Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Patriots are being tracked and reported?


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#31    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:55 PM

View PostBama13, on 03 May 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

He has a right to say he would like to have a vigilante like informant circle, he just doesn't have the right to implement one.

EXACTLY.


#32    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 36,777 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:56 PM

View PostBama13, on 03 May 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

He has a right to say he would like to have a vigilante like informant circle, he just doesn't have the right to implement one.

Why? As long as all he does is collect information he did nothing wrong, all covered by the 1st Amendment. That changes if somebody suffers a damage from it... but until then he did nothing wrong.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#33    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,599 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:06 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 03 May 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

Those who are hostile to our democracy need to be scrutinized.
Gawd!  What a maroon!!   Uhmmmm, what’s up doc?

For one this isn’t going to fly.  When this Administration tried it, it went nowhere.  Two, this isn’t a democracy but forgiving your lack of understanding, patriots are not hostile to our *democracy*.  It’s not the government they hate, it’s the snake head.  Who is hostile to it is the POTUS, the enemy from within.  The Founding Fathers gave us guidelines on how to deal with that.  This is the fear fostered by the Administration.  There are two courses of action (actually 3 but that is rare), 1) to double down or 2) concede and abide by the Constitution – I think we’ve had enough change for one lifetime.  For sure it will take a lifetime to correct the damage.  And that’s before we take on real problems with real and viable solutions.  Finally, this doesn’t strike you as eerily similar to Nazi Germany (Wehrkraftzersetzung)?  Or even the 1928 Nuremburg gun laws…

Truly this is turning into a Looney Tunes cartoon.  I guess you post such things to get reactions from said patriots because you are void of such passion.  Something you desperately seek to understand but that you never will.  So all you have left is to follow the first Pied Piper that comes around and he’s leading you to the cliff.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#34    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:13 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 03 May 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

Gawd!  What a maroon!!   Uhmmmm, what's up doc?

For one this isn't going to fly.  When this Administration tried it, it went nowhere.  Two, this isn't a democracy but forgiving your lack of understanding, patriots are not hostile to our *democracy*.  It's not the government they hate, it's the snake head.  Who is hostile to it is the POTUS, the enemy from within.  The Founding Fathers gave us guidelines on how to deal with that.  This is the fear fostered by the Administration.  There are two courses of action (actually 3 but that is rare), 1) to double down or 2) concede and abide by the Constitution – I think we've had enough change for one lifetime.  For sure it will take a lifetime to correct the damage.  And that's before we take on real problems with real and viable solutions. Finally, this doesn't strike you as eerily similar to Nazi Germany (Wehrkraftzersetzung)?  Or even the 1928 Nuremburg gun laws…


Yep. I've had about enough "change" as I can stand...
It's going to take a VERY long time to undo all the damage Obama and his administration have caused this country.


#35    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,599 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:19 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 03 May 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

And that gives the good Sheriff, right or wrong, a right to put up a vigilante like informant circle. It is not a one way road. As soon as you want to prohibit him saying whatever he wants to say, no matter how big the group of brain amputated who follow him, you are no better than him. And whether you call yourself a democrat or a republican or whatever does not give you the right to change that either.
I totally agree, however, he is in a position of authority and riding a thin line.  He is being very close to violating the public trust in our Republic.  The people have every right to talk insurrection.  He has the duty to protect the people in his jurisdiction.  But he crosses the line when he encourages those that he has authority over to *betray* each other.  His responsibility is to the people, not the government.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#36    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 36,777 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:25 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 03 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

I totally agree, however, he is in a position of authority and riding a thin line.  He is being very close to violating the public trust in our Republic.  The people have every right to talk insurrection.  He has the duty to protect the people in his jurisdiction.  But he crosses the line when he encourages those that he has authority over to *betray* each other.  His responsibility is to the people, not the government.

That is the point, he is the elected representative of both those who like the government and those who dislike it. And as such he should be protecting the interest of both. But that is a theme for the next elections.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#37    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 8,840 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:26 PM

America would not have a president if it was still ruled by a monarch


#38    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,599 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:36 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 03 May 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

That is the point, he is the elected representative of both those who like the government and those who dislike it. And as such he should be protecting the interest of both. But that is a theme for the next elections.
If he was trying to protect the interests of both, then he shouldn’t try to emphasize the differences.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#39    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:02 PM

View PostKowalski, on 03 May 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

I like what Jesse Ventura says: "I love my country. NOT my government." :tu:

I love my country, but I am most wary of its government.


#40    F3SS

F3SS

    Old Burg

  • Member
  • 8,094 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 04 May 2013 - 02:37 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 03 May 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:



That is part of the of the democratic rules, yes. But there are also those who wish to change democracy in such a fashion that only their view of things are valid, or exercise some "thought control".



Like progressives?

Brittany hates our "democracy" because it allows people to own guns and speak ill of others. Perhaps he is due for an evaluation.


#41    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 12,856 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 04 May 2013 - 11:10 PM

View PostThe New Richard Nixon, on 03 May 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

America would not have a president if it was still ruled by a monarch
No. You'd have a Prime Minister.
And frankly, based on the Aussie PM that's virtually the same thing as a President. Elected to govern. Beholden to the people. Full of ****. Only difference is that there's someone "above" the PM who has the right to slap them into place if things go west. Last time that was done here was in the 70s and it was a debacle from go to woe.

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

#42    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Seeker

  • Member
  • 11,579 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Dark side of the Moon

Posted 07 May 2013 - 10:43 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 03 May 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

So, you want to imitate the good Sheriff...  just with other priorities?

No. I want to defend the constitution. He wants to destroy it.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#43    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Seeker

  • Member
  • 11,579 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Dark side of the Moon

Posted 07 May 2013 - 10:47 AM

View PostBama13, on 03 May 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

He has a right to say he would like to have a vigilante like informant circle, he just doesn't have the right to implement one.

Nail hammer head.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#44    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,636 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:This new war has taken a toll on families, my part is coming to a close on this front, leaving soon on a mayday.

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.
    -AF

Posted 07 May 2013 - 04:37 PM

View Postlightly, on 03 May 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

It's Our Government.. to love , hate,  praise, complain about,  change,  abolish,   .... etc.

View Postpreacherman76, on 07 May 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

No. I want to defend the constitution. He wants to destroy it.

If the day comes you want to raise arms against our government do not be surprised to find yourself alone and/or introduced to Article Three, Section Three, of the United States Constitution.

Those who have already tried to abolish our government have been arrested if possible, under numerous charges that do not rise to the level of what is described in Article Three, Section Three.

In another instance of others trying to detroy our federal government, they lost a war, but since the US is no longer divided by a neat parallel or a division between states, but instead rural and urban sentiments, the likellihood of a repeat of that scenario is severely limited.

View PostKowalski, on 03 May 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

Do you even KNOW what a REPUBLIC IS? I suggest you watch the video I posted of the great American John Wayne, explaining it.



Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

Taking your defintiion from pop culture is not the brightest or clearest way to inform our opinions.

Also those who feel it has to be one or the other (republic or democracy) are presenting the illusion of dualism, a suckers choice, while ignoring nuance.

Those who would rely on John Wayne for their education or who would teach others using his words as an authority on these matters might not be bothered with the rest but it is rather important to some of us.

The Declaration of Independence does not mention the word Republic. The Constitution in Article IV states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

We can return to the Constitution as soon as we discuss the Pledge of Allegiance, which was penned by a minister for a children's magazine, and has been changed four times since then.

Frazier v. Alexandre, a federal case, insures no one is required to cite the pledge, so, even if it has the words "Republic" in it, it is still a piece of literary composition, a special piece, but it is not legislation or a federal document. No one is bound by it or to assume the inclusion of the word "Republic" in it offers a definitive answer as to whether we are a republic or a democracy.

Article IV of the Constitution only guarantees every state, that is every state in our federalist form of government, a "Republican form of government".

But what does that mean? It claims every state in our federalist union will be guaranteed a "Republican form of government" but most understand some states allow the use of referendum which is pure democracy.

In essence and in practice we have what is more adequately described as a democratic republic.

The brashness and bravado, (i.e., a kick A attitude) of those who claim, "we are a republic and not a democracy", is certainly there but brashness and bravado do little for an adequate understanding.

As far as it can be understood our nation has only went to war with each other over one matter, to decide if we were a confederation or a federation. The answer was definitely decided then: we are a federation above all.

Further, we are a federation with both republican and democratic elements when it comes to our political system.

On that note, when it comes to economic systems, we also have those who claim we are only practice capitalisism and would never allow socialism here when in fact we are a mixed-market with elements of both capitalism and socialism already in effect. That is nothing new either.

View Postaztek, on 03 May 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

lol, they are more mental than their patients.

This opinion might be shared among some but is not necessarily accurate. It simply seems like something someone with no familiarity with mental health issues would claim.

It is quite likely that rates of mental health issues are not greater among mental health pracitioners than the general population.

Attitudes such as the one dispayed in the quote are a cause many remain suffering with mental health issues when they could be helped.

If you can provide a source for your claim, feel free too.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 07 May 2013 - 04:47 PM.


#45    Bama13

Bama13

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,227 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 07 May 2013 - 06:39 PM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 04 May 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

No. You'd have a Prime Minister.
And frankly, based on the Aussie PM that's virtually the same thing as a President. Elected to govern. Beholden to the people. Full of ****. Only difference is that there's someone "above" the PM who has the right to slap them into place if things go west. Last time that was done here was in the 70s and it was a debacle from go to woe.

"if things go west" must be Aussie for "if things go south" in the US. I get the US saying (maybe because I live here), if you are holding a map with north at the top then "down" is south. So I always figured that "if things go south" = "if things go downhill". West is left on a map. So does the Aussie version mean "If things go west" = "if things go left"?

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users