Hunger Strike to Restore Constitutional Order (Americans)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by london calling, Aug 21, 2008.

  1. http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/Update/Update2008-08-16.htm

    Very important for all Americans.

    Not one American can say that atleast one point in that 7 point list does not affect them.
     
  2. Why did you post this twice?


    That's one way to go about it, but I don't know why you're giving up on the democratic process.

    Besides, isn't the whole notion of a hunger strike.... y'know... antithetical to the notion of a republic?

    The whole idea that a mob cannot rule.
     
  3. Hunger strike? That'll only weaken them.
    I think Americans may need to butch up, and take back their government.
    Let's begin by removing the criminal element: The Bush Admin.


     
  4. Ummm most of those arent even true and some of those I don't know anything about so I won't argue about them.

    There is no such thing as the North American Union, its a hypothetical government.
    The Iraq war was voted on by congress.
    and I still have the right to bear arms, gun control specifics come down to the state level and if unconstitutional are challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court.
     


  5. The NAU doesn't exist... yet. But the three nations have been meeting for years to discuss "free trade". See NAFTA superhighway.

    The last authorization of war by congress was in 1941. The Iraq war wasn't voted on by congress, they voted to delegate the power to the executive branch.

    When the only politician who gives a shit about this country, Ron Paul, asked whether it was wise to give all the power to the executive branch, chairman Henry Hyde responded:

    "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them.
    There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to?
    We are saying to the President, use your judgment.
    So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore."

    Its fucked up when congress calls the constitution anachronistic. They should consider a dictatorship anachronistic. :rolleyes:
     
  6. Why you all keep talking like we got to get rid of Bush, you do know his presidency's almost over don't you. Its not so much removing him as it is his going away.
     

  7. The Bush haters will feel so empty next year if Obama gets elected.;)
     
  8. A multinational government and a multinational economic agreement are two vastly different things.

    For all-intensive purposes to the voting public, how is that significantly different?

    delegating power to the executive branch was as good as voting on the war. It's not as if the congressmen didn't know what kind of decision was going to be made. The rhetoric was clear.

    How is it NOT anachronistic?



    I'm not trying to goad you or anything, these are sincere questions.
     
  9. They should form a mob like in the good old days instead of a hunger strike.
     
  10. [​IMG]
     
  11. Our constitution was written to never be anachronistic. It is amendable, but we don't even amend it. It has become a myth, an urban legend we hear about in grade school never to be looked at again. In my government class in high school we barely even touched on our constitution.

    I would love to go to that strike, but I have 2 reasons not to. I am working, unfortunately, and I see no point in non-violent protests when our government clearly uses violence against them. Most people think of protests as a group, a mass, a swarm of people doing something to get peoples' attention. The protests I am talking about are failure to pay taxes, failure to abide by gun control laws, and failure to cooperate with drug laws (;)). All of these things are non-violent, yet are often times met with violence by our government.

    Instead of being push-overs to the point of slavery, why don't we act now? I would gladly take up arms against the government if there were a group of people large enough to get the job done. Gladly.

    Peep my tat!
     

    Attached Files:

    • tat.jpg
      tat.jpg
      File size:
      8.3 KB
      Views:
      41
  12. [​IMG]
     
  13. Vastly? Hmmm...

    All the EU is is a protectorate for European trade inorder to compete with America. Government is driven by economic might.

    The voting public doesn't notice we've lost our "checks and balances". How can you not see the err in giving unequal power to one man? It would be a lot harder to go to war if congress was held liable and had to approve... but congress likes where they are.

    It is treated as such, yet we've reverted to older, more familiar forms of government power since abandoning its doctrine. The US constitution is a historically new concept, a shackle that binds government power and protects our freedoms. It isn't going to do such a good job if people view it as stale.

    That's why the amendment process was created... If government wants to abuse their power, or people want to allow the executive branch to decide everything, they should atleast amend the constitution to do so.

    But since they wouldn't be able to gain approval for such radical amendments, they simply ignore the constitution and rely on people to shrug it off as an anachronistic piece of paper.... which works just as well apparently.

    Who pushes for unilateral war powers? The same people that give millions of dollars to electorates, and the same people that make billions off war.
     
  14. thats what i'm talking about :D
     

  15. :rolleyes:
     
  16. Mr. Spade, are you suggesting by saying how rediculous his comment is, that we should just stand around and let our government use our ass as a cum-dump? Fuck that. Any action is better than no action, and no action is rediculous. I'm no fighter but I'd gladly take up arms as well if I knew it would get the job done.
     
  17. I am bewildered by the fact that you think violent reprisals is the only way to effect change.
     
  18. I am not saying that non-violence can't do anything. It just doesn't make sense to me. Some violent actions are justified, and this is one of those actions. The government teaches non-violence in all of the schools it runs (pretty much all of them), and then tries to remove our right to bear arms. The next step is so close to 1984 that you will shit your pants.
     
  19. (First, sorry it took me so long to respond, I lose track of these threads pretty quickly here on GC)
    Spade,
    No, I'm not suggesting violent reprisals are the only way to effect change, but when peaceful protests have been attempted and are silenced by the man, I do think that we need to stand up and retort, even if it requires violence. If picket signs and petitions aren't getting it done, and peaceful protesters are being jailed, then I would, of course take the oppurtunity to then, and only then, bear arms as a result if I felt the cause was worth sacrificing my life for.
     
  20. Phew

    Because your unhappy?

    They do? Where is the curriculum for that, specifically?

    Who is tryin to do that? I'm honestly unfamiliar? Are you referring to gun registration and more astute gun laws?

    You don't need to have gun ownership as a constitutional right to have PLENTY OF GUNS.

    Not to mention, there is clearly an issue. What would be a better response?


    How does ANY of this require violent reprisal? How would violent reprisal be anything but totally destructive considering the number of individuals who actually share your views?

    More importantly, what ARE the number of individuals like you who are willing to violently rebel? Do you have any figure at all?

    I'm glad we can establish that.

    Um, which peaceful protests? And how were they "silenced by the man"?

    Yeah but violence or nonviolence is a big issue, you seem to want to gloss over and say "well if the time comes..." - but what are the parameters? When you do you decide to throw your life away and actually bring harm and destruction to you and your own countrymen?

    Have you ever even SEEN combat? You know what combat does to civvie life?

    Um, i'll be the first to admit that picket signs and petitions are usually almost always totally meaningless and without any actual substance behind them.

    There is more than one avenue to peaceful resistance and forceful fulfillment of democratic process.

    I'm only aware of a small handful of suspect protesters who were detained for very brief periods.



    I mean when it comes right down to it, Naku hit the nail on the head. You are the self-proclaimed majority, if you want change, then, as the proletariat, you do not require violence. The means to production are the weapon to begin with, wield it economically. Don't attempt to crush and destroy your very country with your own anti-establishment views and rhetoric.
     

Share This Page