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.

 

US Government Violently Assaults Hollywood Actor For Failing To Fund Illegal Wars

page: 13
70
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by mnemeth1
]protect the poppy fields[/url] used in heroine production from Taliban patriots whose religious beliefs preclude them from allowing the production of heroine in their country.

If you actually believe this, you must be smoking what they are growing !

The taliban sells herione to finance their terror campaign.

And what a shame their religious beliefs don't prevent them from torturing and killing innocent men, women and children.

I know the US government isn't exactly the innocent in all this but come on ! You're trying to make the taliban sound like a bunch of quire boys !


Come on now, who do you think created the taliban, funded the taliban and continues to support the taliban......that's right, the shadow federal government known as the U.S. Corporation. I have heard that the Bush family alone is raking in millions from the poppy fields as they own a vast majority of them. Sad really.

Actually the members of the taliban and their fanatical religious views created the taliban. It doesn't matter if the CIA, during the soviet occupation, financed them or not. Fanatics are fanatics with or without money. Looking back, was it a good idea? Of course not ! Does that make it ok for the fanatics to blow up schools full of children or torture and kill innocent men, women and children? OF COURSE NOT !




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePublicEnemyNo1

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by jfj123

The taliban sells herione to finance their terror campaign.



Umm... No.

Umm.... Yes.


LONDON, 27 November 2008. The Afghan Opium Survey 2008 released today by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) shows that opium has become less important to the Afghan economy due to a decrease in cultivation, production and prices. However, opium finances the Taliban war economy and is a major source of revenue for criminal groups and terrorists.

www.unodc.org...
edit on 10-12-2010 by jfj123 because: (no reason given)


If you believe a single quote coming from a corrupt organization such as the the UNODC then you're very naive!

Now here's the irony...are you ready ? It's the same source that the mememeth used to tell me I'm wrong

That's the main reason why I used it
There are dozens of other sources that say pretty much the same thing though.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Rights to basic needs like food, water, shelter, healthcare and protection against injustice are more important than right to property. Some theft is justified if the stolen wealth is used for these purposes.

Property rights are important indeed, but there are rights more important than property rights.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1
 


I am disappointed by the topic and title.

All I saw on the ATS home page was this:

"US Government Violently Assaults Hollywood Actor For Failing To Fund Illegal Wars"

Because of the title I thought, "oh man that sounds interesting, I'm gonna read it!". I click the link, and read the topic, only to find out it was an out right lie. An exaggerated sensationalist title and topic. No actor was violently assaulted EVER. In fact, the actor complied with requests and cooperated. There was no violence, or assault. I was SCAMMED, and CONNED into reading this topic by the author.

It turns out.... mnemeth1 (the OP) has a history of doing this. I am constantly lured in by his deceptive topic titles only to find out he was lying and exaggerating.... then I read more of the same rants that he always posts about the government. It is basically a duplicate topic disguised as a new topic. It's getting old.. and it makes ATS look like extremist retarded anti-government liars.







Boo

You left out the fact that I have a history of promoting Anarchy and I don't believe in Special or General Relativity.



So instead of just complaining, when are you ACTUALLY going to do something about it?
Or are you only a tough guy from behind your keyboard?



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




The law is what nature says it is.
The law says - THE INITIATION OF VIOLENCE IS WRONG The law says - THEFT IS WRONG The law says - DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE UNTO YOU


Really natural rights are only the rights that you can defend yourself. All other rights stem only from agreement in the society. It may not be pretty, but thats a fact.

Natural rights as defined by John Locke:

Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.


See? Only the first right is universal, top priority and always valid, the other two have exceptions.
edit on 11/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The US Government has recently ordered the kidnapping and enslavement of actor Wesley Snipes for failing to pay his cut of their "protection money."

Um ... no. He was thrown in jail for not paying a whole lotta' taxes. He takes advantage of that which taxes pay for, but he refuses to pay for what he owes. Then he trys to deflect from his guilt claiming it's racist. BAH! He's a criminal. Nothing else but a criminal.


A criminal is someone who takes people's property without permission. That would be what the IRS does all the time. They are nothing but criminals. Nothing else but criminals. Cheating on taxes means you are part of the IRS stealing people's money. Being honest with taxes means not paying any of it. I've been fairly honest with my taxes overall but have been cheated on by the IRS quite a bit... its nearly impossible to avoid getting cheated on by the IRS.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by astro2724
 





I am sick of people saying that the goverment is breaking the law.Have you read the 16th Amendment?It has been fought against many times in the supreme court and it has been upheld.


That's because the current goverment, after Woodrow Wilson, is bought and owned by the International Bankers. They will lie and break any law, wipe their butts with our constitution, create laws as they go along or rather interpret them in their favor.

16th amendment does say that congress can apportion tax UNIFORMLY on a census basis but it must be apportioned EQUALLY amongst all states. Not some owing more, having higer taxes because they make more or less or to be targeted like so many are by the IRS.

(caption from 16th ammendment)

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

"Article I, § 8, Clause 1 grants to the Congress the power to impose taxes, but it requires excise taxes to be geographically uniform." - In the states it's hardly geographically uniform. It is well known that the rich, because of Bush and Obama have been favored lately and given tax breaks while the rest of America is getting targeted.

"The Constitution states that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states according to population." - The IRS is a direct tax and IS NOT being apportioned equally, even if all but 3 states ratified it, there are 3 states that didn't agree and thus are forced to be taxed disproportionately against their rights.

"The courts have ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment allows a direct tax on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment" - This was not the way it was before the Federal Reserve was installed.

see: "Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned." Source

It was only AFTER the Fedral Reserve and the IRS took over that this supposed law went into effect as the Supreme Court and police and legal figure and politicians, hell, even the President has been bought and work for the International bankers......it is no surprise to me that a the Supreme Court ruled in an illegal act by an illegal "Privatized" entity as corrupt and powerful as the IRS. The truth is a private organization NO MATTER WHAT THE LAW SAYS, cannot run our government legally. The Federal Reserve....ILLEGAL!..... The IRS....ILLEGAL! They just masquerade as government because people like you are too ignorant to step outside of the confined mind that the government has created for you and are scared to look for truth. You just follow blindly like a sheep and you will go to the slaughter just like the rest of us. The Supreme Court was bought by the International Bankers and many other countries are dealing with the same con artists. The sheer size and power of the FED and the IRS are the only reasons they can pass illegal laws......because they steal from us so much that we couldn't possibly win against them in a rigged court of law.....especially when all the members are working for money.





edit on 11-12-2010 by Phenomium because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   


Actually the members of the taliban and their fanatical religious views created the taliban. It doesn't matter if the CIA, during the soviet occupation, financed them or not. Fanatics are fanatics with or without money. Looking back, was it a good idea? Of course not ! Does that make it ok for the fanatics to blow up schools full of children or torture and kill innocent men, women and children? OF COURSE NOT !



So let me understand this.....you "believe" what the media has presented? You "believe" that a group of people who have lived in the mountains and plains of a country for hundreds of years, bothering no one, suddenly "became" extremists and created an organized group of fighters to create terror throughout the region........and for what again did they do that?

I don't want to get too far off topic here but some people have the most ridiculous statements and ideas. Believe NONE of what you read and HALF of what you see and do some investigation and use common sense, if you have any, and deduce the most plausiblle scenerio from that. Mull it over for a while and try and understand where the info comes from and who benefits from the propoganda. Simple really. Had those people been left alone, as they had been for thousands of years, and none of this would be happening. Everything happens for a reason, and the Elite have the most reason, they are thieves, liars and criminals all around.
edit on 11-12-2010 by daddio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Rights to basic needs like food, water, shelter, healthcare and protection against injustice are more important than right to property. Some theft is justified if the stolen wealth is used for these purposes.

Property rights are important indeed, but there are rights more important than property rights.


This isn't about a right to property.

This is about the right not to have a gun stuck in your face.

Food and healthcare are not a right because you do not have a right to own other people or use violence against them if they do not comply with your demands for their labor and property.

You have the right to be free so that you may acquire your own food and healthcare. You do not have a right to use violence against others to take their food or force them to provide you with healthcare.

The initiation of violence is wrong.

edit on 11-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Actually the members of the taliban and their fanatical religious views created the taliban. It doesn't matter if the CIA, during the soviet occupation, financed them or not. Fanatics are fanatics with or without money. Looking back, was it a good idea? Of course not ! Does that make it ok for the fanatics to blow up schools full of children or torture and kill innocent men, women and children? OF COURSE NOT !





So let me understand this.....you "believe" what the media has presented? You "believe" that a group of people who have lived in the mountains and plains of a country for hundreds of years, bothering no one, suddenly "became" extremists and created an organized group of fighters to create terror throughout the region........and for what again did they do that?

I don't want to get too far off topic here but some people have the most ridiculous statements and ideas. Believe NONE of what you read and HALF of what you see and do some investigation and use common sense, if you have any, and deduce the most plausiblle scenerio from that. Mull it over for a while and try and understand where the info comes from and who benefits from the propoganda. Simple really. Had those people been left alone, as they had been for thousands of years, and none of this would be happening. Everything happens for a reason, and the Elite have the most reason, they are thieves, liars and criminals all around.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.


The natural rights clearly state that you can break the right to property if your life or liberty would be threatened by not doing so. Thats why basic welfare and basic healthcare payed by moderate theft is compatible even with this libertarian definition of natural rights (not even talking about the definition of rights set out in the Declaration of Basic Human Rights, which is much more actual and includes more things, like right to education etc.)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.


The natural rights clearly state that you can break the right to property if your life or liberty would be threatened by not doing so. Thats why basic welfare and basic healthcare payed by moderate theft is compatible even with this libertarian definition of natural rights (not even talking about the definition of rights set out in the Declaration of Basic Human Rights, which is much more actual and includes more things, like right to education etc.)


The natural rights are not written on a piece of paper, so I'm not sure where you get that nature tells us it is OK to use violence against our fellow men to get what we want.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




The natural rights are not written on a piece of paper, so I'm not sure where you get that nature tells us it is OK to use violence against our fellow men to get what we want.


Since you are not meaning those three, then you probably mean REAL natural rights granted to everyone only by the nature itself, and not written anywhere by philosophers or societal agreement. Nature is clear in this case, you have only those rights that you can defend from being infringed upon by yourself. All other rights are man-made, not natural, even those three under the above definition, if someone cannot protect them (calling them natural is just a figure of speech, it means they are basic or fundamental, but still they are created by people, not nature, that is not the meaning).

Tell me, where nature tells us it is NOT OK to use violence? It doesnt, nature is silent, if something, it tells us its OK, since animals and tribal people have used it all the time.
People in more modern societies have decided and agreed its not OK to use violence (in almost all cases), NOT nature, it actually goes against nature (by which I am not saying its not a good thing, something being natural or unnatural has nothing to do with it being good or bad).



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Sir, even a two year old knows it is wrong to hit others.

Are you going to tell me that we need violence against the innocent in order to have a prosperous society?

Are you trying to sell me on the need for violence against people who have harmed no one?

You do realize that this is no different than what Mao, Hitler or Stalin advocated right?

You do realize you are advocating evil right?



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Some are more evolved than others. I've finally realized this truth. Some are genetically unable to grasp simple concepts. It is not an ability they possess. This is why those of us that understand , must be armed.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




Sir, even a two year old knows it is wrong to hit others.


And even a two year old knows its wrong to not help others in need when you can do it with causing you little or no harm. And its also wrong to tolerate that behaviour in others, just as its wrong to tolerate other crimes, thus in fact becoming an accomplice.



Are you going to tell me that we need violence against the innocent in order to have a prosperous society?


No, not against the innocent, I have never suggested such a thing. Only against the greedy and selfish. The innocent do not need violence to give part of their income to the poor.



You do realize that this is no different than what Mao, Hitler or Stalin advocated right?


Of course it is. Just like there is a big difference between justified violence (where the alternative of doing nothing means basic rights of someone being harmed) and unjustified violence (Mao, Hitler, Stalin etc.)



You do realize you are advocating evil right?


Evil is advocating something which increases overall suffering of the innocents. So if we have to choose between two alternatives, we have to choose the one which leads to lower overall suffering:
1. Taking part of rich peoples new property to provide basic necessities for the poor which do not have other sources of income
2. Not taking part of rich peoples new property to provide basic necessities for the poor, thus leaving the poor that do not have other sources of income without them

Which alternative provides less net suffering?
By not taking rich peoples property, their suffering would slightly decrease, but the suffering of poor people which are at a time dependent on the help from this wealth increases far more, since psychical suffering caused by buying one TV set instead of two is far smaller than psychical and physical suffering caused by not having basic necessities. Marginal value of the same thing is different for different people in different situations. See this.
So, taken together, the first alternative provides less net suffering than the second.

Do you realise that advocating overall increase in human suffering is evil, right?
edit on 11/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


To equate not hitting someone with not helping them is the height of insanity.

Don't you get tired of making up excuses to rob and loot people at gun point?



edit on 11-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio


Actually the members of the taliban and their fanatical religious views created the taliban. It doesn't matter if the CIA, during the soviet occupation, financed them or not. Fanatics are fanatics with or without money. Looking back, was it a good idea? Of course not ! Does that make it ok for the fanatics to blow up schools full of children or torture and kill innocent men, women and children? OF COURSE NOT !



So let me understand this.....you "believe" what the media has presented?
In some cases. I also believe what I see and what my friends who serve, have seen.


I don't want to get too far off topic here but some people have the most ridiculous statements and ideas.

ie yourself.


Believe NONE of what you read and HALF of what you see and do some investigation and use common sense,

If you believe NONE of what you read, how did you become educated?
Also since I cannot believe any of what I've read, I shouldn't believe anything you say. Be careful my friend. Blanket statements will come back to haunt you every time.


Had those people been left alone, as they had been for thousands of years, and none of this would be happening.

Had the US been left alone, none of this would have happened. Had the crusaders been left alone, none of this would have happened. We can go back to the caveman who stole the others mammoth coat and state if he didn't steal that coat, none of this would have happened.

In addition, keep in mind, extremists left alone are still extremists. They still torture and kill anyone who doesn't believe EXACTLY how they do. Their own extremist teachings state they must either convert or kill.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Maslo
 


To equate not hitting someone with not helping them is the height of insanity.

Don't you get tired of making up excuses to rob and loot people at gun point?



edit on 11-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Instead of paying taxes, how would you suggest we run the government.
Please be detailed. If it's a good idea, I'm all for it !



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




To equate not hitting someone with not helping them is the height of insanity.


Why exactly? In both cases you have two options or courses of action, one leading to other person being harmed, the other do not (and in both cases you wont be harmed much by choosing the better one). So why exactly it is different in principle? What makes "doing nothing" option so special that it is accepted even if it leads to harming others, but other options leading to the same harming outcome are still rejected? Why is choosing more passive course of action (but still with full knowledge of consequences and consent) that leads to others suffering so much different and better than choosing more active course of action that leads to THE SAME outcome or effect?



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join