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.

 

Republicans’ Ex-Spokesman Calls For Armed Rebellion Over Obamacare

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I would love to see a peaceful protest of millions of people marching on Washington DC. I'd love to see them protest for months until the idiot government got the message that Obama care is just not wanted in this country.




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
This amount of outrage over Obamacare which has some benefits for people who need it. Republicans should have been this upset over the 9/11 investigation and the passage of the Patriot Act which is slowly chipping away at our constitutional rights.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
This amount of outrage over Obamacare which has some benefits for people who need it. Republicans should have been this upset over the 9/11 investigation and the passage of the Patriot Act which is slowly chipping away at our constitutional rights.


Funny isn't it? There are many things far worse than the healthcare bill that have been passed. Heck, they are doing drone flights over the U.S. now. Maybe they'll start blowing us away without provocation, yet people are crying about a healthcare bill? It's always about money in the end isn't it? Most people value dollars over their own lives. I can now get my chronic illness diagnosed which i have avoided for ages due to the fact that if I do have something serious I would have been unable to get insurance after my husband left the military and would have probably bankrupted my family (and for those who are interested beyong hating the liberal, it's probaly rheumatoid arthritis which means I'll probably be dead before I'm 70).

The amount of hyperbolic head exploding over this is too funny. Obama would have gotten mad props from me if he just walked out onto that podium and said "You mad bro?". I would have fell off the couch laughing.
edit on 28-6-2012 by antonia because: added a thought



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
As long as their is NASCAR, the NFL, the NHL, NBA, the olympics, WWF, Rodeo, Dancin with the stars,
and all the other banal TV fare; there will be no revolution.

Only hungry people revolt...not fatassed slackers.

Bread and circus....



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 





I knew it wasn't, you misunderstood what I was saying. I said playing dumb *might* be a better defense than the "no one understands the tax law" argument. I said that because of this supreme court ruling that I quoted in my last post below.


Yes, I got that. What I am saying is that "no one understands the tax code" is a good faith argument, where "playing dumb" implies one really isn't dumb but is acting as such in order to scam a legal system. It is demonstrably true that no one understands the tax code. I make this argument in good faith, which is the legal principle asserted in the Supreme Court ruling you referenced.




Because most citizens follow it without any question?


Congress doesn't impose a tax directly on income, and because the word "income" is in the 16th Amendment and not defined, Congress cannot simply redefined the word to suit their purposes now.

Eisner v. Macomber:


In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.





If you did go to court and argue your defense though couldn't it be ruled just like Cheek v. USA was?


The federal government has a 97% conviction rate, which is an astonishing success rate. I believe a large reason why this is so is that the federal government does not go after cases it suspects they will lose. So, in short, I suspect that if the IRS came knocking on my door and I kept insisting what I am here, which is I don't understand the code and remain unconvinced they understand the code, I think the federal government will back off. If they do push it forward, Cheek v U.S. gives precedent as to why I could make my arguments I've made to a jury, and does give even more reason for a jury to acquit.




Minus the constitutionality and enter your defense.


I'm not clear what you mean by this. Are you saying that I wouldn't have to make the same boneheaded arguments Cheek made about Constitutionality?

In terms of entering a defense, I would challenge jurisdiction and would not back down. If the feds wanted to push the issue a federal judge would have to enter of a plea of "not guilty" on my behalf and force me to go to trial. That forcing to trial should allow - assuming the judge is not a total criminal thug - me to use the defense I have, and a large part of my defense would be the continued challenge of jurisdiction and if the government wants to convince the jury I am guilty of a crime they are going to have to prove I was actually liable for the tax and subject to the applicable revenue laws to begin with.


Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful.


Entering a "tax court" would be a grant of jurisdiction. It is foolish to grant jurisdiction to a "tax court" just so that I could argue they have no jurisdiction.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 





This gives me pause to think. I reside in Ga. one of the 26 States that sued to opt out of Obamacare, and won. I wonder, in not paying taxes, if I were brought up on charges, if I could use my States' previous legal standing on the issue, as a kind of platform to base my stance on. I also wonder if my State could be called as a witness on my behalf.


Because there were differences in regional rulings on this matter is why the Supreme Court heard the case, and now that issue is settled...the 10th Amendment issue is settled, and to some degree much of any 9th Amendment issue is settled.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Thank You...

Des



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


I could not agree with your assertion more ..... REPUBLICANS, like DEMOCRATS, are just as much to blame as anyone. However, WE, the PEOPLE, are just as much to blame, because it happened on OUR WATCH. WE let it happen instead of STANDING UP and saying NO when we had the opportunity to do so.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


That will never happen.

And it's because you can't prove that the majority of Americans didn't want it.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
After all the crap we've had to put up with throughout the last two presidents, THIS is what he wants armed rebellion over? I mean just screw the unconstitutional wars, the patriot act, etc, and let's start shooting people over this? That is the stupidest thing I've heard in a while, and I have no idea where they get these clowns for positions with this much access to the public...Or any position where someone like this is put in charge of anything, beyond managing the sleeping arrangements for hamsters at the animal resort.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Okay I think anyone in this thread who says they're down with armed rebellion are obvious SHILLS!!! Whatever happened to entrapment?

Anyways, if the rest of you want real change, this is what we need to do...

Stock up a 6 month supply of food, gas, cigs, beer, etc. Those of you who have the means, help stock up those who don't. Then when everyone is ready... just STOP!!! That's right... just stop. Don't go to work. Don't go shopping. Don't buy sh!t. As a matter of fact, have a freakin party! Those who are too damn scared or too damn comfortable to join in won't have a choice. They'll have to stop too because in case ya'll haven't noticed, broke azz folks far outnumber everyone else. It's the people barely getting by that keep this country going, and until we come together and realize our true power, nothing is going to change.

Work on one issue at a time and don't go back to work until that issue is resolved. I'd say this latest SCOTUS ruling is a good place to start. When our own supreme court justices are refusing to uphold our constitution, then its time to put them in their place. It is our DUTY as American citizens to do something about it, and the voting process isn't gonna cut it anymore.

Do any of you really think Romney is gonna ride in to save the day? He has pledged that the first thing he would do is repeal obamacare. That right there tells me that Romney never stood a chance in hell to win this election. Doesn't anyone realize that plan and everyone involved was bought and paid for? I don't care if 90% of the country votes for Romney, he's not getting in. Period. End of story.

If we want our country back, then we have to take it back. We should be the cause instead of the effect for a change, but we don't have to resort to violence.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75
Work on one issue at a time and don't go back to work until that issue is resolved. I'd say this latest SCOTUS ruling is a good place to start. When our own supreme court justices are refusing to uphold our constitution, then its time to put them in their place. It is our DUTY as American citizens to do something about it, and the voting process isn't gonna cut it anymore.


Just curious -- what wasn't upheld or how did the Supreme Court act or confirm unconstitutional acts? What parts did they refuse to uphold? The power of Congress to Lay and Collect Taxes; that is an enumerated power. The limiting of the Commerce Clause to a less expansive role? Making sure that the Necessary and Proper Clause isn't just thrown about whenever Congress wants to?

So what exactly was refused to be upheld? Just questions since you threw it out there...To the last sentence, I agree with.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


It baffles me too just how odd people can be.

Let's see:

- We're in the middle of 2 failed wars
- We're trying to start MORE wars by proxy (Syria, Libya, etc)
- We have a huge deficit
- ACTA/SOPA/PIPA..need I say more?
- USA Patriot Act

Of all the things people could start an armed rebellion over, it's HEALTHCARE that gets them upset?


Only in America I suppose.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by XeroOne
So... If the healthcare plan is supported by the majority of Americans, and pushed through by a democratically-elected president who included this in his manifesto before 2009, armed rebellion is pretty much an act of treason.


Thats ironic because in my country Australia we have an undemocratically unelected leader who has installed a carbon tax whom the majority of Australians fiercely oppose. Does that mean we should take up arms?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
The Poll Tax killed off Thatcher and this will end Obamas run.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
God, the Tea Party is truly the most dangerous group of people out there. Does anyone really take anything they say, and their idle threats, seriously?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by XeroOne
So... If the healthcare plan is supported by the majority of Americans, and pushed through by a democratically-elected president who included this in his manifesto before 2009, armed rebellion is pretty much an act of treason.


Maybe, but the majority are usually wrong, and they are definitely not the most informed group of folks. It wasn't a majority that initiated the first revolution, nor the civil war. It was a select group of highly informed and motivated visionaries that saw where things were headed and decided not to be slaves to the government.

The majority would rather be fat slaves than starving free men. Just ask them. You'll be surprised at the answers if you pose that question to your friends. I was.


How true in elections 2000 and 2004, and we all paid and are still paying price for it.

As someone who was born in country where healthcare was guaranteed to everyone, I don't see why something that is in my own opinion humanitarian (everyone SHOULD have a health cover, everyone SHOULD help those who can't have it) is viewed as something bad.

I was quite surprised when I came to USA and noted that many Americans opted not to have insurance, but then once # happens (and it does) spend rest of the life paying off debts for hospital visits/surgery. This goes well with many rich republicans who have stakes in current health system.

Now, we (I am also an American) are teaching rest of the world about democracy, we are supporting arab spring, we are bringers of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan (If anyone is buying still that BS) but once we disagree with something done by legally and democratically elected president and representatives and upheld by highest court in country as constitutional, people are asking for revolt? Is that how you see democracy? Is that what we are trying to teach 'wild' world??

And what is most important, people don't even know much about so called Obamacare, but are opposing it because they view it as another tax without even asking them self if this is in everyone interest?! Funny...
edit on 29-6-2012 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 

Matthew who???
Seriously .. I"ve never heard of this guy. And he was a 'spokesman'??
Anyways ... protests yes .. armed rebellion?... not yet.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


That makes sense. I was just thinking that they could convict you somehow since they have such a high rate. But I never thought about the reason you mentioned, I just assumed it was because they picked moronic juries or had a previous rulings to almost everything.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
I JUST WANT TO BE FREE
well you do not have the freedom to refuse healthcare now, at least without a penalty.




top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join