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.

 

Nullify Now! US tyranny defense.

page: 7
70
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


SCOTUS are not elected officials. They are often chosen by the President, then pushed through an owned or compromised Congress. These are not elected officials. SCOTUS should comprise of 'elected' individuals if they are to serve any purpose for the people. It should be quite 'alarming' to the folks out there that the Feds have been answering to the 'folks' for quite some time now. It has become 'in your face' with attempt to rattle you so you may be their next news story for how unsafe the nation is so the Feds can push through more anti-paranoia police state propaganda that is designed for 'their' protection, not that of the people. lol, it should be obvious by now. The folks are comin around.....the bend.




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


Why not eliminate the individual taxation on sole proprietorships and individuals and enact sales taxation with corporate taxation?



Hell man, I could dig this one -

I think many Liberals could dig this one too...

All in all I we have agreed on two things that could do a whole lot of good.

As far as political parties go, why not start a new party with a particular agenda, all candidates swear to
push one agenda, once the agenda is accomplished all agree to abandon their posts at mass. A great meeting of sides, no BS, all goal - Anyhow too bad it sounds impossible -

P.S are you End???

(:


edit on 14-9-2010 by Janky Red because: added shiz



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Just because you want to destroy this Union and set up a fascist regime doesn't mean that the rest of us do.


HAHAHA WHAT!?!?!
You can't even quote where he's advocating fascism... Just throwing out ignorant rhetoric.



I know, you would like it if juries all across the country would use their power of nullification to the extent that society is crawling with serial killers, murderers and rapists. But common decency would dictate otherwise. I believe your want for this to occur is because you hate the Constitution, hate freedom and hate America.


This paragraph is truly deserving of the full weight of the ATS community to personally attack. However I will refrain, and hopefully others do.

You're honestly suggesting he's advocating using jury nullification to allow those who violate the RIGHTS of others to go free. Which is as anyone can clearly see (so long as you have at least a 5th grade education) is the opposite of what he is suggesting.

No juror in their right mind would ever suggest murder or rape isn't a crime.

The issue at hand is what is a crime. Which according to Natural Law and the Constitution is essentially an act which deprives an individual of their rights. So a crime in an act which deprives another of their rights... (paraphrasing here...)

So with that in mind, he's suggesting juror nullification be used when there is in fact no deprivation of rights...

So for example, as the use of an illicit drug is your right to liberty and deprives no others of their rights. Then the act it's self is not a crime, even though the legislature wishes it to be for revenue generation purposes. As such it is the DUTY of the jury to nullify the legislation in regards to it and as there is no crime, acquit.

Apparently this means anarchy in your world? Care to actually defend your erroneous statements?

(P.S. I'm still laughing at your OBSCENELY ridiculous post)


edit on 14-9-2010 by mryanbrown because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by nenothtu
 



You probably didn't notice that little word "if" there. Might want to read more slowly so parts don't get skipped.


Actually I did, that is why the first word in the first part of my reply to you was the word IF. Perhaps you need to take your own advice once and a while.


Nah, I'm not foolish enough to take my own advice, and you aren't either. Kudos!



You also have the right to vote. But if that is not a important right for you obviously none of your other rights are either.


If it's all the same to you, I'll just decide for myself what is important to me...



Actually you are right, you do have the right to complain. However if you don't vote, than your complaint means exactly nothing.


Eh, I'm of a different opinion, but that's what makes the world go 'round, right? Folks who don't vote carry the same weight in their opinions as anyone else to me. I try not to reject any of them out of hand, without first giving due consideration. You're right in a way, though. I can't see where much of ANYONE'S opinion carries any weight in DC - not for several years now, going back at least to Bush I, probably further. Same weight - which is NONE where it counts.



Actually putting your mark on a contract does give consent.


A vote is a contract now? I really have to pay more attention to that fine print...



I didn't say passed out drunk chick at a party. I said party slut. The difference is, the passed out drunk chick at a party cannot give consent, while the party slut can and does give consent to everyone in the place freely of her own will. Do you see the difference?


I'll have to give you that one. I'm new to this whole "applying monosyllabic labels to others as a defense" thing, I probably just misconstrued the ground rules.




If you vote, you give your consent to be governed by the elected official. If your guy does not win the election, then it gives you the right to say how terrible the winner is doing at every opportunity. In fact, if you vote, your dissent for the elected person that you did not vote for holds more weight because you weren't apathetic, and did go and vote.


Now we seem to differ on consent. You seem to be ok with an "implied" consent, and I won't settle for less than an express consent.



While the lazy apathetic sob who did not vote, well, he can complain, but no one cares. After all, it's like listening to a wino in an alley bitch about the pidgins. Yea, you hear him, but no one gives a damn.


Nice catch-22 you've got going on there. If an individual doesn't vote at all, they're comparable to a party slut, and consents to anything from anyone, and if they DO vote, then they consent to anything from anyone, regardless of the outcome.

What do you suppose it would take for you to NOT impute consent for just any old thing to everyone?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Well, corporations were given "person" status with NONE of the consequences of a real flesh and blood human being.

Can a corporation be convicted of murder? Of course not, hell it is almost impossible to prove that corporations have used cost accounting, to legitimize deaths of human beings instead of fixing a problem, lawsuits/fines vs fixing problem. Even if they are proved to have done it, will anyone be convicted of murder? No, they get a fine and maybe someone gets a few bucks in a lawsuit. Yeah, that is justice.

Corporations are NECESSARY in my eyes. They have allowed us to create great benefit for man, but with the implementation of the other components, as corporate loopholes and their partnering with government, has caused all kinda problems.

Remove the tax burdens on individuals and sole proprietors, and then let the corporate profits be taxed alone. THIS would create a whole new surge in small business. Great for the country and great for the INDIVIDUALS.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Perseus Apex
 



SCOTUS should comprise of 'elected' individuals if they are to serve any purpose for the people.


See, this is what I am talking about. People who hate the Constitution, they hate it so much that they want to arbitrarily change it to fit their fascist agenda.

reply to post by mryanbrown
 




HAHAHA WHAT!?!?!
You can't even quote where he's advocating fascism... Just throwing out ignorant rhetoric.


I can't?


The government rules by the CONSENT of the governed.

If we or I do not consent, they have no power.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obviously he wants a fascist dictatorship where he is the sole judge and jury of what is law and what is not.


Yes, all forms of nullification need to be pursued. State nullification and jury nullification. There are other ways such as asking for jurisdictional hearings, but those are better handled by the better informed.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

He said ALL FORMS OF NULLIFICATION, which means serial killers, murderers and rapists. He actaully wants these people freed to do what they do and never have to face any consequences.

He doesn't stop there, he also contradicts himself. First he says that the federal government has powers under the Constitution, and then in another post, he claims that the government has no powers.

His argument for powers:

The Constitution is a listing of powers allowed to the federal government. The bill of rights are specific rights afforded the people. By the 9th and 10th, these rights are not limited to the rights listed, but also include all those NOT listed.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

His argument against powers:


Just as I have stated that the Alcohol Prohibition amendments prove that nothing within the Constitution can be added or removed without a Constitutional Amendment, hence any legislation that either takes a right away or tries to add another one, be it to the Individual, the States, or the Federal government must require an Amendment.


So believe this fascist all you want. But know that if people like him gain power soon they will be placing the "undesirables" into concentration camps to be exterminated.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


The quote "trumps everything" merely meant that a government (federal) created by and of the people supercedes state government, not that it *literally* trumps *everything.* Sorry if you took that the wrong way. I should have specified that I meant that policies of the Fed Gov outweigh state policies --in the areas in which it is APPROPRIATE--.

HEALTHCARE: Hey, if you already have healthcare, this new law shouldn't affect you. In fact, from what I've read and heard, YOU are only affected if you do not ALREADY have healthcare... mainly? Like, if you have no healthcare plan, then you are required to get one. -And, if you cannot afford such a plan, then you are carried by the government? Is that not so? Which means... that those who could not afford healthcare are now COVERED by the program?

If I have to pay $100 (or even $200) extra a year taken from my already high income taxes, then SO BE IT if it means that I am helping a fellow AMERICAN who couldn't otherwise afford to have essential surgery or chemo or whatever he/she needs to LIVE. I mean, for Godssakes when did healthcare become so EXPENSIVE that *average* citizens could no longer afford it!!!!!??? I'll tell you when. When big corporations put PROFIT before WELL BEING.

The state of things was HORRIFIC. Some change was needed. It was not perfect. More change should come. And, like a sculptor chiseling away at a masterpiece, healthcare reform will grow into something we can sustain.

Sure, if you are happy with your personal healthcare, and can pay CASH, then do so. This law should really only affect those who HAVE NOTHING. Shout your arguments at a kid who has been injured and can't pay for his arm to be set. Parents KNOW that wounded kids are the ***WORST*** pain imaginable Fight healthcare reform and explain to those hurt kids why they can't get treatment.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Well, corporations were given "person" status with NONE of the consequences of a real flesh and blood human being.

Can a corporation be convicted of murder? Of course not, hell it is almost impossible to prove that corporations have used cost accounting, to legitimize deaths of human beings instead of fixing a problem, lawsuits/fines vs fixing problem. Even if they are proved to have done it, will anyone be convicted of murder? No, they get a fine and maybe someone gets a few bucks in a lawsuit. Yeah, that is justice.

Corporations are NECESSARY in my eyes. They have allowed us to create great benefit for man, but with the implementation of the other components, as corporate loopholes and their partnering with government, has caused all kinda problems.

Remove the tax burdens on individuals and sole proprietors, and then let the corporate profits be taxed alone. THIS would create a whole new surge in small business. Great for the country and great for the INDIVIDUALS.


Well, I like this particular notion... It completely addresses my "liberal" concern with the corporation to a T, you get it and I really like that.

I agree, individuals as individuals can keep every dime, fictitious creations that get special treatment can be subject to taxation. IT is simple and I could back such a thing... You see we all get into problems when we
add on the rest of our views, so why not create a party for the current time, an agreed upon agenda, no deviation
... The regular parties would get us with the amendments though, crap!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Well, I am a rather easy going guy, all I ever ask is not to force your will upon another.

Yes, there are those that believe on the conservative side that forcing morals is okay. It is not. Once the government has that power, they can use it to force other issues. As we both can see.

Socialized anything is fine, as long as it is voluntary.

When I ran a business, I joined several co ops for different purposes. One was for the supplies I needed. We gathered a group of people to purchase products together.

Heck, there are even stores doing it now. Costco amongst others. That is how you fight the big retailers. Join together for purchasing power and eliminate the middle men.

Anyway, great discussion, except for one member. Thanks janky.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


About the trumps everything, I kinda got your point but needed clarification.

As for the healthcare, what do you think if someone like me, that does not really need health care insurance?

No, I am not rich.

Let us just say I have a very extended family and community, which includes a couple nurses, doctors and such. I also have a couple folks that allow cash payments and installments if necessary.

Forcing me and people like me, into the hands of the insurance companies is going to make us further into the poorhouse. As I have stated, I am NOT rich in the economic sense but in the community sense.

Is it fair to force us to pay for a corporate takeover of MY health care?

Especially since it IS BLATANTLY unConstitutional.

We are a country based on LAW. If the Constitution is no longer going to be followed, might just as well call it a day, for then we have become what the founders warned us about.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Nice catch-22 you've got going on there. If an individual doesn't vote at all, they're comparable to a party slut, and consents to anything from anyone, and if they DO vote, then they consent to anything from anyone, regardless of the outcome.


No, if they don't vote then they are the "party slut" if they do vote, they have given expressed consent, if the guy you vote for does not win, it gives you carte blanche to disapprove of everything that the person who won does. Their opinion matters more than the non voter who could care less, because they actually cared enough to try and choose a person they believe to be a good candidate.

Now, we have our OP friend who instead wants to destroy the union completely, he wants juries all over the nation to start acquitting people by using jury nullification in every case, thereby destroying the judicial branch of our government, he also wants to destroy the legislative branch of our government by stripping them of the powers granted to them under the Constitution by Article I Section 8. Leaving only the executive branch left. Therefore, he wants a dictatorship.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Saying that all government is derived from the consent of the people (or should be) is not fascism. It's what the founding fathers of this country stood for. And what millions of us who still follow in their tradition still stand for. It's OUR government. I don't see where you get off with this crap. People like you are the reason the US is so screwed up to begin with.


"The Voice of ReasonIn an Unreasonable World"

If you think the whole world is so unreasonable, ya know it's probably just you.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I suggest you consult a dictionary more often. Especially the word fascism.

"He said America isn't majority rule, fascists!!!"

Makes NO SENSE.



But know that if people like him gain power soon they will be placing the "undesirables" into concentration camps to be exterminated.


Are you trolling?


edit on 14-9-2010 by mryanbrown because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





They can reverse their decision. See, if you knew anything on how this government works you would know that the legislative branch passes legislation, the potus signs it into law, and if that law is not constitutional the SCOTUS rejects that law.

Just because YOU don't like a law, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.


Just reading through the thread again, I missed this PERFECT EXAMPLE of Cognitive Dissonance.

Tell good sir, if the legislation is passed and prior to the SCOTUS ruling determining it is not Constitutional-

Was it EVER Constitutional or LAW?




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by quantumdragon
 


Thanks QD.
This is not the only place I spread this information.

It is becoming viral.

People are hungry for the power of the individual rights and the RESPONSIBILITY they come with.

Not to mention the Freedom and Liberty those powers include.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Saying that all government is derived from the consent of the people (or should be) is not fascism. It's what the founding fathers of this country stood for. And what millions of us who still follow in their tradition still stand for. It's OUR government. I don't see where you get off with this crap. People like you are the reason the US is so screwed up to begin with.


The problem is, our OP friend wants thinks to be only his way, he wants only his consent to be valid, not anyone else. Doesn't that denote a tyrannical ideology? Instead of a Republic by the people and for the people, he wants a government by himself, for himself and to hell with what anyone else thinks, that's tyranny.

He want's a small minority of people to dictate what is and what is not in these United States. He want's juries to legislate from the jury box by acquitting everyone for every crime, which would destroy the judicial system, he wants to remove the powers invested in the legislative branch by the United States Constitution, thereby eliminating all use of the legislative branch. Leaving the executive branch the only one spared thereby creating a fascist dictatorship.

If you don't see what evil oppression this guy wants for this country I feel bad for you. It must be sad to be so easily led about by the nose.

None of his suggestions will help this country be more free, it will just be chaos and an evil dictatorship ruled by a oppressive regime who will tell you how to live and what to think. He has even tried to silence me in this thread for speaking out against his proposed fascist government wants. Does that speak well of a person who want's more freedom? Of course it doesn't, if someone truly want's freedom, they of course know that freedom of speech is a part of that freedom, and that freedom of speech also includes freedom for someone to dissent against their ideas, something that our OP friend has shown he does not agree with. He would rather shut me up than be spoken out against.

Sorry, but I don't agree with his fascist regime idea, I don't agree with his stripping from our legislative branch the powers invested them under the Constitution, I don't agree with his destruction of the judicial system through the overuse of a legal ploy.

See, you have to read these people's words carefully, that way you can think about it and decide for yourself whether or not what they are selling is actually a good idea. I disagree with the premise of the OP because it's just fascism disguised badly as Constitutionalism. And when you want to start ripping out parts of the Constitution that you don't agree with, and destroying branches of the government you don't agree with, well that's not being a very good Constitutionalist is it? And when you want to start silencing your dissenters that's not being a very good Constitutionalist is it?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Yeah, I am silencing YOU?
I do not think the Mask from the movie Silence of the Lambs could silence you and YOUR attacks. Reminds me of the cage scene.

When YOU have to call names and denigrate a position by doing exactly that, that is called argumentum ad hominem attack.

Should I make a list of the things YOU have called me and insinuated that I would do?

The lack of civility is QUITE revealing.

Get off the your white horse.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
The problem is, our OP friend wants thinks to be only his way, he wants only his consent to be valid, not anyone else. Doesn't that denote a tyrannical ideology? Instead of a Republic by the people and for the people, he wants a government by himself, for himself and to hell with what anyone else thinks, that's tyranny.


lol, no. just no.

He isn't stating that he want's his consent to be valid, and invalidate everyone else's. It's a relatively simple concept called "liberty".

He's saying, do what you want. Just don't attempt to require him to do something you or majority rule want him to. He will honor your rights, so long as you honor is. It's really simple man.



He want's a small minority of people to dictate what is and what is not in these United States. He want's juries to legislate from the jury box by acquitting everyone for every crime, which would destroy the judicial system, he wants to remove the powers invested in the legislative branch by the United States Constitution, thereby eliminating all use of the legislative branch. Leaving the executive branch the only one spared thereby creating a fascist dictatorship.


No, no, and no. These are all things you are saying, not him.



If you don't see what evil oppression this guy wants for this country I feel bad for you. It must be sad to be so easily led about by the nose.


Expecting personal liberty is oppression?

I've come to the conclusion that you are either trolling, or have no understanding about what is being discussed. I hope for the latter despite the fact it would mean ignorance. Because ignorance can be overcome. You know the rest...


edit on 14-9-2010 by mryanbrown because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Actually I have been quite civil to you, I have attacked your ideas which I find to be moronic and asinine. But that's not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say that YOU were an idiot, or a fool. There is a difference.

One must learn to have just a bit thicker skin if one is to try and take over a country and destroy any and all freedoms the people love and hold dear my friend.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join