Patriots don't secede

I think if they leave, then they can't be patriots

reply to post by frazzle


Just because it has always been allowed does not mean the behavior is Psychotic. Also it does not mean that a society is psychotic by allowing it.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by seeker1963


It is the terrible threads that make it past 2 pages because they are good at baiting fools. I guess I am one too since I have some free time to spare. I agree with what you say and could say more but the super moderators would probably hit me with another warning. "Free speech" is primarily off-internet territory! YouTube is a good exception though. They flame each other really nice there...

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by frazzle

 

Just because it has always been allowed does not mean the behavior is Psychotic. Also it does not mean that a society is psychotic by allowing it.

Any thoughts?

I don't believe I've used the word psychotic or psychopath, at least in this discussion, although there clearly are some in our midst. If I understand the definition correctly they deliberately SET OUT to harm people.

Its more likely that those who've done the most damage to us over the long haul are simply opportunists who don't think about how their actions will impact people, or sociopaths who don't particularly care.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

ummmm, demonizing masonry IS demonizing socialism ... how did you miss that one ?

at least you admit preference to some form of statism.
thank you for being honest
unfortunately, i cannot agree.

i have enjoyed capitalism in its purest form ... i'll participate in that anyday.

this American corporatism has to go, sooner better than later.

without the 'illusion' called currency, my gun is always more valuable than any piece of paper.
even as a paper-weight

guns don't 'bring' freedom, they defend it.
what in the world gave you that idea anyway ?

Big business already left America so why are we left with their bills, their ecological disasters, their manipulative regulations and their over-whelming destruction ???

reply to post by frazzle


During the 100 years War, anyone below the rank of Lieutenant was told that the reason he war was fought? Was due to the problem, that the other side picked the wrong side of the shoulder to use first, forming the side of the crucifix. One side was definitively invested in the idea that it was the right shoulder first. While the other side insisted that first would be the left shoulder. Both sides, lieutenant and below were told the same thing and told that the opposite made more sense.

Ok so that is an utterly stupid and/or really psychotic/sociopathic reason for the 100 years war.

Any thoughts?

And yet when you refuse to let the country change into something other than America you are also accused of not being a patriot. But that is exactly what you are. If you fight to keep America as it is supposed to be, you are declared an enemy. But you are a patriot nevertheless.
Obama and his masters are not patriots. Those who blindly follow him are not patriots.I gues snobody is a patriot.
Lets all be good americans. Buy guns and fly flags and tell the government to go F themselves.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Fourth capitalism ALWAYS funnels money UPWARDS because people do not work for free and business owners INVEST their CAPITAL to MAKE PROFIT! We can argue what greed is all day and all night, but until you start labeling things correctly I will probably just ignore you.

i just cannot comprehend the depth of the socialist illusion ... it must be many fathoms

what you continuously (so i'm not sure if its intentional) fail to accept is this fallacy.
in either system ... socialism or corporatism or fascism or statism or nationalism or (whatever you choose to call it) ... YOU (workers) are the capital.

until that changes, NOTHING does.
you can call it whatever you like but xSenator B Goldwater said it best, so i'll share here.

www.hiddenmysteries.org...
I believe that the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological anchors. IN THEIR PURSUIT OF A NEW WORLD ORDER, THEY ARE PREPARED TO DEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, a monarchy, an oligarchy - its all the same to them."

btw, this was 1979 ... do the math.

please, let that sink in and then explore some more info about the CFR and the TriLateral Commission and then see how pointless arguing these semantics really is, k ??

reply to post by HopSkipJump

you keep saying this ...

If they secede, then they are traitors to the United States

but refuse to answer this ...

how can a person be a traitor to/of a corporation ??

why ??

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

A picture is worth a thousand words. There is no point arguing with someone who calls night as day, up as down, and black as white. Enjoy your hypocrisy!

Sorry pal but you are confusing the facist economy that we have for real free enterprise capitalism.

(The "best part" is you are calling liberals as progressives)

Really, you should learn real history. Progressives of the early 20th century were "liberals", ie-socialist lite.

Since you are ignorant of these facts, I doubt you will ever get it.

reply to post by frazzle

yes, it has ... all the way back to the days of the Magna Carta +73yrs to be exact and Sweden.

what Americans don't realize is it didn't begin here, it was imported.
much like a container on port ... it arrived, it was transported, it was unloaded and eventually displayed ... it didn't happen overnight and has more tentacles than a giant octopus.

yes, many decades of delusion ensued ... no one would deny that.
however, apathy is no excuse to continue voluntarily marching onward to our own demise, agreed ?

ETA -- ya know all those 'tax shelters' of old ???
guess where a majority of them originated ?
sweden ring any bells

addl note -- for those interested ... Sweden's tax reform of the century

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
I think if they leave, then they can't be patriots

edit on 21-1-2013 by L8RT8RZ because: (no reason given)

Right. And someone who claims to be an animal lover isn't REALLY an animal lover if they don't live in the wild with deadly animals that would kill them on the spot.

You can't play the "patriot" card if your country is already lost for not. At that point, it wouldn't matter if you loved your country.

You choose between living under a tyrannical government, or escaping with your freedoms.

Suggesting otherwise is insisting that patriotism means bowing to your government.

Originally posted by streetfightingman
reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX

 

Newsflash:

You did lose all of your rights and freedoms already.

Marijuana Tax Act 1937
National Firearms Act 1934
Gun Control Act 1968
Substance Control Act 1970
Gun Control Act 2012

edit on 20-1-2013 by streetfightingman because: (no reason given)

Still, we have a lot more leeway than some nations do. Besides, you're proving my point.

All the more reason we may have seceding states in the next generation or so.

reply to post by HopSkipJump

Regardless of the reasons for seceding, they are traitors, not patriots.

How can you say something so ignorant? Honestly...

Perhaps they feel that the country HAS been over run. If you read between the fine lines, you can see how close our nation is to disaster. Perhaps these states are anticipating it ahead of time. Perhaps they're not BRAINWASHED.

So, what if there were rebels from Nazi Germany? People who revolted against the Nazi way of life, even though it was their own culture? Oh, I guess that makes them traitors, regardless of their reasons...

Also, following the arguments I made to people who replied to me, I want to point out something else to you all.

This thread has gotten WAY too popular, over a simple technicality. The technical definition of the word "patriot."

Some of you are arguing that people who don't stand by the American government would not be considered patriots, regardless of the government's decisions, or potential corruption.

And, some of you believe that true patriotism is defined by opposing government to save the country, in hopes that "we the people" will maintain our country, without the help of a tyrannical government.

Oh my god, it doesn't MATTER.

The whole basis for this thread is this; "What does the word patriot mean?"

The definition of a patriot; Someone who loves his or her country.

That's very general, right? So... who's to say both arguments aren't right? Bowing to the government is a form of patriotism, albeit a pretty ignorant one... and fighting for your country, against the government, is patriotism too.

Don't focus on this argument so much. Nationalism is blinding all of you.

reply to post by HopSkipJump

If you would rise up against your form of government and go against the US Constitution, which you would have to do if you rose up against the form of government, you are NOT a patriot, you are a treasonous coward.

welcome to ATS .. whoever you are......

but you've CLEARLY are trying to push an agenda and you're sidesteping the main point of the constitution .. and need to go back and read a bit of history of America....

so either your trolling or you're attempting to push something that is clearly NOT in the constitution .. before you metion the word 'patriot'.. think about what the current person that has taken over the white house and it's seat of power completed with NDAA ..

and.. no need to reply .. I will not again on this thread..

reply to post by HopSkipJump


I'm a patriot until my country threatens my rights, then I'm a rebel. Any questions?

By the way, I value the Constitution more than a flag. If the red white and blue fails me, I'll remake it.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Socialism as most comprehend the term means a mixed economy; both a private sector and public sector. It also includes a welfare state.

This is because, as Marx and Lenin admitted, Socialism is but a bridge between Capitalism and Communism. Socialism feeds off Capitalism because it is parasitic.

reply to post by Observor

While it is possibility, it is not a certainty.

No, it's a certainty.

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

A corporatocracy will occur without or with government. All it takes is enough wealth accumulation to end up in one person or a groups hands.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Socialism as most comprehend the term means a mixed economy; both a private sector and public sector. It also includes a welfare state.

This is because, as Marx and Lenin admitted, Socialism is but a bridge between Capitalism and Communism. Socialism feeds off Capitalism because it is parasitic.

Socialism is the workers owning the means of production. It has nothing to do with a welfare state. A welfare state is liberalism.

Capitalism is parasitic, it requires a capitalist owner to leech off the workers labor.

And the idea of Socialism existed before Marx came around.