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.

 

UN Condemns Occupy Crackdown

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Please don't take this as an attack. I'm just checking something. Do you really believe that the Senate passed a bill 93-7 that allows the military to arrest or kill any American, anywhere, for no reason, jail them for life, and never let them see a judge?

I'm wondering if you're just dramatizing a bit to make your point more forcefully.




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   


I cannot say i agree more with this man. I have been seriously debating whether or not if i should make a post.


Holy crap OP!!! You agree with this? I could not disagree with you more! In fact I have been warning people this would happen since day one. You welcome UN troops on US soil? I could not disagree with you more! But I am going to flag your thread anyways!!!

OWS it's time to admit that your movement is doing the good people of the US wrong, it's time to shut up and go home!!!

No offense to anyone, but you had already your chance to speak. GO HOME!

ETA: OP thanks for posting this anyways! Regardless of how you feel!
edit on 3-12-2011 by thehoneycomb because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.



you can get picky about anything ... the Constitution doesnt say you have a right to oxygen either.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jlv70
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


George Soros and net neutrality really don't have anything to do with the militant crackdown on what have been for the most part peaceful protests.


Are you serious?

You haven't heard about George and OWS?
Many feel that good old George Soros is one of the puppet masters who has been pulling the strings from behind the Wizards curtain. You don't find it odd that Frank is pushing for something related to OWS and that George's name has popped up numerous times regarding OWS?

Or

That they have been bedfellows previously on other issues regarding "the UN and now OWS"?

But I guess that's just all a coincidence...

edit on 3-12-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


George Soros is a grade A scum bag. Agreed.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 



Messer said while the city considers that area city property, and not public right-of-way that sidewalk protesters are allowed to stand on, the city is accommodating protesters by allowing them to remain there 24 hours a day.


They just can't put tents up that's all.

Source:www.pnj.com...|topnews|text|F[editby ]edit on 3-12-2011 by jlv70 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Dont like Local City laws,or ordinances,change them. Vote people in that WILL change them.

Thats really the point.

CHANGE the laws,to where you can camp in the middle of the street,if you want.

Like I said,Protesting is fine. All the great protests had people doing their thing,and then they GO HOME.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Its a little bit of a dramitization. Though i promise you. It doenst take long for the them to get dirt on you if they want it , and do it legally and hold you without some kind of trail.

Warcrimes are easy to get on some one. Have you ever possibly said , " A revolution might happen soon" or said something to that effect? Then you can very well be considered a radical



(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.


I dont think you know how WIDE of a terminology that is.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


The problem is , they DONT change them when you vote them in. Even when they say they will.

Once they get in government they realize you arnt the only one with power and they are going to give you recommendations that are best for you. I know how that works. Politics are dirty and corrupt.
edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I figured it wouldn't be long now before the UN would make their move. The OWS is just about through, read the link in my signature.

Time to load up and get ready!

And OP think about what you are saying. Obama will offer no resistance as is heads the UN security council and about the oath keepers, they will be fighting against the UN and will not be taking sides with OWS I can peomise you that!



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by sonnny1
 


The problem is , they DONT change them when you vote them in. Even when they say they will.

Once they get in government they realize you arnt the only one with power and they are going to give you recommendations that are best for you. I know how that works. Politics are dirty and corrupt.
edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


Then I suggest OWS gets there collective butts together,and become the new mayors of Simpleton........




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


I do believe NATO will be part of the NWO. (Im Christian and the Bible tells us this will come)

Im not trying to get all religious on you or anything , im just saying the statements he made about the Government treating the protestors VERY badly needs to be addressed.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


I do know NATO will be part of it. I visited NORTHCOMM a while back when I first learned about this, they have been preparing since 9/11 2001 and probably before that.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


you have run into a wall,
a wall that seeks to direct you away from the truth,
some here wish to miss direct you with talk of the boogie "soros"
some use the term "terrorist"
others national security,
they all have agendas.
hell even i do man,
just speak from the heart and let the truth out



what you say is correct, the military MUST act to protect the people when the govenment oversteps the boundaries set forth by the constitution.

and the latest detention bill comes criminally close to crossing that line....

it is the sworn duty of every indiviual who servers their country to uphold the moral society of their own country, as well as its laws.

those evictions were co ordinated at the federal level,
and the act of occopying was the FORM of political free speach,
and people were removed by force and their properties destroyed.

very shortly afterwards this bill passes,

contempt is what i see from the politicians,
contempt for the rule of law
contempt for the constitution
contempt for the people

and IMHO the US govenment is now more terrorfying than the teliban.

piece and light

xploder



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Many feel that way, but look at what happened with Reuters, when OWS was getting started they jumped at linking Soros with OWS.

www.observer.com...

This is from the New York Observer, showing Reuters' first article that they had to retract and the article that they replaced it with, showing the changes that Reuters had to make.
The first article isn't even on Reuters anymore. This is the article that replaced the first one.
This is the headline:


Soros: not a funder of Wall Street protests


Here's a link to the Reuters article:www.reuters.com...



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


No dude, why don't you just grant them permission to come over here and kill innocent americans?

Not that you have the authority to do so anyways.



way down



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12


Ron Paul would get my vote regardless. I do have a major issue with his MILITARY / Foreign affairs agenda. It is to weak and wussified. Everything else though is nearly perfect.]


See,we DO agree on somethings.................




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Dear milkyway12,

Thank you so much for not being offended by my comments. I appreciate the response. And I agree with your comment that I don't know how wide a terminology that is.

May I use your example as a starting point? I am perfectly willing to say publicly or in print that "I expect a revolution to happen soon, and I don't know how I'll respond when it happens."

Well, I've never substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, or anyone attacking the US or its partners. I don't think any single statement that the average American might make would be substantial anything.

Belligerent act? Well, belligerent relates to war, and it's been sometime since I've done a war-like act.

Directly supported hostilities? That sounds like sending money or supplies directly to a terrorist group. Haven't done that either.

Do you see my problem? I'm having a tough time sretching those clauses to fit normal American activity. That's why I'm hoping you'll be able to show me where the wide terminology is. I just don't see it now.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


i hate the teliban,
i do not wish harm on anyone,
i do not think the telban is anywhere near as dangeous as the usa

to suggest otherwise is an outright lie

one statement doesnt equal the other
you are using the patriot angle to demonize me

i dont agree with terrorism, not from the teliban, and not from the us govenment.

twist someone elses words troll

xploder



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 





and IMHO the US govenment is now more terrorfying than the teliban. piece and light

Just a little test/experiment...

So you are stating your opinion...granted and fine.

But with 4 (can you find them?) issues with that quoted line, why should your opinion even be considered?



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join