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.

 

Patriotic Group To Build Armed 'Defensible' Neighborhood Fortress

page: 8
94
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


I'm sorry I disapeared like that, I was called into work. Just got back. Not trying to troll this thread. No disrespect to the Op.

I mean no disrespect to these people and what they are trying to do. I just feel as others here have mentioned, when you try to cut yourself from society, go off the grid etc....., people get curious. The comment about the rifle being a very important part of their belief system just struck me as something one would wonder about.

Heck if I could find alittle part of this world that I could live my life without others telling me how to live, I would jump on it. As I'm sure alot would. I just think I would be careful how I worded my intentions.

I also meant no disrespect to anyone living in Waco, Texas.


edit on 13-1-2013 by crappiekat because: sp




posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
It is a scam folks:

sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.ca...


Thanks for sharing, figured as much. Vague site, not updated, questionable chosen location.
edit on 13-1-2013 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


Oh well, It was an interesting conversation. Sorry I could not have participated more.




posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamingawake

Originally posted by MidnightTide
It is a scam folks:

sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.ca...


Thanks for sharing, figured as much. Vague site, not updated, questionable chosen location.
edit on 13-1-2013 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)


Well how do we know it's true? Some blog says so and you just believe it without any fact checking? What if they are just trying to smear them?
edit on 13-1-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


If they are indeed selling leases, there are very few people, under very specific circumstances they could even refuse if they wanted to. Don't get misled by promises of interviews and other screening processes. It's a straight real estate transaction.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by crappiekat
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


Oh well, It was an interesting conversation. Sorry I could not have participated more.




This is where it should still be open for interesting conversation...

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by dreamingawake

Originally posted by MidnightTide
It is a scam folks:

sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.ca...


Thanks for sharing, figured as much. Vague site, not updated, questionable chosen location.
edit on 13-1-2013 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)


Well how do we know it's true? Some blog says so and you just believe it without any fact checking? What if they are just trying to smear them?
edit on 13-1-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

The information so far, is still pretty vague with potential facts. Very well could be a smear. Other blogs share claims as well. At this point we'll have to wait for an update on their site or blog at least of what they have to say. Their blog has been updated, but they there's 100 percent place set for the location but they are still interested in the area. They are accepting application fees-which could be a red flag for scam with some people. Also, they don't want to do interviews as of yet. See here


edit on 13-1-2013 by dreamingawake because: more



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 



lib·er·al
/ˈlib(ə)rəl/
Adjective
Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
Noun
A person of liberal views.
Synonyms
generous - bounteous - lavish - bountiful - free
That one is just the first hit on Google search for "liberal".
Here's another source: dictionary.reference.com...

lib·er·al [lib-er-uh l, lib-ruh l] Show IPA
adjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression:
a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.
of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.
open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.
characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10.
given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11.
not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12.
of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13.
of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.





1. socialist 1370 up, 885 down
A human being who believes that the most harmonious state of affairs would be for all to get a fair shot at financial sucess. This belief is not motivated by his own selfishness as a capitalist would have you think, but is in actuality an honorable difference of opinion. In the 1930's farmers in the mid west were plowing their corn under because it was unprofitable, and at the same time millions across America were starving. Capitalists see this as logical, while socialists find it abhorrent. In short, socialism is about production for use, not profit.
Everyone calls me a socialist because I think universal health care is more important than Ross Perot having 28 cars.

2. Socialist 500 up, 338 down
A person who believes in an equal and communally beneficial system of government. Someone who supports such ideas as:
*Public Health-care
*Regulated economic market (no monopolies- therefore more selection for the public)
*A smaller rich/poor divide.
*a generally higher tax rate in exchange for high quality public services and transport etc.

www.urbandictionary.com...

WHERE DO YOU FOLKS GET THIS IDEA that "liberals" and "socialists" want to TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS?

I have guns in my home. I am also a liberal.
I am getting SO SICK of these terms being thrown around so flagrantly and with so LITTLE comprehension of what they mean.
Gha.
edit on 13-1-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Before I sign off for the night, let me just say that I am rather disappointed that so many members feel that there is a problem with this country and its direction, but so few believe that something should be done to oppose or change it. I guess this is why we are in the mess we are in. Yes, we ARE in a mess, and within a few years we WILL be bankrupt. We will all lose any savings we had, and probably what jobs are still around. We will become a third world country, and since most people have a mortgage, you WILL lose your houses, since most of you are living from paycheck to paycheck.
Again, many seem to be sheep being led to the slaughter, and you think you are going on a picnic.
Sad, Sad, Sad.
Good night.


I agree with you. The first time a group of people wants to break away from the govt cult of Communism and form a community based on individual liberty, everyone here calls them neocons and racists.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I wouldn't say liberals as much as Statists.

Even the gay liberal Rosa Koire knows that the cult of communitarianism is against private property and individual liberties.

www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com...

But face it....the Progressive Party aka Democratic Socialists of America has taken over the Democrat Party. Even in Wilson's time the Progressive Party embraced eugenics and fascism.


oh yes, and number 9 in the Progressive Party means giving generously of other people's money. You know this but you won't admit it.
edit on 13-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



I wouldn't say liberals as much as Statists.

The OP claimed that "liberals" and "socialists" want to turn this country into something that is stripping people of their freedoms!!

THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!
Deny ignorance.
*facepalm*



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


They may also run into zoning and building requirements from UN Agenda 21. Agenda can and does stop people from developing their private land. Some communities have kicked out the Agenda 21 Sustainable Development mongrels.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



You know this but you won't admit it.

What are you talking about?!!!!!!??!!

I understand perfectly well, ThirdEye, that you are bent on keeping everything you own or have ever earned for yourself and your kith and kin,
and have no respect, nor regard, for those that are in need, who are also the front-line in "acquiring" the wealth that to you is so precious.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Ruby Ridge Montana suddenly comes to mind. We all know what happend there and those who don't, well you're s.o.l. because the media already spun it to make them look like crazies. FBI massacre. This new group? Will be branded terrorsts and executed like criminals. Such is the way with those opposing the one world order.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
It sounds interesting in theory but I wonder how well it will really work in practice.
For instance how far are they going to take the "live and let live" policy?


Good luck with that.

It will work until some group of people realize that some other group of people in the community are being a pain in the butt, or polluting, or not contributing to the upkeep of the infrastructure, and thinks the group needs to pull its weight, and the other group starts whinging and ranting about Big Citatel Oppressors and freedom and crap like that. Becuase they want to empty their RV's septic tanks in somebody else's sewer or something like that.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 
This is getting more interesting.
I have court in the morning so I'm off to sleep. But i will read more tomorrow.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



You know this but you won't admit it.

What are you talking about?!!!!!!??!!

I understand perfectly well, ThirdEye, that you are bent on keeping everything you own or have ever earned for yourself and your kith and kin,
and have no respect, nor regard, for those that are in need, who are also the front-line in "acquiring" the wealth that to you is so precious.









A TYPICAL response from you. I believe in private property, NOT confiscating it from people by a tyrannical govt. That is something you apparently do not yet understand about socialism. Plenty of Progressives think nothing of spending everyone else's money on whatever program they deem of benefit, regardless of the wisdom of it.
You will find out one day.You don't know what I do for others, but it should be my decision not YOURS or some do gooder bureaucrat. This is not just about some needy children. Agenda 21 is about the govt confiscating private property and also telling people what to do on their property. It is far more invasive than you know, but since you refuse to bother reading about it, maybe some others here will listen.

And for the record it really is not about acquiring wealth anymore but just in surviving the coming Totalitarian State, which you are helping to create willingly.
I recommend reading Glenn Beck's book "Agenda 21" as though it is fiction it is still based on real Agenda 21 policies which may come to affect you more personally than you ever imagined. And it won't be happy for the children either, as these insane Totalitarians hate the traditional family and will rip people's children from them in a heartbeat.

Here is an excerpt from Rosa Koire's website.... and I'm guessing you are completely on board with this new Totalitarian vision of Sustainablility judging by your do gooding ideas.


In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation. Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out how most of the land is to be set aside for non-humans.


U.N. Agenda 21 cites the affluence of Americans as being a major problem which needs to be corrected. It calls for lowering the standard of living for Americans so that the people in poorer countries will have more, a redistribution of wealth. Although people around the world aspire to achieve the levels of prosperity we have in our country, and will risk their lives to get here, Americans are cast in a very negative light and need to be taken down to a condition closer to average in the world. Only then, they say, will there be social justice which is a cornerstone of the U.N. Agenda 21 plan.


www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com...

They've only just got started and I guess they haven't taken enough from you personally for you to get it

Sustainable Development and the EO Barack signed and since formed the White House Rural Council is dedicated to taking private property and to relocating people from their land into crowded cities. That is their version of cooperating with the Land. they deem all humans parasites, and yes the children too are little useless eaters to be relocated into apartments and condos away from single family homes and rural areas.

I know you don't believe me, but it's true.
edit on 14-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
I understand perfectly well, ThirdEye, that you are bent on keeping everything you own or have ever earned for yourself and your kith and kin, and have no respect, nor regard, for those that are in need, who are also the front-line in "acquiring" the wealth that to you is so precious.


All I can say is wow...

You are making a lot of leaps there.

What is wrong with a person keeping what they own or have ever earned (that being the key word) for one's family and self? If one earns, inherits or is even gifted it what business is it of the government to take a portion it and then give it to others who did not earn it.

We all see the need for taxation for the government services do not run themselves; however, charity is not a legitimate government service. It quickly devolves into basically vote buying with other people's money when the politicians can decide which people to reward what and how much from the treasury. One group panders to corporations the other to people - they both are in effect just trying to keep themselves in power.

Taking from one person by force of law (or the point of a gun if necessary - don't pay your taxes and see if some guns are not eventually involved...) without their consent is called theft...regardless of the perceived wealth of the individual from whom it is taken or the perceived need of the person taking it or who benefits.

Stealing from a rich person because you think they have too much then giving it to the needy would still be considered -theft under any US law. Try using the but my kids were hungry and I felt the victim had more than they needed so I took some as a defense in a court of law.... It will fly like a 10 ton turd in a 1 mile an hour wind and stink just as much.

However, make a law to that effect, create an alphabet agency, give them badges and authority, fancy uniforms or a title to take by force if necessary from those deemed able to "give" and then redistribute it to those deemed in "need" and it is caring for the weakest and most unfortunate among us.... A safety net, a leg-up, assistance and entitlements. I don't really know when someone became entitled to things earned by others but hey - I guess it’s considered by many to be the mark of a humane and caring society. I say BS – it is the beginning of the end. Once people realize they can vote themselves money from the treasury the government will fail. Welcome to 2012.

There is a name for giving to those in need - it's called charity. However, making it mandatory and using force (physical or legal) and it is no longer charity. It is theft plain and simple.

Last time I read the constitution charity was not one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government.

If I want to give to those in need it is my business - if I have to pay taxes to finance those 18 powers it's a legitimate function of the government. When they start taking my money to give to someone they have deemed in need - its theft.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 





I don't really know when someone became entitled to things earned by others but hey


Well in the USA it seems to have pretty much started with FDR. Your post is well written and very poignant. Thanks for stating my case better than I can.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   


It certainly gives people the opportunity to avoid some of the liberal, socialist trends that are accelerating under the current administration


So they're going to move from a half-capitalist half-socialist socirty (according to Republicans' definition) to a hippie commune?

There are so many things wrong with this crazy idea it's hard to know where to start. Idaho is already one of the wildest, least regulated places in the country to begin with, so why do they need to live in a fortress commune when they can just buy a trailer in the boonies for a couple grand and live their isolationist nightmare?

How does running from your country make you a patriot, and why do people who always call everyone else "collectivists" want to live in a collectivist compound?

I give them 6 months before they all start shooting each other.
edit on 14-1-2013 by CB328 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Some people want to live without having to carry a weapon and others wouldn't leave home without it. There needs to be a way for them to live together - and the answer is for them to live apart. I don't know who the Citadel will be defending itself from jowever, unless they decide not to pay taxes. I don't think they will get too many visitors.



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join