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.
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
And you are telling me we are all on the same page? I don't believe you.
Where in the hell did I say that? If a USSR Bolshovik type scorched earth policy is what you're hoping for we aren't even on the same planet. What are you smoking?
But the US military industrial complex profits so well from their scorched earth policies in the middle east that we don't even have the resources or equipment available to fight the fires on our own scorched chunk of earth or rebuild the infrastructure that is falling apart.
You should ask me "what is correct, rather than what is wrong".
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
The restrictions on firearms serve a purpose.
That purpose is to ensure the public cannot match the military might of the government that serves them. Since the time of Sun Tzu it has been a consistent military strategy that the first thing you do when confronting the enemy is to disarm them. When a government seeks to disarm the very public they serve, from a military stand point it should be obvious how they view this public, as the enemy.
Any restrictions on firearms should work both ways. Had FDR and the military industrial complex he helped build had the proper respect for the 2nd Amendment, they never would have developed nuclear weapons since a proper reading of that 2nd Amendment and its intent makes clear that nuclear weapons include "arms".
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
And you are telling me we are all on the same page? I don't believe you.
Where in the hell did I say that? If a USSR Bolshovik type scorched earth policy is what you're hoping for we aren't even on the same planet. What are you smoking?
But the US military industrial complex profits so well from their scorched earth policies in the middle east that we don't even have the resources or equipment available to fight the fires on our own scorched chunk of earth or rebuild the infrastructure that is falling apart.
I don't mind a bloody revolution IF people know what they are fighting for and provided there is no other alternative. I think the government run by bankers is the one INSTIGATING some kind of disorganised resistance to allow the nwo the excuse it needs for a totalitarian right wing dictatorship.
Ron Paul or jesus christ himself are probably not enough to change the current enviroment. I am here doing my part informing people, not necessarily instigating anything. You and others think socialism is bad when europeans enjoyed working for reasonable hours and a decent pay. American capitalism spread everywhere but americans themselves are not to blame. Don't worry I am an american myself so I share any responsibility.
Originally posted by frazzle
You seem to be having trouble comprehending what people are saying to you. Nowhere have I suggested a "bloody revolution", in fact, I have explained why they seldom work to improve anything. The American Revolution was one of the exceptions and still it died before puberty.
Socialism, communism ~ all the isms take the labor of the people for the rulers benefit and give back crumbs, as long as you're a good little socialist or communist. All others are relegated to the gulags.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
You seriously have a comprehension problem, or are willfully attempting to frame others arguments in fraudulent ways.
My point was that restrictions have to work both ways. No one should have nuclear weapons. Not any individual and certainly not governments.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I never accused you of wanting a bloody revolution but you hinted that I did. Then I answered what I THOUGHT of a bloody revolution. Learn to read man..
Capitalism and religion have conspired to kill more people silently than all the make believe ism's you can come up with. Masonry supports both in the right hand package. South and Central america is full of banker scums putting the hurt on the non-spanish locals much more than on the spanish decendants.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
Of course, once again you ignore the point of my argument and descend into personal notes. You make the point that there should be restrictions on firearms. I counter that these restrictions have to work both ways. If the government wants to find a compelling reason to restrict fully automated weapons, or fighter jets, or nuclear weapons, those restrictions must apply to the government as well, otherwise we have the government we do and not the Constitutional republic that was established.
Originally posted by frazzle
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I never accused you of wanting a bloody revolution but you hinted that I did. Then I answered what I THOUGHT of a bloody revolution. Learn to read man..
Capitalism and religion have conspired to kill more people silently than all the make believe ism's you can come up with. Masonry supports both in the right hand package. South and Central america is full of banker scums putting the hurt on the non-spanish locals much more than on the spanish decendants.
Your own words: "I don't mind a bloody revolution if people know what they're fighting for". You don't even comprehend what YOU say.
I was going to ask what France or Russia have to do with the Constitution, but they are actually pretty good examples of what happens after a revolution or war when people are distracted and exhausted from the fighting. And what that provides is an open invitation for opportunists to slip in unnoticed during the chaos and buy up the spoils for a tenth of their previous value which makes the reasons for revolting in the first place much worse. So the people suffer, sometimes for many generations.
Where in the hell did I say that? If a USSR Bolshovik type scorched earth policy is what you're hoping for we aren't even on the same planet. What are you smoking?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
You know what? You can call it "ad hominmen attacks" all you want. You are purposely distorting other peoples arguments. I haven't made any argument of "separation". Quite the contrary what I have just argued is that a government of We the People, for the People and by the People must live with the same restrictions on rights that any of the governed must and that is far from separation.
Your distortion of other people's arguments continues when you claim these people you are arguing with "pretend they are incapable of comprehending basic stuff." Again, quite the contrary, I, and certainly frazzle are not pretending any such thing and the both of us clearly have a firm grasp on "basic stuff".
Maybe we should try a more esoteric approach. Maybe throw in a little poetry and mysticism for the communistically initiated since the basics are beneath them.
Originally posted by frazzle
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I never accused you of wanting a bloody revolution but you hinted that I did. Then I answered what I THOUGHT of a bloody revolution. Learn to read man..
Capitalism and religion have conspired to kill more people silently than all the make believe ism's you can come up with. Masonry supports both in the right hand package. South and Central america is full of banker scums putting the hurt on the non-spanish locals much more than on the spanish decendants.
Your own words: "I don't mind a bloody revolution if people know what they're fighting for". You don't even comprehend what YOU say.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by frazzle
Maybe we should try a more esoteric approach. Maybe throw in a little poetry and mysticism for the communistically initiated since the basics are beneath them.
Proletariat art is a misnomer. They view art as "snotty highbrow" stuff. It is the deep flaw in Marxism that always leads to his followers stumbling. Of course, Marx did not much care for the followers, and wound up declaring "I am not a Marxist!", but he was being somewhat disingenuous pretending that it was the fault of his followers and not of his own philosophy.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I never accused you of wanting a bloody revolution but you hinted that I did. Then I answered what I THOUGHT of a bloody revolution. Learn to read man..
\Yes. I know and NEVER denied saying that. Can you show/prove WHERE I said(or even implied) that YOU want a bloody revolution though? I bet you cannot. End of story.
Still cannot compute basic math? If you don't like talking about a bloody revolution then just ignore it, but please stop with the fraudulent accusations. I never accused you of anything...other than what I am accusing you of now!
earthcitizen:
I am talking electroshock therapy, punctured organs, extreme heat therapy, pulling nails, homosexual activity, etc.
www.abovetopsecret.com...