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.
Treason Alert: Dems Try to Move Gun Bill Forward Without Allowing Senators to Read It
page: 4share:
reply to post by Bioshock
I'm not one to make predictions but I would guess that it will pass in the house, just like Obama was reelected and just like how the Dems
will regain the house and retain the senate in 2014.
The only reason I belive this is this is how it is supposed to be, it is that simple once you get past the disbelief of what is really happening to this country...........just my opinion.
The only reason I belive this is this is how it is supposed to be, it is that simple once you get past the disbelief of what is really happening to this country...........just my opinion.
Originally posted by TauCetixeta
reply to post by Bioshock
Please don't have a heart attack. It will never pass the House of Representatives.
BTW, it's hard to read and understand all of that Legalese Gobbly Goop anyway.
Hire a good lawyer to read it fast.
I hope you are right,but at this point nothing would surprise me.Since O has been
in office changes in laws have run amuck.
Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
The 2nd amendment provides for the state run national guard. The activist courts have extended it to an individual right. Now if you want to defend the country, more power to you. Join the national guard. Of course, they require you to leave your weapon at the armory. ;-)
The role of militia, also known as military service and duty, in the United States is complex and has transformed over time.[1] The term militia can be used to describe any number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these fall into:
The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
Constitution - Article II - The Executive Branch Section 2 - Clause 1:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. [Article 2,Section 2 of the US Constitution]...
The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, which is presently defined by the Militia Act of 1903 to consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(That is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft.) Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code
Militia (United States)
It is that last paragraph you are mistakenly lumping in with what you understand to be National or State Guard units.
reply to post by ownbestenemy
What many people don't think about, in their arguments saying that rifles are helpless against tanks and the like, is that it doesn't matter. Freedom resides within the People. The means to fight at all, is what is important, in the larger context of things.
When the Red Chinese government first sent soldiers to clean out Tiannamen Square of rebellious students, they refused to fire on their families, neighbors and fellow city members. The government had to send for soldiers from all the way across China, who were of a different ethnicity and knew no one....which apparently took months, and allowed it to become world-wide news...in order to accomplish it. That was Communist China....the Red Army.
Now...imagine some declared National Emergency, where the National Guard is called to remove people to FEMA camps or whatever. If we were disarmed, and there was sufficient plausible reason, a Guard Commander would probably follow such an order, because he would be doing it for people's own good, in his mind, and no one would get hurt. And he wouldn't want to have his career ruined, by making a stand on such a tenuous point, most likely. Self interest would probably trump principle, when the stakes are nebulous at best. Carrying out such things piecemeal, is how we get good people to do things that individually might not be so bad, but when added all together, amount to the same thing.
But, with an armed populace, now this hypothetical commander has a decision to make. He has taken an Oath not to follow Unlawful Orders. With the prospect of his own men now having to either fire upon citizens, because they have the means to resist....OR the prospect of his own men being shot AT by armed citizens....now it becomes a different equation. Now he has some serious thinking and deciding to do. How much more likely is he to question the lawfulness of such an order, when it is highly likely to result in bloodshed? And that will get kicked up the line, until they find someone of sufficient rank, who is willing to take responsibility for it, or take a stand and will risk career on it, through the Military Justice system.
And TPTB know all this. That is why Homeland Security was formed. Because they know that real Military will not do this. And why Oathkeepers has formed, and is a force. And they will find, if they persist in this foolishness, that real cops and firemen and soldiers and other sworn protectors, will easily face down the wannabes that largely populate Homeland Security, the TSA, FEMA, and the like.
They are desperate. But, it is too late. They have lost already. All we are seeing is the dying rats squabbling in the corners. The politicians may think that they can just pass some laws, and escape culpability. But, people are awake now. Even the Hollywood contingent is become bold enough to speak up about their role, and is changing their tune. Corrupt judges are being taken down. Sheriffs are standing up in front of news cameras and declaring opposition to the Feds. States are passing laws to outlaw these Federal intrusions. The equation has changed.
I have no doubt this is going to be a messy cleanup. We the People, allowed it to go on for far too long, before waking up. But, they have indeed awoken the sleeping giant. And....we haven't had our coffee yet...so we are just a bit grumpy. But, there is a big difference between fear and anger.
What many people don't think about, in their arguments saying that rifles are helpless against tanks and the like, is that it doesn't matter. Freedom resides within the People. The means to fight at all, is what is important, in the larger context of things.
When the Red Chinese government first sent soldiers to clean out Tiannamen Square of rebellious students, they refused to fire on their families, neighbors and fellow city members. The government had to send for soldiers from all the way across China, who were of a different ethnicity and knew no one....which apparently took months, and allowed it to become world-wide news...in order to accomplish it. That was Communist China....the Red Army.
Now...imagine some declared National Emergency, where the National Guard is called to remove people to FEMA camps or whatever. If we were disarmed, and there was sufficient plausible reason, a Guard Commander would probably follow such an order, because he would be doing it for people's own good, in his mind, and no one would get hurt. And he wouldn't want to have his career ruined, by making a stand on such a tenuous point, most likely. Self interest would probably trump principle, when the stakes are nebulous at best. Carrying out such things piecemeal, is how we get good people to do things that individually might not be so bad, but when added all together, amount to the same thing.
But, with an armed populace, now this hypothetical commander has a decision to make. He has taken an Oath not to follow Unlawful Orders. With the prospect of his own men now having to either fire upon citizens, because they have the means to resist....OR the prospect of his own men being shot AT by armed citizens....now it becomes a different equation. Now he has some serious thinking and deciding to do. How much more likely is he to question the lawfulness of such an order, when it is highly likely to result in bloodshed? And that will get kicked up the line, until they find someone of sufficient rank, who is willing to take responsibility for it, or take a stand and will risk career on it, through the Military Justice system.
And TPTB know all this. That is why Homeland Security was formed. Because they know that real Military will not do this. And why Oathkeepers has formed, and is a force. And they will find, if they persist in this foolishness, that real cops and firemen and soldiers and other sworn protectors, will easily face down the wannabes that largely populate Homeland Security, the TSA, FEMA, and the like.
They are desperate. But, it is too late. They have lost already. All we are seeing is the dying rats squabbling in the corners. The politicians may think that they can just pass some laws, and escape culpability. But, people are awake now. Even the Hollywood contingent is become bold enough to speak up about their role, and is changing their tune. Corrupt judges are being taken down. Sheriffs are standing up in front of news cameras and declaring opposition to the Feds. States are passing laws to outlaw these Federal intrusions. The equation has changed.
I have no doubt this is going to be a messy cleanup. We the People, allowed it to go on for far too long, before waking up. But, they have indeed awoken the sleeping giant. And....we haven't had our coffee yet...so we are just a bit grumpy. But, there is a big difference between fear and anger.
reply to post by Bioshock
I traditionally have supported the dems more than republicans, but now I'm thoroughly convinced both parties are vile. Neither get anything right. Both parties, when in power, abuse the trust and authority they are granted by the people. Neither are worthy of the mantle of leadership for both parties are intent on using it only for personal gain. This once great republic is dead. RIP United States.
I traditionally have supported the dems more than republicans, but now I'm thoroughly convinced both parties are vile. Neither get anything right. Both parties, when in power, abuse the trust and authority they are granted by the people. Neither are worthy of the mantle of leadership for both parties are intent on using it only for personal gain. This once great republic is dead. RIP United States.
reply to post by Nicks87
And bear in mind ,nothing like this has existed before.The NVA weren't known for expert marksmanship, we are.The Afghans aren't known for their nationalist beliefs ,boy we sure are.And we have THE people who are experts at warfare in any type of conflict as veterans. I wouldn't mobilize if a few Occupiers got thumped but they will have to turn their hand in a big way to actually get something done,then we shall see.
Don't forget as well,we don't have an administration restraining us from victory.
And bear in mind ,nothing like this has existed before.The NVA weren't known for expert marksmanship, we are.The Afghans aren't known for their nationalist beliefs ,boy we sure are.And we have THE people who are experts at warfare in any type of conflict as veterans. I wouldn't mobilize if a few Occupiers got thumped but they will have to turn their hand in a big way to actually get something done,then we shall see.
Don't forget as well,we don't have an administration restraining us from victory.
any of these fools who admit they voted for this law with out reading it should be immediately recalled and dismissed . state governors should all
have this as one of their powers.seriously you going to vote on a bill that 330 million people are going to be affected by with out even glancing at
it thats as bad as some bone can be.
reply to post by proteus33
Someday soon and coming to an election near you it will be a new campaign slogan......
"Vote for joe blow....a man that actually reads the bills he signs" or "vote for jane blow a person that cant actually read....and the only person to have read the Obama Care Bill"
Someday soon and coming to an election near you it will be a new campaign slogan......
"Vote for joe blow....a man that actually reads the bills he signs" or "vote for jane blow a person that cant actually read....and the only person to have read the Obama Care Bill"
edit on 13-4-2013 by Logarock because: n
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Easy now. While I tend to agree with much you said, the above is a stretch, The North Vietnamese were well funded and had access to small arms that we didn't think they did. The Afghanistani had the ample hlep of the United Sates with regards to arms; i.e., upgrading them. If we didn't bring them up to speed, that landscape could be quite different today.
The stretch is the idea that citizens would try and overthrow the Federal Goverment in some kind of isolated effort. Last time I looked we were a republic, as in the 50 United States, and that senerio would actually be states leaving the union. The war would then be multiable states in war with a federal Goverment that has turned to tyranny rule. In this case an armed civilian would make a difference.
reply to post by Majic
No offense meant, but the correct thing for elected officials to do if they do not understand the bulk of legislation being voted on, is to abstain. Abstain can mean neutral and/or I do not know enough about this yet. Voting otherwise is irresponsible imho.
Secondly while it may not be unconstitutional to attempt to pass 1,000 page bills, it is extremely bad practice and deserves to be fully criticised. Many things are legal but simultaneously unethical or at the very least gray area material.
I get annoyed witnessing such practice again and again. The government does not respect citizens that are detached from politics, but at the same time we have become desensitised to everything they do, and it is taken for granted that people will always vote for the lesser of evil, rather than spend some time and learn what each party stands for as well as the candidates.
No offense meant, but the correct thing for elected officials to do if they do not understand the bulk of legislation being voted on, is to abstain. Abstain can mean neutral and/or I do not know enough about this yet. Voting otherwise is irresponsible imho.
Secondly while it may not be unconstitutional to attempt to pass 1,000 page bills, it is extremely bad practice and deserves to be fully criticised. Many things are legal but simultaneously unethical or at the very least gray area material.
I get annoyed witnessing such practice again and again. The government does not respect citizens that are detached from politics, but at the same time we have become desensitised to everything they do, and it is taken for granted that people will always vote for the lesser of evil, rather than spend some time and learn what each party stands for as well as the candidates.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
The Virtue Of Abstinence
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
No offense meant, but the correct thing for elected officials to do if they do not understand the bulk of legislation being voted on, is to abstain. Abstain can mean neutral and/or I do not know enough about this yet. Voting otherwise is irresponsible imho.
No offense taken, as I wholeheartedly agree with everything you're saying and hopefully didn't post anything that would suggest otherwise.
And even if we stridently disagreed on every point, I still wouldn't be offended.
Having just caught up with the thread, I think some of my fellow members may be mistaking my umbrage at the misuse of the word "treason" and assertions that the Constitution does not mandate that elected representatives know what they're voting for as tacit support of ongoing efforts to ram dubious legislation through under cover of emotional propaganda.
It isn't. Rather, it's that I don't think the best answer to irrational rhetoric is more irrational rhetoric. I think there's enough of that to last a thousand lifetimes as it is.
Despite the ongoing, longstanding media narrative that Americans are too stupid to govern ourselves, I think the nation does, in aggregate, possess enough wisdom to do the job well.
But only if we as citizens have access to the facts, are willing to take the time to learn and consider them, and apply them in making our own decisions.
Those of us unwilling to do that could, as in the case of legislators who don't read what they vote for, choose to abstain from voting as well, but we already know how popular that option is in practice.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Originally posted by TauCetixeta
reply to post by Bioshock
Please don't have a heart attack. It will never pass the House of Representatives.
They said that about the 1994 AWB...
Anyone who'd vote to be represented by a legislator who will vote on a Bill they haven't read, deserves what they get. When we elect idiots, we
deserve what we get, plain and simple. Not a single one of the people here, or anyone I know, would vote on something they haven't read. You know
full well that if there's 1500 pages, there's 1500 pages of treachery that needs to be exposed. There's literally no reason to rush a vote unless
there's a lot they are hiding.
Sadly, both Democrats and Republicans are wretched enough to vote on this. Anyone with integrity would vote no on principle alone.
Sadly, both Democrats and Republicans are wretched enough to vote on this. Anyone with integrity would vote no on principle alone.
Originally posted by Majic
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
The Virtue Of Abstinence
It isn't. Rather, it's that I don't think the best answer to irrational rhetoric is more irrational rhetoric. I think there's enough of that to last a thousand lifetimes as it is.As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
I would strongly hesitate to call the reactions and responses of people who are, to be quite frank, getting really pissed off at the treasonous actions of their Diebold-elected representatives, “irrational”, per se.
The legislators, who along with their friends at the Special Activities Division of the CIA (who really have done a banner job of achieving near-complete vertical integration plus real-time C2 of a nation's media), have worked together and ‘by hook or by crook’ incrementally undermined the freedoms enumerated within the Bill of Rights, which we had once enjoyed.
It is at the point now that there are actual flesh-and-blood human-beings walking around, who have mastered the art of doublethink so well that when the President goes on television and pays lip-service to the the founding social contract between the People and our government (e.g. “I fully support the Second Amendment”), then, in the same breath(!), tells people that their God-given freedoms must be regulated by the Federal Government, the people listening don't even bat an eyelash!
That is an illustration of the type of thinking that many here are trying to intellectually combat –> using honest, one-human-to-another type-reasoning, and being greeted with blank, dead-eyed stares of incomprehension, or worse, by posts like the one below for example (from earlier today)
I WANT TO SEE HOW MANY OF YOU ARE GONNA FIRE AT THE TANKS AND SOLDIERS WAITING OUTSIDE YOUR HOUSE TO CONFISCATE YOUR GUNS. I WANNA SEE YOU FIRE AT THEM SO YOUR HOUSE CAN BE RIDDLED WITH BULLETS AND YOUR KIDS AND WIFE BLOWN TO PIECES WHILE YOU MAKE A STAND.
It's just doesn’t compute. I am sorry, but I don’t think any amount of anger by Americans, at this point, could be deemed irrational.
I agree with your line of thinking, and I very much appreciate your civility.
I would only ask that you consider two things:
The first is that some of the most patriotic, Constitutionally-mindful commentary which I see being made on ATS comes from veterans and brothers, individuals who may have a much more vividly different image of the “reality” of the things that occur in a society when it's governance turns against its own people.
People who have been willing to die for an idea, the idea of self-governance i.e. without a “King” lording over us, exercising control over our destiny; and we have come to see that our country is virtually no longer.
It really has been taken over from the inside.
What choices are there? Hope that the electronic voting machine decides for some reason to elect better lawyers next round?
The second point is that while your discussion of the term “treason”, is exactly correct, it is really a point about semantics, or the terminus technicus of the Constitution.
In other words, you are making an intellectual point, that may very easily be lost on many. People whose usage of the term “treason” may be technically marred, but I dare suggest that they, are in fact, correct in this case; and all the more so for preserving the spirit of the Constitution exactly, with regard to the etiology of governance.
Originally posted by MajicThe following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Those of us unwilling to do that could, as in the case of legislators who don't read what they vote for, choose to abstain from voting as well, but we already know how popular that option is in practice.As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
As a little Gedankenexperiment, imagine that the results of any single electronically-tabulated election conducted in this country can be changed, at will, from the comfort of a remote cafè table. Everybody involved in running the actual election could be 100% honest, and yet, unbeknownst to them, the actual results of the election would be completely fabricated.
Well, it’s a good thing that the above was just speculative babble, and that nobody in politics would ever be shrewd enough to pay a software developer to do exactly what I just said … or else … well then we would really be screwed, wink-wink ; )
Peace>
~E.C.
edit on 13-4-2013 by 3mperorConstantinE because: (no reason given)
Who in their right mind would vote on ANY Bill before they read it?
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
Uh, not really, but thanks for playing. The founding fathers did not want a "standing army", which in more modern terminology means a permanent military. [The founding fathers were really terrible with predictions, and completely missed the advent of manned flight, AKA the air force.] Thus the states could have a "well regulated" militia, which today is the National Guard. Thus the 2nd amendment means the states can have their own militia to defend themselves from foreign enemies, and you have the right to join the national guard. Of course, your gun will be kept at the armory. And it might just be a small side arm, depending on your duty.
If I may quote James Madison:
Or in more modern terms, the government will use the military to oppress the citizens.
The founders wrote more than enough commentary regarding the subject for it to be crystal clear to even the most obtuse: namely our right to protect ourselves from tyranny within our own government.
Uh, not really, but thanks for playing. The founding fathers did not want a "standing army", which in more modern terminology means a permanent military. [The founding fathers were really terrible with predictions, and completely missed the advent of manned flight, AKA the air force.] Thus the states could have a "well regulated" militia, which today is the National Guard. Thus the 2nd amendment means the states can have their own militia to defend themselves from foreign enemies, and you have the right to join the national guard. Of course, your gun will be kept at the armory. And it might just be a small side arm, depending on your duty.
If I may quote James Madison:
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.
Or in more modern terms, the government will use the military to oppress the citizens.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
The Devil We Know
reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE
ATSer that I am, I hope that my support for government under the U.S. Constitution isn't construed as turning a blind eye to the many, many misdeeds committed under color of its authority. It is, in fact, precisely because I know how prone The Powers That Be are to monkey business that I believe scrupulous adherence to the Constitution as written is so important.
Contrary to apparent popular conception, the U.S. Constitution is not a pristine, delicate flower that wilts at the first sign of trouble. It was written with the full expectation that it would be violated by pretty much anyone and everyone associated with it, and the various mechanisms of overlapping checks and balances it embodies were devised with that in mind.
Concerns about such things as voting fraud (which has always been with us, now made potentially more efficient through electronic schemes) can be addressed under existing law. Should fraud be rampant enough to corrupt all branches of the federal government, including the courts, the states can challenge it -- though the 17th Amendment weakens that somewhat, perhaps intentionally (one of the reasons I favor its repeal).
If all branches of the state and federal governments are, in fact, corrupted, then that could be considered a failure of the system, though if we as citizens were to be so blithe and hapless as to passively allow it to happen without protest, that would beg the question of whether there was a "will of the people" to ignore in the first place.
As things stand, the Constitution prescribes limited government with significant oversight. If there's a better way to deal with the power of corruption and the corruption of power, I'm always interested.
But so far, whoever has a better idea has done a commendable job of keeping it a secret.
People Versus The State
reply to post by gariac
The wording of the 2nd Amendment was problematic even at the time it was drafted, with the "militia clause" being a centerpiece for debate ever since. From an operative standpoint, the clause makes an observation that could be considered evidence of intent, but it does not grant any powers or limit any rights in itself.
More germane to the argument is whether "the people" in this case means the same thing it does everywhere else in the Constitution. A core principle of the Constitution is that only the people have rights, that rights are inalienable, and that the people do not grant "rights" to the government, only "powers" that are limited and can be revoked.
The word "right" appears only once in the unamended Constitution, Article I, Section 8, in reference to "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". That's it. And in the Bill of Rights, it is only used in reference to "the people", "the accused" and "trial by jury".
The Constitution does not grant any rights to any government. In fact, it doesn't purport to grant rights to the people, either, only to protect some of them.
Thus it is of supreme importance to always understand to whom its provisions refer. A definitive example pertinent to the Bill of Rights can be found in the 10th Amendment:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The "United States", "the States" and "the people" are explicitly and unambiguously defined as different parties to the Constitution. At no point anywhere in the document are those terms used carelessly or to mean different things.
Although the use of the term "the people" to refer to governments in matters such as lawsuits can muddle the issue in a contemporary sense, attempting to redefine "the people" as meaning "the States" and uniquely conferring upon them a "right" in the sole, specific case of the 2nd Amendment is not supported by the Constitution itself.
Different arguments for interpreting the Constitution can and always will be made, but switching the parties around in a contract is a cardinal violation of the principles of common law at any level, and invalidates any law or regulation made on such grounds under Article VI.
Love it or hate it, the Constitution protects -- and the Supreme Court has upheld -- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".
Good people can, of course, disagree on the particulars, and to what degree rights can be reasonably restricted, but unless or until something changes, that's the law of the land. extra DIV
Originally posted by Majic
Despite the ongoing, longstanding media narrative that Americans are too stupid to govern ourselves, I think the nation does, in aggregate, possess enough wisdom to do the job well.
I thought it was the job of the politicians to do that. Don't they get paid enough?
But only if we as citizens have access to the facts, are willing to take the time to learn and consider them, and apply them in making our own decisions.
And that is precisely the problem. We are not allowed easy access to facts and don't have the necessary time to fact check ourselves. Apparently we don't have enough time to research how many parties exists, what those parties stand for and the candidates running under each party.
Those of us unwilling to do that could, as in the case of legislators who don't read what they vote for, choose to abstain from voting as well, but we already know how popular that option is in practice.
I wonder if they intentionally make the bills very long so that they can claim "oh its too tedious" much like reading a loan agreement from the bank, which is inundated with legal technicalities that exist for the sake of existing.
edit on 16/4/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason
given)
reply to post by gariac
State government is still government. Only difference is it is not federal government. The corruption has spread to the states almost as much as to the federal level. The national guard belongs to the states.
The militias were based on colonial america before the USA seperated from Great Britain and were crucial to winning the revolutionary war. Today americans are getting oppressed covertly from their own government, namely the federal government with its overblown and mismanaged statism.
State government is still government. Only difference is it is not federal government. The corruption has spread to the states almost as much as to the federal level. The national guard belongs to the states.
The militias were based on colonial america before the USA seperated from Great Britain and were crucial to winning the revolutionary war. Today americans are getting oppressed covertly from their own government, namely the federal government with its overblown and mismanaged statism.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by gariac
State government is still government. Only difference is it is not federal government. The corruption has spread to the states almost as much as to the federal level. The national guard belongs to the states.
The militias were based on colonial america before the USA seperated from Great Britain and were crucial to winning the revolutionary war. Today americans are getting oppressed covertly from their own government, namely the federal government with its overblown and mismanaged statism.
The government is not corrupt. This country is filled with paranoid types that think someone is out to get them. That is why guns need to be more regulated. Paranoia and guns don't go well together. When the constitution was wrote you did not have so many crazy people running around. The constitution needs to be changed to reflect the time. People who think the government is out to get them need psychiatric help.
new topics
-
US mistakes in assessing the military potential of China and Russia
ATS Skunk Works: 1 hours ago -
Slow moving ufo over Mexico volcano Popocatepetl 8 May 2024
Aliens and UFOs: 8 hours ago -
A new Why Files How CRISPR and AI Destroy the World
Science & Technology: 9 hours ago -
Ask AI Is A Hot Mess
Links & Other Resources: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
Christianity superior to other faiths for very specific reasons. Awaken to true FREEDOM..!!
Conspiracies in Religions: 16 hours ago, 7 flags -
A new Why Files How CRISPR and AI Destroy the World
Science & Technology: 9 hours ago, 6 flags -
Ask AI Is A Hot Mess
Links & Other Resources: 9 hours ago, 5 flags -
Battle of the Bay 2024 ; Tampa, Florida Special Forces Demonstration
Military Projects: 14 hours ago, 4 flags -
Tschugger
Movies: 15 hours ago, 3 flags -
Slow moving ufo over Mexico volcano Popocatepetl 8 May 2024
Aliens and UFOs: 8 hours ago, 3 flags -
US mistakes in assessing the military potential of China and Russia
ATS Skunk Works: 1 hours ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
So this is what Hamas considers 'freedom fighting' ...
War On Terrorism • 281 • : FlyersFan -
US mistakes in assessing the military potential of China and Russia
ATS Skunk Works • 3 • : RussianTroll -
Zelensky and His Generals Embezzled ‘At Least’ $400M from U.S. Aid Last Year
World War Three • 73 • : ADVISOR -
Russia police launch major manhunt after troops massacred by comrade in occupied Ukraine
Other Current Events • 34 • : Freeborn -
Those Fake Death Numbers From Hamas Out Of Gaza
Middle East Issues • 141 • : FlyersFan -
DONALD J. TRUMP - 2024 Candidate for President - His Communications to Americans and the World.
2024 Elections • 523 • : Threadbarer -
Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 3
World War Three • 5782 • : gortex -
The Acronym Game .. Pt.3
General Chit Chat • 7829 • : F2d5thCavv2 -
Congressional "Hush Fund" and Rape Culture of DC Politicians.
US Political Madness • 32 • : ADVISOR -
The biggest problem with the Hush money trial
US Political Madness • 177 • : network dude