something to the effect about how "...I can walk around and do what I want, as long as its not hurting anybody". The first half is anarchist, the second half is not. Also: Your validity of your statement is directly derived from the U.S. Constitution.

Non-Anarchistic Statement: "I am a war criminal". With no laws, there are no crimes, thus no criminals.

Jingoistic Statement: "I am not concerned with anyone except Americans" Anarchists don't prefer a social categorizing system, such as nationalities.

Back on target: Not that I disagree with anything you've posted, disagreements about wars are really up to personal opinion, either by the examiner wanting more information and becoming angry, or being mindlessly complacent (and disregarding their duties as an American citizen) and accepting everything at face value. But these people have the choice to decide what to believe, which is a prime facet for the constitution, which is so revered by Dr. Ron Paul.

Edit: Edit to add "Feudalistic Statement: When you talk about taking the money to solve the "serfs" (that quote helps too) bug problem, then keep the rest for your self is extremely feudalistic.



[edit on 28-8-2010 by Strya]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Strya
 


To paraphrase Rothbard:

I'm am in favor of anything that moves us closer toward freedom.

Thus, I am in favor of Ron Paul.

Ultimately, I am against the use of violence and coercion to get anything from anyone. - This is the underlying principle to my philosophy.

Ron Paul is working from inside the system. I am working from outside.




[edit on 28-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I don't think that any socio-economic shift is going to come from anything less than a very violent uprising, but I was raised Southern Baptist and spend most of my life split between guilt and rage.




posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWrongStuff
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I don't think that any socio-economic shift is going to come from anything less than a very violent uprising, but I was raised Southern Baptist and spend most of my life split between guilt and rage.



Watch this:

Then click the link in my signature and start watching videos.

All of them.

Start with the 'American Economic History'

Tom Woods is a great lecturer, so try his videos first.


[edit on 28-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


"Ultimately, I am against the use of violence and coercion to get anything from anyone. - This is the underlying principle to my philosophy. "

I believe I misinterpreted your "hold a machine gun to your head and take all your money (step 1)" a few pages back. Just want some clarification.



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join