- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,003
- Thread starter spectr17
- Start date
Bullfrog 31581
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 33
There's no context to establish what's going on other than the words of the commentator, who sounds like a cospiracy theorist. There's nothing there that indicates that the military is doing anything but training for urban combat and peacekeeping.
Also, that video is seven years old. I haven't seen the military taking over any towns near me in the years since 2000. Furthermore, I would think that a top secret training program planning a vast, illegal, operation wouldn't let civilians videotape the thing.
Also, that video is seven years old. I haven't seen the military taking over any towns near me in the years since 2000. Furthermore, I would think that a top secret training program planning a vast, illegal, operation wouldn't let civilians videotape the thing.
Bullfrog 31581
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 33
The guy who did that video above is named Alex Jones. Here's a link to his webpage and a wiki article about him:
http://www.infowars.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_jones
It sounds like he believes that Bush was behind 9/11. So you can make up your own minds as to how credible his commentary is.
http://www.infowars.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_jones
It sounds like he believes that Bush was behind 9/11. So you can make up your own minds as to how credible his commentary is.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,003
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Really? I watched National Guard disarm law abiding citizens in New Orleans just 2 years ago on TV. News crews filmed the debacle. Remember the old lady who didn't want to leave her home who had a pistol for self defense? They jacked her up and disarmed her.
The military floated a questionire out here at 29 Palms back in the mid 1980s asking Marines how they felt about kicking down civilian doors and doing no knock raids. It's the skeleton in the closet no one wants to talk about.
Really? I watched National Guard disarm law abiding citizens in New Orleans just 2 years ago on TV. News crews filmed the debacle. Remember the old lady who didn't want to leave her home who had a pistol for self defense? They jacked her up and disarmed her.
The military floated a questionire out here at 29 Palms back in the mid 1980s asking Marines how they felt about kicking down civilian doors and doing no knock raids. It's the skeleton in the closet no one wants to talk about.
Common Sense
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,996
- Reaction score
- 535
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Drayton @ Sep 15 2007, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they're really not trying to get you!
There was a reason the founding fathers, to a man, were opposed to a standing army.
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they're really not trying to get you!
There was a reason the founding fathers, to a man, were opposed to a standing army.
easymoney
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 10,522
- Reaction score
- 101
Well maybe no knock raids is just what the military needs to do to round up the ILLEGALS. Leave the law abiding taxpaying American citizens alone and concentrate on those who have snuck in here, already breaking the law... And they should be able to get loads of practice on the 20 million ILLEGALS.
Bullfrog 31581
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 33
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
There were some founders opposed to a standing army, but there were just as many that were in favor of a standing army. Madison and Hamilton were two of the leading proponents for a standing army as seen in the Federalist Papers, as was Washington. We had a good thread going on this a while back:
http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/index....70&start=70
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
The National Guard exists to suppliment state police forces during emergencies. The NG policing a half-submerged city in the aftermath of a hurricane is is a far cry from the Marine Corps or the regular military taking over small town America and declaring martial law as apart of a NWO scheme. However, I agree that what happened in New Orleans was a travesty. It didn't matter if it was the National Guard or the NOPD, no state, federal, or any other entity should have been disarming law abiding civilians. I don't think New Orleans was a part of a master plot by the UN and a bunch of power hungry generals to advance a police state. The order to confiscate the guns came from a Democrat NOPD chief, a Democrat mayor, and a Democrat governor. Yes, the LEOs should have stood up to the order and not carried it out. But I don't think New Orleans proves Jone's point. New Orleans was just an example of what would happen if Democrats could have their way without opposition.
There were some founders opposed to a standing army, but there were just as many that were in favor of a standing army. Madison and Hamilton were two of the leading proponents for a standing army as seen in the Federalist Papers, as was Washington. We had a good thread going on this a while back:
http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/index....70&start=70
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
The National Guard exists to suppliment state police forces during emergencies. The NG policing a half-submerged city in the aftermath of a hurricane is is a far cry from the Marine Corps or the regular military taking over small town America and declaring martial law as apart of a NWO scheme. However, I agree that what happened in New Orleans was a travesty. It didn't matter if it was the National Guard or the NOPD, no state, federal, or any other entity should have been disarming law abiding civilians. I don't think New Orleans was a part of a master plot by the UN and a bunch of power hungry generals to advance a police state. The order to confiscate the guns came from a Democrat NOPD chief, a Democrat mayor, and a Democrat governor. Yes, the LEOs should have stood up to the order and not carried it out. But I don't think New Orleans proves Jone's point. New Orleans was just an example of what would happen if Democrats could have their way without opposition.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullfrog 31581 @ Sep 16 2007, 09:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I believe Madison and Hamilton were also 2 strong supporters especially in the case of Hamilton for returning to a monarchy, destroying state's rights and not providing a bill of rights. If you look at some of Madison's writing before his death you can see that he turned from Hamilton when he was able to see his true colors.
Hamilton was a very crude manipulator and I think his impact was the inherent weakness of our constitution and he knew the document could be used and manipulated to consolidate federal power.
I believe Madison and Hamilton were also 2 strong supporters especially in the case of Hamilton for returning to a monarchy, destroying state's rights and not providing a bill of rights. If you look at some of Madison's writing before his death you can see that he turned from Hamilton when he was able to see his true colors.
Hamilton was a very crude manipulator and I think his impact was the inherent weakness of our constitution and he knew the document could be used and manipulated to consolidate federal power.
Common Sense
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,996
- Reaction score
- 535
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullfrog 31581 @ Sep 16 2007, 09:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
There were some founders opposed to a standing army, but there were just as many that were in favor of a standing army. Madison and Hamilton were two of the leading proponents for a standing army as seen in the Federalist Papers, as was Washington.
[/b][/quote]
They wanted an army to be a national army, but not necessarily a "standing" army. Here's a couple of Madison quotes:
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty."
"Throughout all Europe, the armies kept under the pretext of defending, have enslaved people."
Our Army has not caused many of the problems our forefathers feared --- YET.
There were some founders opposed to a standing army, but there were just as many that were in favor of a standing army. Madison and Hamilton were two of the leading proponents for a standing army as seen in the Federalist Papers, as was Washington.
[/b][/quote]
They wanted an army to be a national army, but not necessarily a "standing" army. Here's a couple of Madison quotes:
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty."
"Throughout all Europe, the armies kept under the pretext of defending, have enslaved people."
Our Army has not caused many of the problems our forefathers feared --- YET.
ETC2NA
Forever Hunting
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2004
- Messages
- 1,188
- Reaction score
- 3
Hamilton did want a monarchy, under Washington, I know that. I can't say definitively that he continued along that strain after Washington, because he felt that no one but Washington (and himself of course) could be trusted with the power. He was also an ardent promoter of hard work and advancement based on merit. He had little use for those who refused to be useful members of society. I can't see him in favor of a hereditary monarchy.
While we're being alarmist; Let's consider that unchecked private ownership of weapons, in the wrong hands, could be equally detrimental to liberty. Checks and balances, my friends. If we didn't have a standing military, we'd be speaking another language by now. There is no way we could rally militias and put them in today's technology and fight a war. National Guards are great to augment, but they provide no lasting projection of power.
While we're being alarmist; Let's consider that unchecked private ownership of weapons, in the wrong hands, could be equally detrimental to liberty. Checks and balances, my friends. If we didn't have a standing military, we'd be speaking another language by now. There is no way we could rally militias and put them in today's technology and fight a war. National Guards are great to augment, but they provide no lasting projection of power.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ETC2NA @ Sep 17 2007, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Then why the insistence on the federal government meddling in business? It is his writings that laid the ground work for the central bank, the federal reserve, the new deal, social security, affirmative action and every other welfare/socialist program conceived the last 100 yeas. It is my opinion that "hardwork and advancement based on merit" can only occur in society without government inteference or coercion especially at a federal level. When the federal government becomes as involved the economics of a nation as Hamilton proposed and as it has, it stiffles hardwork and advancement based on merit.
Then why the insistence on the federal government meddling in business? It is his writings that laid the ground work for the central bank, the federal reserve, the new deal, social security, affirmative action and every other welfare/socialist program conceived the last 100 yeas. It is my opinion that "hardwork and advancement based on merit" can only occur in society without government inteference or coercion especially at a federal level. When the federal government becomes as involved the economics of a nation as Hamilton proposed and as it has, it stiffles hardwork and advancement based on merit.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ETC2NA @ Sep 17 2007, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Oh that most be the last part of the 2nd Amendment, "The right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed when government officials ie the courts decide that those arms could be detrimental to liberty."
Seems to me that is the exact argument liberals and facist use to disarm the public. "If a terrorist uses a .50 weapon they could shoot through the engine block of a police car". "A mini-14 shoots the ever dangerous .223 round that can rapid fire as many as 30 rounds".
Oh that most be the last part of the 2nd Amendment, "The right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed when government officials ie the courts decide that those arms could be detrimental to liberty."
Seems to me that is the exact argument liberals and facist use to disarm the public. "If a terrorist uses a .50 weapon they could shoot through the engine block of a police car". "A mini-14 shoots the ever dangerous .223 round that can rapid fire as many as 30 rounds".
Common Sense
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,996
- Reaction score
- 535
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ETC2NA @ Sep 17 2007, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Most of the founding fathers were opposed to a standing army, but supported a navy. One would assume they would still support a navy and probably an air force. A navy, air force, atomic power, and a commander-in-chief with the cajones of Truman would be more than enough deterent to stop another country from envading. Course if we wanted to go to Asia or the Mid-East, or something like that; it would take a spell to muster together a suitable army.
Most of the founding fathers were opposed to a standing army, but supported a navy. One would assume they would still support a navy and probably an air force. A navy, air force, atomic power, and a commander-in-chief with the cajones of Truman would be more than enough deterent to stop another country from envading. Course if we wanted to go to Asia or the Mid-East, or something like that; it would take a spell to muster together a suitable army.
