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.
Revisionist history, that often leads to book burning, starts with the redefining of laungage and is an insult to citizens everywhere.
originally posted by: TechniXcality
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TechniXcality
Though I'm eager to hear what YOU think the "patriots" are there for.
Just can't help yourself with the "patriot" jab. It's not a pretty sight to watch you patronize those who are patriots, with your obvious connection to the term terrorism, of which you make no apology.
I do not think it is time to take up arms, so therefor I believe the action that has been taken is beyond support, as of now, I support smooth transition of power, and unfortunately a failing legal system- that I know needs reform. however they are not terrorists, potentially they could become terrorists, but as of now squatting in a previously unoccupied federal building, is a form of protest albeit one I do not agree with, because of what I mentioned earlier. Also, I think the BLM is engaged in a act of land grabbing, and is using judicial weight to essentially extort people.
I think while misguided in their action, they are pressing a issue (specifically abuse of power) that once again crosses political, religious, and racial devides.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Who did they kill and who are they terrorizing?
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I would like your definition of "Patriot", please.
In your own words, describe what a "patriot" is.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
ETA: Rolling out the Patriot Act 45 days after 911 and Invading Iraq against the wishes of the vast majority of the planet have added fuel to the fire that is anti-US Government sentiment, and 14+ years later and both parties having control of the throne since then, and the citizenry left with less freedoms and more surveillance is testament.
Interestingly all those things were done during a Republican Presidency, but they didn't become a problem until a Democrat was in office. But it's not like they weren't unconstitutional and freedom stripping then either. I guess when it's your guy stealing liberties then its ok.