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.

 

Lawrence Lessig: The Man You Have Never Heard Of Who Should Be Running In 2016

page: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 04:59 AM
link   
== Lawrence Lessig: The Man You Have Never Heard Of Who Should Be Running In 2016 ==


The best anyone outside the elite insiders will do is running a marathon in 2016.





posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
None of these arguments will matter anyway. He will never win even if you write him in. No 3rd party candidates win here. He would have to get the electoral vote and that is impossible. Most can vote however they are paid er want. And in those states that have laws dictating how they vote,most say they have to vote how they 'pledged' to one party or the other. Only a couple of states actually insist the electoral vote has to go the way of the popular vote. You won't win elections that way.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I love people who political stance revolves around only guns laws. Probably right since the country is going down the tubes these guns will be needed to just fight for a meal each day. I imagine the few with paying jobs will also need them to get to and from work and defend their grocery cart leaving Walmart.

The good part is they will be pressed into service 2 days a week as free security for rich corporations and people in order the defend the corporate infrastructure. The average person might lose their power feed but the rich will not.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

Sounds like a tyrant to me.


Likely no more of a tyrant than Bush the third will be or Clinton the second.





posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

He definitely will be less. He cares about America and democracy not preserving the status quo of American aristocracy.

We aren't supposed to be ruled by an aristocracy. That's the whole point. Why did we fight the revolution if but to avoid this very situation?



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I've come to know a few things about ATS over the years. The main one is never get involved with threads about gun laws...
I'm going against my better judgement here.


So, I think (from an outsiders perspective) improved gun laws really might need addressing. The biggest problem is that from the moment every American is born they are told 'woooooo pewpewpew guns are what makes us free'. It is no different than religion in that sense (kinda). If I tell a Christian 'you can't have a god', they will get very defensive and upset. You were taught that from parent to parent, it was also once okay to have slaves. So would change be the end of the world?

Now I don't blame all the pro-gunners for their stance, from day dot they have heard and honed every possible argument to keep 'big bertha 60 bullets' at their sides. So I can understand why smithjustinb's pro-gun stance is popular (in regards to stars). That's fine, you were all brought up that way and when the world thinks about americans, we rightly or wrongly think along the lines 'loud, brash, self centered and gun toting'. 'Free' also used to be one of those.

Again, from my outsider's perspective I see some major problems in the US. As your population has gotten its hands on more higher powered guns with bigger clips, someone else has started to poop their trousers. The cops. And it has turned into a major problem.
If I was a police officer in the US, man, I'd probably go slightly nuts with the fear too. Obviously your cops have nothing left of their nerves and have resorted to pulling the biggest guns necessary and shooting first and yelling 'freeze' after. You are all terrified of them, that makes me so incredibly sad at how far down the slope of 'serve and protect' the police have fallen. 'Serve and protect themselves' is now more accurate.

And then all same people complain that the police force have gone mental with too much fire-power.... 'huh?'
You're damn right the cops are out of control. But is it any wonder when every slightly odd 18 year old with a twitching left eye gets a little upset, especially when every tv show and movie glamorises guns and makes them so readily available? That's where all these high powered guns take center stage, the intent of them has been hijacked. No longer are they for some mythical "revolution" that (lets face it) is about 30 years overdue anyway. Anyone who tries to start a revolution with a gun is just going to be seen as unhinged and be shot by police. The ideals of weapons has long been broken by the arms race against the police. Both parties are responsible for the mess its all in.

Any word against somebodies deepest beliefs can cause major problems in certain circumstances. If you tell the wrong ISIL member that you only believe in the flying spaghetti monster, he is going to lop your head off to protect his god. And some guys just have too much testosterone and it floods the system especially if someone threatens their biggest held beliefs. So I understand 'take it from my cold dead hands', but maybe it's time to hold hands as a nation and bring about some bigger changes? (I can hear about a 1000 pistol hammers (cocks are they?) being clicked back into position...)

I know it is terribly unpopular to have this opinion on ATS, but I really wish the Second Amendment said something along the lines of this;
"Should 80% of a States population mass peacefully in the capital, it will be known there is no longer confidence in who governs and a new system or party is to be formed". Or something along them lines, I'm not a law writing speech, person... But you get my drift I hope. Imagine how much better things would be. Would it work? In my head it does, in reality, I'm not sure. I would hope so that the willingness for peaceful resolutions would be stronger than a bubbling and boiling blood lust.

Would that make the US a little less on edge and so trigger happy? Would not the police force then only need small handguns to uphold the law? I understand the need now because the police have turned into the militarised force you see today, but boy oh boy do I wish it were different.


I lived in the Bayous for a while and therefore do understand the need for hunting rifles there, that's why some concessions obviously would be needed. Country areas with dangerous (realistic) animal threats that cannot be reasonably expected to be handled by some kind of animal control team would allow hunting rifles. But I'd love to see them have to be left behind once you're in a built up city.


But none of that will ever happen, nobody can take away your guns now. I understand why the pro firearms are the way they are and don't expect to ever see change in my lifetime sadly. Some people do however manage to give up their gods. Change is possible.

Anyways, that's my thoughts - I'm sure there are already 60 well thought out retorts and don't expect to change anybodies mind, but you never know so it was worth a try
I'd like to actually hear more about this politician rather than this whole thread be about his gun stance.

(edit, I'm so sorry for this entire essay, I didn't realize just how overly long this was so. TLDR; Guns woo or boo? I lean to boo, because the fuzz goes 'woohoooo' to match the 'woowoopewpew' of the people.)
edit on 1-11-2014 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Seems like a good enough guy. But you know, people who aren't puppets, and try to help everyone...
They meet their end pretty quickly in politics.
edit on 1-11-2014 by Lyxdeslic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

There are gun control laws in all categories listed, which vary from state to state. Thus extant. This ignores the fact that all Lawerence Lessig did was sign a letter that communicated his personal beliefs.

Of course let's not let his FIRST Amendment right to opinion and expression happen. After all, guns.

In finality I suppose this post is just another indication of how far the gulf between the right wing and the rest of us is these days. Another interesting article I can dredge up is a series of recent statements from Republican politicians all saying that, today, Ronald Reagan wouldn't even qualify as a conservative and would be seen as a liberally bent moderate - at best.

I choose to stand by my sentiments that Lawrence Lessig IS a man who is capable of seeing beyond himself and his own selfish interests and who gets it in a way that nobody in Washington does. He seems to understand that We, The People, in all inclusive and not exclusive to any given group with similar beliefs.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Sorry Heff, I couldn't help but also contribute to the derailing of the threads intent about the guns issue. (I normally keep out of such discussions too as a rule). It's such a divisive topic and a very tricky one to discuss and get anywhere with as each side has pretty much made up their minds already on where they stand. Hopefully you can keep track of what Lawrence gets up to and post it here to keep us informed as the media seems rather uninterested in him. Maybe it's just too hopeful thinking real change can happen? I thought Ron Paul may have made better inroads at one stage, and he got some pretty good internet saturation. But it didn't translate sadly...

edit on 1-11-2014 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Qumulys

Lessig isn't even seeking office - which further proves his ethics. LOL

I wrote this more as a "hope" piece - an attemt to show that there are people on the periphery in Washington who are not as immoral or owned as their more mainstream counterparts are.

The person who derailed the thread with the gun issue will probably find himself, at some future point, furious that he didn't pay more attention to Net Neutrality - which is one of Lessig's strong points. The Net, and how it is used, charged for, and distributed is every bit as important these days as any other single issue.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: smithjustinb

In finality I suppose this post is just another indication of how far the gulf between the right wing and the rest of us is these days.


As if the independents and libertarians are closer to the left... Not true. Come Tuesday, you'll see just how small your "the rest of us" category is.

And in 2016, when Lawrence Lessig isn't even on the ballot, you'll see how irrelevant and futile this thread is.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: smithjustinb
He seems to understand that We, The People, in all inclusive and not exclusive to any given group with similar beliefs.


You can't please every body.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

Lol. Most Americans are fairly progressive. You're in the minority. Sadly most Americans are so disenfranchised by our corrupt government and lack of democracy they don't vote



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

Lessig isn't even seeking office. I'm surprised that fact evaded your reading comprehension skills - three times.

Additionally, where did I say that Libertarians are close to the left? As far as "the rest of us" goes - prediction models currently make it about an even split with Republicans currently having a slight edge nationally. You're delusional if you think it's going to be a bloodbath.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

We know it's futile but hope is preferable to despair. I know you're just dying to get a new white overlord to bow to. We want a return to "by the people, for the people"

We are the real patriots



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

I'm not very clued in on politics, but I do like like his stance on the net. Hungary has just tried to have a whopper of a dud deal whereby they were going to tax links. Weblinks... That is so frightening, how much tax would ats have to pay? Every thread has a link. Luckily it has been shelved for now due to overwhelming public outrage, but the net is being pulled at from every side. Net neutrality is such an obvious ploy for the big hitters to completely wall off competition and unless we have powerful voices who can stand against the AT&T's and Time Warners the net is in danger. The FCC seems like a dunce sitting in the corner dribbling, it's obvious they are doing as little as possible to protect individuals rights. So yeah, maybe he does need to get into office so we hear more about it and people realise what's at stake!

Hungary web link tax
edit on 1-11-2014 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb
You can't please every body.


That statement say so much about your outlook. Would you say the same if it turns out that the majority disfavors your pet arguments? Would you shrug and say "Oh well, can't please 'em all""

I seriously doubt it.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: smithjustinb

Lol. Most Americans are fairly progressive. You're in the minority. Sadly most Americans are so disenfranchised by our corrupt government and lack of democracy they don't vote


So, democrats are mad that there's not enough democracy, so their strategy is to NOT exercise their democratic power of voting
Or, do you just don't know what you're talking about?



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide

originally posted by: smithjustinb
You can't please every body.


That statement say so much about your outlook. Would you say the same if it turns out that the majority disfavors your pet arguments? Would you shrug and say "Oh well, can't please 'em all""

I seriously doubt it.


Ppppsssshhhhh. Whatever dude. You can't please me. You can't please those of us who believe you should leave our guns alone. If you could, you would leave them alone. But, you're not going to leave them alone. Are you?

Like I said. You can't please every body.

The majority, as I showed you, disfavors YOUR arguments on gun control. Can you please us? Can you leave our guns alone? Can you stop supporting other big government legislation that tries to regulate human behavior?

You can't please every body. Even if you tried. There's no solution to the divisions among us. That's an eternal fact.
edit on 1-11-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

Who said anything about Democrats? If I had it my way we'd abolish the two party system. Sadly progressives are forced to run as Democrats since there Republicans are a pretty selective club. If you want any sort of progress you aren't welcome.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join