Thread: America's Number One Collapse Expert Thought WTC Bombed

Originally Posted by Dispondent

Was the Enabling Act challenged in German courts? Did German courts challenge the Enabling Act by saying it was illegal under their laws? Was there a functioning Constitution with separation of powers on the Iberian Peninsula? What parts of the ruling governments on the Iberian mirror the current government of the US? We could make quite a little fruit salad with all the apples and oranges in these arguments.

If this is "apples and oranges", why don't we just not compare any political systems around the world, since by this logic, it's all a fallacy.

Yes, seperation of power is the greatest thing about our government- something that should never be taken for granted.

Has the current administration appealled rulings by lower courts? Yes, they have, even the so-called villians of our time still use the system and show a healthy respect to the separations of powers and the ability of the courts to act. If the parallels were the same in Germany during the Enabling Act you might have a point, but it is clearly not the case. Why did the President not suspend elections in 04? Instead he choose to go through the election and face a possible defeat. If the President had any plans to suspend elections in 08 would he truly have let so many of his trusted advisors resign?

The Enabling Act was a special power allowed by the Weimar Constitution to give the Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree without the involvement of the Reichstag. These special powers would remain in effect for four years, after which time they were eligible to be renewed

Sound familiar?

Under the existing Weimar constitution, under Article 48, the President could rule by decree in times of emergency

Executive power...

It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means.

I am not saying we are living under a Gestapoesque government. That would be far-fatched and not to be taken seriously. However, changes toward this type of tyrannical behavior wouldn't happen overnight. One would be foolish to just sit back and take our system of checks and balances for granted.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

If there is anything that is going to destroy this nation from within, it is the apathy of the common person that is becoming ever more prevalent.

People just dont care anymore - they dont care if their rights are being whittled away by a corrupt government. The spark of learning and reason that was born from the enlightenment is being snuffed out under a wave of populist media and intellectual complacency.

Ausinus, this may be the only thing that we have ever agreed on. I don't think that America could ever really be defeated from outside unless Americans just rolled over and let it happen.

Originally Posted by Dispondent

Was the Enabling Act challenged in German courts? Did German courts challenge the Enabling Act by saying it was illegal under their laws? Was there a functioning Constitution with separation of powers on the Iberian Peninsula? What parts of the ruling governments on the Iberian mirror the current government of the US? We could make quite a little fruit salad with all the apples and oranges in these arguments.

Has the current administration appealled rulings by lower courts? Yes, they have, even the so-called villians of our time still use the system and show a healthy respect to the separations of powers and the ability of the courts to act. If the parallels were the same in Germany during the Enabling Act you might have a point, but it is clearly not the case. Why did the President not suspend elections in 04? Instead he choose to go through the election and face a possible defeat. If the President had any plans to suspend elections in 08 would he truly have let so many of his trusted advisors resign?

First of all I made direct comparrisons not arbritrary ones. 2nd it doesn't matter if the admin has used the power that it sought and secured it has the potential. It removed the garranty of a free government. BTW the current admin. has abused power and is doing it still. It doesn't recognize law or the rule of law. This is a government of men not law. That is what history should have taught us. That a government of men and not of law is a corrupt government. I don't care how sacrosanct it may seem, presentations are illussions. A government of transparency. A government of laws. A government of the people by the people for the people so eliquintly expressed by the sixteenth president. Washington waved attempts to make him emporer 3 times. At the time the world only knew of kings and emporers. Devine rule and siezed power. The "Great Experiment" was in it's conception new and different. It was a respect for humanity and law. Government by men and those that just "TRUST" the intentions of those men is naive on those being ruled and corrupt by those ruling. I don't trust, and the constitution doesn't trust. That is why checks and balances and manditory rights were and are insured by the constitution. You trust Bush and that is a mistake. It doesn't matter if has never and never does a thing wrong. The concept of trust is detremental to freedom and the constitution. I pointed out how this has occured over and over again.

Example: A neighbor organizes the naighborhood in the face of possible danger. He explains that you must give him all your SSN's, your money, check books, Crdit & Debit cards, passwords, keys, for safe keeping. You have known the neighbor for years. You know he is honest and trustworthy. He gets really ill and gives the responsibilty to someone else. That person starts spending YOUR money. That would be really stupid and naive of you now wouldn't it? You put yourself in danger. You volunteered to be robbed. Legally you can't do anything because the moment you agreed to the situation with out checks and balances you gave up any right to do anything about it.

Think people THINK!!!

Oh Bush is a good guy so let's just hand over all our rights because he and only he can save us from terrorist tha have attacked 1/100th of 1% of the people. So 100% of the people must give up ALL their constitutional rights. That doesn't even make sense. And giving up those rights has not produced squat. Osama Bin Ladin is a free man enjoying more freedom than you or I. One does not defend freedom by giving up freedom. America has a problem with inconvenience. They care more about being personally bothered than their own freedom. That is the real apathy. That is the real tragedy.
I here the rhetoric of how our soilders and Marines are defending freedom. How can that be when we just gave all of them up. I was an active Marine for 22+ years. I fought in battles and conflicts all over the world. In each of those cases the American citizens never once had to relinquish one single freedom, NOT ONCE. I swore first to defend the constitytuion and then to obey the commander in chief. In fact I was not obligated to obey any order that was "unlawful". Like torture, murdering noncombatants, mistreating prisoners, plundering and piledging. Believe me orders do come down like that some time, never written only oral. I was obligated to report any crime or cover up of a crime or bare the consequence of being charged with the crime.

No no no giving up our rights is never the correct option ever. Bush is acting right now in defiance of the mandates of the constitution. A joint resolution is not a declaration of war and there for is unconstitutional. Bush is a criminal and a war criminal. He has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. He has committed treason. That is the truth and the facts. Not my truth...the truth.

Originally Posted by mykcob4

First of all I made direct comparrisons not arbritrary ones. 2nd it doesn't matter if the admin has used the power that it sought and secured it has the potential. It removed the garranty of a free government. BTW the current admin. has abused power and is doing it still. It doesn't recognize law or the rule of law. This is a government of men not law. That is what history should have taught us. That a government of men and not of law is a corrupt government. I don't care how sacrosanct it may seem, presentations are illussions. A government of transparency. A government of laws. A government of the people by the people for the people so eliquintly expressed by the sixteenth president. Washington waved attempts to make him emporer 3 times. At the time the world only knew of kings and emporers. Devine rule and siezed power. The "Great Experiment" was in it's conception new and different. It was a respect for humanity and law. Government by men and those that just "TRUST" the intentions of those men is naive on those being ruled and corrupt by those ruling. I don't trust, and the constitution doesn't trust. That is why checks and balances and manditory rights were and are insured by the constitution. You trust Bush and that is a mistake. It doesn't matter if has never and never does a thing wrong. The concept of trust is detremental to freedom and the constitution. I pointed out how this has occured over and over again.

Example: A neighbor organizes the naighborhood in the face of possible danger. He explains that you must give him all your SSN's, your money, check books, Crdit & Debit cards, passwords, keys, for safe keeping. You have known the neighbor for years. You know he is honest and trustworthy. He gets really ill and gives the responsibilty to someone else. That person starts spending YOUR money. That would be really stupid and naive of you now wouldn't it? You put yourself in danger. You volunteered to be robbed. Legally you can't do anything because the moment you agreed to the situation with out checks and balances you gave up any right to do anything about it.

Think people THINK!!!

Oh Bush is a good guy so let's just hand over all our rights because he and only he can save us from terrorist tha have attacked 1/100th of 1% of the people. So 100% of the people must give up ALL their constitutional rights. That doesn't even make sense. And giving up those rights has not produced squat. Osama Bin Ladin is a free man enjoying more freedom than you or I. One does not defend freedom by giving up freedom. America has a problem with inconvenience. They care more about being personally bothered than their own freedom. That is the real apathy. That is the real tragedy.
I here the rhetoric of how our soilders and Marines are defending freedom. How can that be when we just gave all of them up. I was an active Marine for 22+ years. I fought in battles and conflicts all over the world. In each of those cases the American citizens never once had to relinquish one single freedom, NOT ONCE. I swore first to defend the constitytuion and then to obey the commander in chief. In fact I was not obligated to obey any order that was "unlawful". Like torture, murdering noncombatants, mistreating prisoners, plundering and piledging. Believe me orders do come down like that some time, never written only oral. I was obligated to report any crime or cover up of a crime or bare the consequence of being charged with the crime.

No no no giving up our rights is never the correct option ever. Bush is acting right now in defiance of the mandates of the constitution. A joint resolution is not a declaration of war and there for is unconstitutional. Bush is a criminal and a war criminal. He has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. He has committed treason. That is the truth and the facts. Not my truth...the truth.

I think that treason implies an intentional act against our country. Perhaps he made a mistake, but it was good intentioned...do people who make mistakes automatically qualify as treasonous?

Originally Posted by The God Fearing

I think that treason implies an intentional act against our country. Perhaps he made a mistake, but it was good intentioned...do people who make mistakes automatically qualify as treasonous?

No inpart you are correct. The definition you gave for treason is absolutely correct. As for Bush's intention it was no mistake. Defying the constitution is an act of treason. But that is for a court to decide, not me.

I appreciate your insight and valid post. Please continue with such insightful input. I understand that what I may post can and is often wrong. That is what an exchange of ideas is all about. Not being stuborn and real consideration of other opines.

Originally Posted by mykcob4

There is no hate and there is no "sky is falling" here. I pointed out history and provided ample refereces for my points. There is a big diference with a real war and a war that was created to secure power. It doesn't matter which admin. has power if the break the constitution. "National security does not trump individual freedom" Justice Black & Justice Holmes: on 2 different occassions about 2 different administrations and about 2 different situations. Their full opinion are paert of the Library of Congress. They were in accordance of repealing constitutional abuses of power.

You would think it would be different, but the rightwingers at PH love to Look at history from the perspective of wearing rose colored glasses, or dismiss it entirely.

Originally Posted by mykcob4

Sparta fell because the rigidness of its society did not allow change and cooperation. It isolated itself against the world shrinking smaller and smaller in its source of ideas and technology. The "one thought, one mind, one culture" concept of its extremely conservative government drove it to ruin. At the same time Athens with its Liberal ideology that welcomed all cultures rose to unrivaled power.

Jesus Christ! Get a clue. Athens, in conjunction with Sparta (who provided the backbone at Thermopylae) defeated the multiple attempts by the Persians to expand into Greece. Athens then grew an empire, grew too big for it's britches, and the Spartans kicked their Athenian asses in the Peloponessian War. Athens never recovered it's former glory.

Originally Posted by mykcob4

Rome flourish just as long as it maintained a democratic republic conquering lands yes but not isolating and subjegating the new conquered peoples. When Rome was politheist, it welcomed all religions as long as the religion did not challenge roman authority. It allowed some form of self rule and did not centralize its ideology nor its power. It acted like a Republic. Example was the "holy land" was governed by a Roman representative but it allowed people like Herrad to have dominion over his people. Kingdoms within the Empire. It is only when Constantine in the 4th century outlawed other religions and believes that the real destruction occurred. The multi-culture of Rome was now gone, and corruption was rife. There was no incective for the Iberian romans to actually defend the idea of Rome. No reason for any of the many cultures within rome to defend the new single minded conservative view that was now dictated by Consantine. It is when Constantine converted to christine and subjugated the entire empire to this convertion under penalty of death that Rome really fell.

Good thing the United States not only isn't an empire, but doesn't have any imperialist ambitions.

Originally Posted by mykcob4

Germany fell under the spell of conservative nationalism in the early 30's.

Really? What did National SOCIALISM conserve?

Originally Posted by mykcob4

Now comes the United States and the parrallels are very simular. Bush came to power under a cloud, a political coup of voter fraud and corruption.

I GET IT! You're a refugee from a parallel universe with an alternate history. To set you straight, in THIS universe, the political coup was attempted by Albert Gore, Jr, who didn't have enough votes to win the electoral votes of Floriduh!, and even with corrupt state judges and efforts by stupidly dedicated vote counters to destroy ballots and alter the tally, including efforst to stop the votes from US servicemen overseas (glad to see you're on their side, sarge) the Sore Loserman team still lost. And no official recount after ever showed him ever having enough votes to have won that state.

Too bad none of the responses on this thread bothered to corrected you clearly false and biased assumptions in your OP.

Originally Posted by mykcob4

First of all I made direct comparrisons not arbritrary ones. 2nd it doesn't matter if the admin has used the power that it sought and secured it has the potential. It removed the garranty of a free government. BTW the current admin. has abused power and is doing it still. It doesn't recognize law or the rule of law. This is a government of men not law. That is what history should have taught us. That a government of men and not of law is a corrupt government. I don't care how sacrosanct it may seem, presentations are illussions. A government of transparency. A government of laws. A government of the people by the people for the people so eliquintly expressed by the sixteenth president. Washington waved attempts to make him emporer 3 times. At the time the world only knew of kings and emporers. Devine rule and siezed power. The "Great Experiment" was in it's conception new and different. It was a respect for humanity and law. Government by men and those that just "TRUST" the intentions of those men is naive on those being ruled and corrupt by those ruling. I don't trust, and the constitution doesn't trust. That is why checks and balances and manditory rights were and are insured by the constitution. You trust Bush and that is a mistake. It doesn't matter if has never and never does a thing wrong. The concept of trust is detremental to freedom and the constitution. I pointed out how this has occured over and over again.

Example: A neighbor organizes the naighborhood in the face of possible danger. He explains that you must give him all your SSN's, your money, check books, Crdit & Debit cards, passwords, keys, for safe keeping. You have known the neighbor for years. You know he is honest and trustworthy. He gets really ill and gives the responsibilty to someone else. That person starts spending YOUR money. That would be really stupid and naive of you now wouldn't it? You put yourself in danger. You volunteered to be robbed. Legally you can't do anything because the moment you agreed to the situation with out checks and balances you gave up any right to do anything about it.

Think people THINK!!!

Oh Bush is a good guy so let's just hand over all our rights because he and only he can save us from terrorist tha have attacked 1/100th of 1% of the people. So 100% of the people must give up ALL their constitutional rights. That doesn't even make sense. And giving up those rights has not produced squat. Osama Bin Ladin is a free man enjoying more freedom than you or I. One does not defend freedom by giving up freedom. America has a problem with inconvenience. They care more about being personally bothered than their own freedom. That is the real apathy. That is the real tragedy.
I here the rhetoric of how our soilders and Marines are defending freedom. How can that be when we just gave all of them up. I was an active Marine for 22+ years. I fought in battles and conflicts all over the world. In each of those cases the American citizens never once had to relinquish one single freedom, NOT ONCE. I swore first to defend the constitytuion and then to obey the commander in chief. In fact I was not obligated to obey any order that was "unlawful". Like torture, murdering noncombatants, mistreating prisoners, plundering and piledging. Believe me orders do come down like that some time, never written only oral. I was obligated to report any crime or cover up of a crime or bare the consequence of being charged with the crime.

No no no giving up our rights is never the correct option ever. Bush is acting right now in defiance of the mandates of the constitution. A joint resolution is not a declaration of war and there for is unconstitutional. Bush is a criminal and a war criminal. He has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. He has committed treason. That is the truth and the facts. Not my truth...the truth.

So we are to trust a piece of paper with no regard to having any trust in the people which said piece of paper empowers? That makes no sense at all. The paper can't do anything and means nothing without people to carry out its edicts, just because some don't like the particular people at the moment doesn't change that.

Thus far I have seen none of my freedoms removed. I have not met anyone or know anyone who has. Now perhaps I'm just lucky, or I just don't hang out with the right crowd. Or perhaps I stopped buying into the fear-mongering I hear every day. The president has the authority to use nuclear weapons, should I spend every day of my life fearing nuclear holocaust?

So the president is carrying on an illegal war is he? Is he spending his own money? Seems to me this is being funded by the Congress, seems to me that Congress approved going to Iraq. The blame can only be partly assessed to the president, the rest goes to Congress.

Our president is a traitor is he? I would like a little more evidence, preferrably something that would stand up in court, before I'll take your word for it. Well lets look at that for a second:

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.


Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

When did Bush levy war against the US? When did he start adhering to our enemies? I don't recall him giving aid or comfort to them either. In this case I think I'll trust in Article III of the Constitution.

LII: Constitution

Originally Posted by Dispondent

So we are to trust a piece of paper with no regard to having any trust in the people which said piece of paper empowers? That makes no sense at all. The paper can't do anything and means nothing without people to carry out its edicts, just because some don't like the particular people at the moment doesn't change that.

Thus far I have seen none of my freedoms removed. I have not met anyone or know anyone who has. Now perhaps I'm just lucky, or I just don't hang out with the right crowd. Or perhaps I stopped buying into the fear-mongering I hear every day. The president has the authority to use nuclear weapons, should I spend every day of my life fearing nuclear holocaust?

So the president is carrying on an illegal war is he? Is he spending his own money? Seems to me this is being funded by the Congress, seems to me that Congress approved going to Iraq. The blame can only be partly assessed to the president, the rest goes to Congress.

Our president is a traitor is he? I would like a little more evidence, preferrably something that would stand up in court, before I'll take your word for it. Well lets look at that for a second:

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.


Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

When did Bush levy war against the US? When did he start adhering to our enemies? I don't recall him giving aid or comfort to them either. In this case I think I'll trust in Article III of the Constitution.

LII: Constitution

I KNOW the constitution. What you seem to be confused about is that what we can trust and cannot. I have to trust that a lawman just doesn't pull his weapon and start shooting. Why do I. I know that it is a paper that reads out the law and that law dictates that a policeman cannot jsut pull out his gun and start firing away. I don't trust the paper, I trust the law. You have to first understand what the difference between a nation of laws vs. a nation of men is. Yes laws are abstract in concept but that is what civilization is. Men are that just men. A civilized society agrees to laws and abides by them. Men are self motivated. If you subtract the agreement..the law you live in anarchy. If you reduce the participants in making the law to be one and only one you are subject to the whims of that one. Just saying laws are just words written on a peice of paper is simplistic and not realistic. I trust in the law, the law of the land. I don't trust in one man or in men that usurp the law and take control over my civil liberty.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Jesus Christ! Get a clue. Athens, in conjunction with Sparta (who provided the backbone at Thermopylae) defeated the multiple attempts by the Persians to expand into Greece. Athens then grew an empire, grew too big for it's britches, and the Spartans kicked their Athenian asses in the Peloponessian War. Athens never recovered it's former glory.



Good thing the United States not only isn't an empire, but doesn't have any imperialist ambitions.



Really? What did National SOCIALISM conserve?



I GET IT! You're a refugee from a parallel universe with an alternate history. To set you straight, in THIS universe, the political coup was attempted by Albert Gore, Jr, who didn't have enough votes to win the electoral votes of Floriduh!, and even with corrupt state judges and efforts by stupidly dedicated vote counters to destroy ballots and alter the tally, including efforst to stop the votes from US servicemen overseas (glad to see you're on their side, sarge) the Sore Loserman team still lost. And no official recount after ever showed him ever having enough votes to have won that state.

Too bad none of the responses on this thread bothered to corrected you clearly false and biased assumptions in your OP.

Wrongo matey! It makes no diffence how I discuss this with you and what information I actually bring to fold you will write some garbage that irrelevent and silly...parrallel universe my ass!