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.

 

Patriots don't secede

page: 17
21
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


That fallacy has already been exposed and debunked for the fallacy and misrepresentation that it is.

Nuff said.




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp
 


Todays Congress is actually less peoplar than AID"s



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp
 


What are you talking about?

U.S. Congress 'less popular than cockroaches'

Suggesting that the majority of people in the US think anyone who supports Congress today is practically
.

Think about it

edit on 20-1-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


That is a the genetic fallacy of falsely associating two separate and unrelated concepts.


The "popularity" of Congress has no relation to the illegal, unconstitutional alphabet soup agences bypassing the authority of Congress laid down in the Constitution as the sole writers of laws.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp
 


Members of Congress supported a Right Wing Agenda, that includes presenting that Real Rape cannot result in a Pregnancy

Absolutely Pathetic.....

Any thoughts?




edit on 20-1-2013 by Kashai because: modified content



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 

i see you provide -0- sources and what's really odd is that i cannot find any source that refers to the US government as a Democratic Republic ... can you offer one ?

hey, don't take my word for it, read up ...

source
The USA is a "Constitutional Republic"
, which is the most FREE and secure form of government.

and if that's not good enough, take it up with these guys, they wrote it ...
from the Federalist #55

Madison
"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another."

same source as above - Federalist #10 - Madison

more Madison
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

and then there's Adams and Jay

Adams
"Thoughts on Government" - [Republican Government]
[color=amber]A Constitution, founded on these principles, introduces knowledge among the People, and inspires them with a conscious dignity, becoming Freemen. A general emulation takes place, which causes good humour, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general. That elevation of sentiment, inspired by such a government, makes the common people brave and enterprizing. That ambition which is inspired by it makes them sober, industrious and frugal.
exactly how is our current government achieving these goals ??


Jay
The formidable task before Jay in both of his Chief Justice roles was not merely to preside over courts, but to preside over their development at a time of unprecedented public anxiety concerning republican government, America's state of affairs, and the fledgling American cause itself.

now, when you have a clue and a little respect, please respond ... until then, pick up a book and learn something



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 


The bottom line is that the middle class is bashing each other over minor issues, while the billionare/trillionare illuminati are enjoying the mudslinging. When I say distribution of wealth I mean take some of that money from those billionares so that the government does not have to raise taxes constantly and then borrow money to offset the difference. The 500k types or even deep millionares are not the problem that is haunting the nation. Obama and Romney arguing like idiots over 350k is absurd.



He puts it all in perspective.



I also like........



One party is a bit more radical than the other, but I would have no problem voting for either.

This party is extreme however....



I would NEVER vote for this party because I do not like state controlled zombies!!



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 

who asked you to like or agree with my opinion ?
your mistaken perceptions are your own, enjoy.

please, share your knowledge

exactly where in the Constitution are the provisions you stated as ...

Our Constitution allows for States to secede if they should so choose to do so, but, there is a way to do that without further bloodshed.
and secondly, when have i, in this thread, called for bloodshed ?
extremist much ??

if this is true ...

But just complaining and knit-picking over philosophical/political concepts really doesn't enhance any debate
then why do you continue on such a path ?


True, we live in a non-perfect Democracy,
don't know where you are located but Americans do not and don't want to either.

yes, our Liberties have allowed for such advancement, so, why impinge or infringe on them now ??


Bottom line, if people want to secede, they have a legal and peaceful way to go about it
got a link ? preferrably with instructions ??

so, in regards to this pseudo Democratic nonsense, is this what the Puerto Ricans are being taught ?? if so, boy are we in trouble



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


You keep making the tyrant's argument and I don't understand why. Don't get me wrong if you are one of those billionares then keep arguing on their behalf. I am starting to think a)people have no idea about statist corporate feudalist capitalism compared to statist socialism or b)they just hate liberals because they fear their gun rights will be totally abolished.

It is true that any statist society hates gun rights because they have extreme views and fear the opposition might kill them. This is why obama is going after guns just like castro and stalin did. Statism itself is the problem, lack of trust, racism, etc.

A true democracy is different. The corporate media is what is brainwashing people to hate the left and misdiagnosing corporate feudalism as socialism. We have no socialism in america because ALL business belongs in the private sector. If we had a mixed economy part of the industry would have been nationalised by now as they did in europe.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
The only thing it would accomplish is destroying the country that we have worked 237 years to build. The result would not be "better", it would be complete chaos.

Not sure what better means for you, but many would consider liberty better than living under tyranny.

The people advocating it are short sighted and are doing so merely because they are upset that their party lost.
If Romney had won, we would have the same problems, if not more, but they'd be behind him 100% because he was from their political party. It's nothing but a political game and the people advocating it are being manipulated by those trying to manipulate them. They are not capable of thinking for themselves, they are only capable of doing what their idols tell them to do.

Quite the mind reader!


Think it through, do you honestly think it would be successful?? Seriously? There are two possible outcomes, the states that secedes goes for a while as an "independent country" until it is attacked by the Middle East, Mexico or some other sovereign nation and defeated, then we have to step in and reclaim our land. The second possiblity is they secede and there is a war between that independent state and the rest of the country, which they will lose because they will not have the might they think they will have. Many people will die, families will be torn apart and we'll have to step in and reclaim our land and spend billions of dollars cleaning up the mess.

It's not an answer, it's an additional problem. It won't build up anything, it will only tear apart.



There is a third way and it will go that way. The seceding states will form a union under a constitution similar to the existing one, but with more effective checks and balances. Its military will be used only for defending its territory and not "interests" as defined by some special interest groups. The truncated USA will not attack this new union since that will only weaken it and the special interests controlling it need all the might they can use to fight their battles elsewhere in the world. There is no other state that is even remotely capable of launching on attack on the new union.The newly formed union will prosper while the truncated globalist tool will dry up slowly and when it no longer has the ability to serve its masters will be abandoned. The states of that entity will then opt to join the new union.

I know that sounds like a horrible nightmare for the globalists and their tools and which is why they try to use all kinds of "arguments" to prevent it from happening.

The ONLY way you can see it as a success is if your goal is to completely destroy the nation with no hopes of recovery and leaving us at the mercy of whatever other country wants to attack. Sure, you'll be seen as a "patriot" by the Middle East country that takes over, or Russia, or China or Japan or whichever country it turns out to be, but you are a TRAITOR to the United States of America.

I seem to have hit some nerve, if you have to keep shouting that word. Try to find a ten-year old or younger to sell that "vision" of yours for seceding states.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


Ronald Reagan with his free trade libertarian wanna-be views created the nightmare both for america and the rest of the world. No tariffs and lots of taxes. Leveraged buyouts to ensure small and medium business gets gobbled up by the mult-national conglomerates and other all-around market deregulation.

The solution to increase government revenue without raising taxes, while bringing and keeping jobs in america is to raise tariffs on all imports. Start trade wars if necessary. At least they make more sense then nutjob religious bush wars.

Less wars and a smaller military-industrial complex. Close 60-70 percent of all foreign military bases and bring the troops back home. Ron Paul and Gary Johnsons have this much correct! We don't need war with syria, iran, russia, china. We need better border security. Go after the black budget which is 30-50 percent of the total DOD budget.

Otherwise welfare spending will reach such enormous heights that the whole financial system will collapse within the next 20 years. There is nothing radical about what I am saying. What the msm is saying is what is stupid and radical.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Seceding would work in what way?

The new nation would be overcome by the same capitalist interests that the US is taken over by. Especially since the people that would be seceding are right wing extremists that generally believe in unregulated capitalism.

The new state would be worse than the US. It would be something like a 3rd world country.

It would be like China, antebellum south, Somolia, and the Wild West all wrapped up in one place.

The USA has been taken over not by capitalist interests, but by globalist and corporatist interests.

A libertarian state doesn't allow that.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

what tyrant's argument ?
specific would be good instead of this blanket BS without sources.

besides, we were discussing patiots and secession.

this has nothing to do with 'liberals' or any other partisan placebo.
democracy is a sham, from beginning to end.

so, how does socialism or democracy, protect, enhance or recognize individual rights ??

ETA - wth, i just read your last post ... what are you going on about Libertarians for ?
RReagan a Lib ?? not in my lifetime.
and how does your socialistic utopia fit with Libertarians like Paul or Johnson ?

btw, i happen to agree with much of what you said but how does that gel with socialism ??
edit on 21-1-2013 by Honor93 because: ETA

ohhh, almost forgot, Clinton signed NAFTA, not Reagan.
yet another demoncrap fiasco

useconomy.about.com...
It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993 and entered force January 1, 1994. Although it was signed by President Bush, it was a priority of President Clinton's, and its passage is considered one of his first successes.

edit on 21-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txr



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Observor
 

Ronald Reagan with his free trade libertarian wanna-be views created the nightmare both for america and the rest of the world. No tariffs and lots of taxes. Leveraged buyouts to ensure small and medium business gets gobbled up by the mult-national conglomerates and other all-around market deregulation.

Reagan was not a libertarian and free trade with some is not free trade. You are right about the corporatism that created these mega corporations. They achieved that because of having preferred access to capital created by the banks that had no risk because the money was created from nothing.

The solution to increase government revenue without raising taxes, while bringing and keeping jobs in america is to raise tariffs on all imports. Start trade wars if necessary. At least they make more sense then nutjob religious bush wars.

Import tariffs to protect domestic production can only be a temporary measure, not a long term solution.

Less wars and a smaller military-industrial complex. Close 60-70 percent of all foreign military bases and bring the troops back home. Ron Paul and Gary Johnsons have this much correct! We don't need war with syria, iran, russia, china. We need better border security. Go after the black budget which is 30-50 percent of the total DOD budget.

Otherwise welfare spending will reach such enormous heights that the whole financial system will collapse within the next 20 years. There is nothing radical about what I am saying. What the msm is saying is what is stupid and radical.

With you there. However, it won't happen. The financial system will collapse. In the aftermath of the collapse, the US might even become a gun-for-hire as in being paid for "maintaining stability" in regions of interest for the special globalist interests.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


Yes it does......

Unregulated capitalism turns into an oligarchy. The wealthiest will rule the peasants and influence the state in their interests alone. There is no such thing as free market capitalism. It never will and never can exist.

Just sit and think about it for a second.

The whole "real capitalism" argument is a whole bunch of fail.


edit on 21-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by Observor
 

Yes it does......

Unregulated capitalism turns into an oligarchy. The wealthiest will rule the peasants and influence the state in their interests alone. There is no such thing as free market capitalism. It never will and never can exist.

Just sit and think about it for a second.

The whole "real capitalism" argument is a whole bunch of fail.

While it is possibility, it is not a certainty.

But what is certain is that when governments are allowed to regulate, it ends up being what it is today, a corporatocracy.

The monopoly on money creation and preferential treatment to corporations for the newly generated money is what led to the rise of corporatocracy. When that monopoly is removed, it will be a whole new game. But if you don't believe it will succeed, that is OK. I am not trying to sell it.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Again, you are incorrect. If you wish to discuss a topic, at least use the correct terminology for the topic. You are sounding foolish and showing you have no knowledge of what you are trying to discuss. Deny Ignorance.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GokuVsSuperman0

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


Are you mistakenly comparing a blind sheep to a patriot??? WOW!!!! Just WOW!!!


Sounds like you need to actually read the Constitution......
edit on 19-1-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)


Seceding from the union is cowardice, running away from a problem instead helping to fix it. All those morons who are making petitions to secede from the union just because a black president has created Obama care (a relatively backward national health care system compared to every other developed nation on earth) is retarded. As a person who lives in a province that almost seceded from Canada, u have no idea how much it would cripple the state as well as turn Americans against the ppl of ur state


Agreed. They only know their talking heads have told them to secede, so that must be the answer. They don't comprehend the cowardice of it, they don't look any further than their empty threats. They have no idea that it will cripple their state, they have no idea it will turn everyone else against them. They just know their talking heads told them to do it so it must be the answer. They are unable to think for themselves and unable to see the reprecussions of their actions.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observor
There is a third way and it will go that way. The seceding states will form a union under a constitution similar to the existing one, but with more effective checks and balances. Its military will be used only for defending its territory and not "interests" as defined by some special interest groups. The truncated USA will not attack this new union since that will only weaken it and the special interests controlling it need all the might they can use to fight their battles elsewhere in the world. There is no other state that is even remotely capable of launching on attack on the new union.The newly formed union will prosper while the truncated globalist tool will dry up slowly and when it no longer has the ability to serve its masters will be abandoned. The states of that entity will then opt to join the new union.


Is that what your talking heads have told you??? Seriously?

Think about it, there is no way in Hades it would happen that way, it's not even remotely possible. When a state leaves, they don't take everything they have with them, they leave with NOTHING. They don't get to take federal military bases with them, they don't take soldiers with them, they don't take equipment with them, they don't take funds with them, they take NOTHING but what they can carry on their backs. In some cases, they don't even take the land with them and they most likely won't take the entire state with them because there is only a small group of people in that state that want this, not the entire state.

Just because a state is colored red on election maps does not mean that everyone in that state is an extremist right wing zealot. Even if a district is colored red, doesn't mean everyone that lives there favors that side. You will be pitting brother against brother, tearing apart families, drawing a line down your neighborhood with some on one side, some on the other.

What you are saying is completely idealistic and has no basis in reality. When the South seceded, they had idealistic dreams too, they thought "well we'll just make our own country, we'll split up and go on with business as usual". That didn't happen, that couldn't happen, it isn't possible. You are living in a story-book world where one day you are a state in the United States, you wake up the next morning and you are a separate nation and things go without a hitch, smoothly, and you are ready to go at 8 am. That is NOT how it works.

When you buy something that says "assembly required", you take it home and it takes a lot of time to put it together, sometimes much, MUCH more time than you imagined and there are directions to follow, steps to take, but in the store, when you bought it, you thought, oh, I can put that together in five minutes. Four days later, you are pulling out your hair, working on step 7, realize you have parts left from step 2, have stripped out the screws and are pulling out your hair. We're not talking a simple tv stand here, we're talking .... a house, the entire thing, every last detail.

Ignorance is such a threat because those that are ignorant don't realize they are ignorant. A lot of people in real life just walk away because they see you for what you are and it's easier for them to just go on about their business than to get it through your head. This is ATS, where we are to Deny Ignorance, not allow it to continue, bring it to light and explain why it is ignorance (not hug it up and say ohhhhh I love you ignorance and you're not ignorant at all, you're just "special". That is NOT denying ignorance, that is denying you HAVE ignorance).

There is a reason the framers of the Constitution stayed behind locked doors and met in secret, there were many issues to discuss, a HUGE job to do and they couldn't allow the general populace to interfer with that or it would have taken 100 times as long and the product would have sucked. They took the great minds, the best they had, gathered them up and met in secret to iron out the details. There was a very good reason for that.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Is that what your talking heads have told you??? Seriously?

Unlike you I don't need any "talking heads" to tell me what happens. I have the brains to figure out for myself.

Think about it, there is no way in Hades it would happen that way, it's not even remotely possible. When a state leaves, they don't take everything they have with them, they leave with NOTHING. They don't get to take federal military bases with them, they don't take soldiers with them, they don't take equipment with them, they don't take funds with them, they take NOTHING but what they can carry on their backs. In some cases, they don't even take the land with them and they most likely won't take the entire state with them because there is only a small group of people in that state that want this, not the entire state.

Have you any knowledge at all of how secessions happened anywhere in the world? The collapse of the Soviet Union? Or the secession of the Baltic states from the Soviet Union prior to that? The dissolution of Czechoslovakia?

Evidently you do not have the capability to lead a secession. But don't worry (or worry), because there are far more capable people in the world.

Anyway, I am done on this thread. It isn't worth my time even if I am utterly bored and have nothing to do.




top topics



 
21
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join