Where's the Martial Law? The thread title said it has arrived, much like alex jones pimps out to the gullible on his websites. Yet I didn't see it ??? Is it that only the young angry white males with low IQs and low self-esteems are only able to see it, and not others?
I walked my dogs tonight and no cops stopped me either. No stormtroopers. No nothing. This is some pretty crappy martial law. It was after 10pm too. One even took a crap in someone's yard and I didn't pick it up. Surely this isn't allowed in a police state
Nope your only non ad-hominem argument was actually fairly dumb. It was : A lot of typing that amounts to really nothing. It dosent matter why the state of emergency was about commies hitting the shores or stinky toilets, the fact remains that it was declared and never rescinded. If I missed something other than these two foolish attempts please share.
It is a direct response to this person's attempt to rewrite history. It was in relation to banking. Not in relation to the general state of government. The person you read either doesn't grasp the concept and you are parroting what you've read without doing any research on your own; or you are willingly putting forth disinformation as a fact. Which is it? Secondly, most of FDR's idiot economic policies were dismantled in the 70's and 80's. So again, you have clearly not informed yourself of anything. But, please do continue parroting opinion pieces as fact. It's always fun to read them.
Wow, America really sucks, doesn't it akula? Martial law without martial law, dogs pooping in other's yard and no state police there to whisk away the offender to a concentration camp! LMAO!
I've added everything I need to add. That your original article isn't accurate and is not in line with history. And you believe it. If you care to discuss how I'm wrong, please let me know. I've already presented you with what 1933 was and what it did. If you do not wish to discuss details; I'm sorry about that.
So you are declaring that you do not understand the declaration that declared martial law? The declaration that you later claim declared a framework to martial law instead?
Wouldn't martial law prevent me from being that? psst, men in black suits are peeping into your basement window as you type
Yep. Mocking you pretty much, since you cannot intelligently discuss what you've read and claim to believe in. What's funny is that you read this thing and you instantly believe what this person wrote; without question. What does that tell you about yourself?
No I am still waiting on the degrees, or the difference in, any declaration of any state of emergency. Oh and BTW this: Is an absolute assumption on your part. I never stated if I agree with her article 100% or 0%. But of course it is somewhere in between.
Read about the banking industry (specifically at worries the industry was going to collapse) in 1933 and what FDR did. That should help explain things to you. It's not really too difficult. Looking into the Great Depression, as a general history lesson, might be helpful too. Here's a hint. People were scared the banking industry was going to fail, so they were converting money into gold (they were holding onto money, instead of keeping it in a bank and thus bankrupting banks in the process). Thus the state of emergency, which closed the banks while the options were considered. Here is the text of the act if you need further assistance: http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1930s/EmergBank_1933.html Yep, the boogey man words "emergency" are in there. So be forewarned! In a more specific sense, look into the money supply in 1929 compared to 1933. Which, shockingly, is something your original article speaks out - but misinterprets entirely. Read a few of Milton Friedman's thoughts on the entire situation; that might help too. Then you can look into why FDR screwed that up, and made the situation worse (or better, depending your big government point of view, I guess). As a final thing; I'd reconsider thinking someone's opinion is fact. And read some of the author's other works. They directly relate to the "tinfoil" arguments and how this person is much like you. Gullible - which she directly mentions in my original rebuttal. She reads something (like you), believes it instantly (like you), then propogates something without any research on her own (again, like you are doing here). Then come back and we'll talk. K?
akula, did you find the martial law yet? I've been looking high and low for it. I did find a BBQ shack! Maybe there is some in Kentucky?
I understand the the history and intricacies of the Fed and our monetary system. I also understand that you are unable to comprehend a simple question that is for you to explain how a state of emergency differs if it is during a natural disaster after the collapse of the monetary system when commie/terrorist hits our shores when every toilet overflows. Do they mean different things when applied and declared. Is there a manual that defines the difference? Does this difference apply to the new presidential ability to declare? I don't know maybe it is I am tired, but it appears that you are putting a lot of time and effort into proving that this state of emergency was declared because of a problem with our monetary system which is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that it was declared and never rescinded. And all that is equally irrelevant because (as we have seen in the past) that it does not take much to declare a state of emergency. You want to discuss some issues with our monetary system? I am game. But it has nothing to do with this what-so-ever.
Read the act that you claim instituted "martial law" http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Doc...Bank_1933.html It isn't difficult. Geesh. It tells you exactly what the state of emergency was related to; and history tells you what was accomplished. Why is this difficult for you to comprehend? When the President declares a state of emergency during a hurricane, for instance, it frees up money to bring assistance to the affected area. It doesn't mean that the government gets supreme power over the area and set up martial law and a police state. Again; this isn't difficult. You are just being purposefully obtuse to save face for an insipid thread.
You need to re-examine your position. If you really think that this article is asserting that a declaration of a state of emergency regarding our monetary system in the damn mid 1900's is the premise behind the findings of this article of then you are either: Dumber than a box of rocks Drunker than GT Never really read the thing. I would hope for number 3 because even though we don't usually see eye-to-eye, you seem to be a fairly intelligent person. This is only stating that the state of emergency at that time was never rescinded. Here: