Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
krillen

Patriots are being tracked and reported?

66 posts in this topic

Thomas Paine: It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.

Americans today have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they consider the country and the government to be the same thing. :no:

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

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First we dont live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Second the constitution finds it top prority to be able to speak your mind, especialy in regards to grievence's tward government, without having to answer to the brown shirts. This is nazi propaganda. These people who made this program should be arrested, and tried for treason.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

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.

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.

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who are hostile to our democracy need to be scrutinized.

Seriously, though. Who are THOSE people?

Would you include Liberals that were speaking against the Bush administration for 8 years?

Left wing groups have a longer history of violance for their "cause" than any right wing groups.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, though. Who are THOSE people?

Would you include Liberals that were speaking against the Bush administration for 8 years?

Oh, you know..."those people" who want to keep an us vs them mentality. :whistle:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mental health professionals would decide. Who else?

We need better mental health awareness and intervention in this country. That is simply progress.

If you had a child who was becoming a threat to you and your family, if you did not know what to do, if you called law enforcement for help, hopefully they would send a caseworker and mental health personnel to help.

And what makes a mental health professional the perfect choice to decide?

If you knew anything about Psychology/psychiatry, you would know there are more than a few schools of thought on the subject. So, which is going to be the one used to decide whether or not someone is mentally fit? And who is going to decide which one we go with?

Simply, there is no way to correctly institute a national mental health mandate.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you know..."those people" who want to keep an us vs them mentality. :whistle:

Yankees fans? :unsure2:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Seriously, though. Who are THOSE people?

Would you include Liberals that were speaking against the Bush administration for 8 years?

Left wing groups have a longer history of violance for their "cause" than any right wing groups.

This "the left has caused more terrorism throughout history" point being bandied around, if true, is a truth that is attempting to hide another truth.

The truth of which side is causing more terrorism now and in recent history. If it was the left then one would be bandying around the point in terms of "the left is causing the most terrorism now" but since that is not accurate we are hearing about the long view. That is fine but the point being made is a way to sweep away what we all know deep inside.

Terrorism now is from conservatives mainly, homegrown, yes, mostly right-wing, Islamic, yes again, mainly conservatives in their spheres, these are not moderate Muslims or liberal ones.

Now we can look at the long view. Most terrorism in the past 150 years or so was from the left...but what about this: the liberals rejected the extreme of their wing they margianalized them, did not claim them.

Was Kennedy and LBJ supporting red-brigade terror, black power resistance, or eco-terrorists? No! Liberals were calling for law and order. Demanding it. Enforcing it.

Why then today are the moderate Republicans not speaking out? Why are they not distancing themselves except in hushed tones? Why do they silently harbor the extremists in their party?

That is the difference. 1984 might be the moment terrorism and mass shootings and plots switched from being majorly a left-wing to a right-wing phenomenon. Look up the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre and what the mass shooter there complained about before doing what he did.

He said he was going to hunt humans. He hated society at large for being this or that, unlike the leftists of yesteryear who did terror against companies or the police but not just randoms in society because they don't like the way society is going.

Look at how similar his complaints are to the ones still being made today by right-wing radicals. But the radicals have been mainstreamed. People seem to be profiting from the extremism and mistrust they breed and grow.

Since then we have had the Koreshes, the McVeighs, the Osamas, the Columbine duo, the Lanzas.

What do they have in common? They are either conservative or have a love of guns or hate society or our government because instead of compromising they would rather attack.

So we do have a problem, people notice, and instead of digging in with fear that they are going to come for our guns, guns that won't allow you to win a war with a modern military (can't beat the feds today without drones of your own and anti-aircraft batteries), the right could instead simply denounce and distance themselves from the new terrorists and become partners in sensible legislation.

There will be blowback and people are craving law and order, not paranoia that our government is out to get us, they are not out to get me.

And what makes a mental health professional the perfect choice to decide?

If you knew anything about Psychology/psychiatry, you would know there are more than a few schools of thought on the subject. So, which is going to be the one used to decide whether or not someone is mentally fit? And who is going to decide which one we go with?

Simply, there is no way to correctly institute a national mental health mandate.

No need for "if you only knew" type of points. If you know then tell us.

But you make a good point, there are psychologist whose therapy is talking and exercises, psychiatrist whose therapy is talking and meds, we have among them different therapies, different meds, and every patient needs a certain mix unique to them for a proper response.

But we cannot just throw up our arms and say forget it. We have a mental health crisis. We need a national response, not just for those saying they hate the government, most of them are not mentally ill, but the ones who are need screening.

Overall we have to begin forming a comprehensive solution to the general mental health crisis, the ones that allow for suicides among vets, to the Jodi Ariases, to Ted Kazinskis (had to mention the favorite target of the right to show the left has terrorists too), and the top dog in the Air Force in charge of sexual harassment (definitely leaning toward some kind of disorder even if just alcoholism.)

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.