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.

 

If You Don’t Vote, Don’t Bitch!

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I didn't realize I was sweating anything, other than stating an difference of opinion with the OP. I'm cozy and comfy ATM.




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

On voting they said much, but they did NOT say that ones right to free speech hinged upon anything other than having a voice.



Hey Heff.. This is going to sound wierd coming from me but........ I have been doing alot of brain porn.. and have been looking at world/US history as of late... like early history prior to WW II.. Anyway..

The statement you said above only applied to white males who owned land at the time the Constitution was written.. It did no include black, natives, mexicans, woman, poor people and slaves.. Just a bunch of rich white guys..

Thought you should know..
I am also starting to wonder about my position on backing up the constitution considering what I have learned thus far...
edit on 11/12/2014 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

I've read through many of the comments and see that many of you disagree with me, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I understand the widespread dis-satisfaction with our voting system, and I agree with you that there are definite issues with the current system that need to be worked out. However, I still stand by my initial point though, that by not voting, it's not helping to solve the problem either. And states with the highest voter turnout, generally have the highest chance to elect an independent governor- just look at Maine. I believe that the more vigilant we all are, and the more we voice our opinion, both in the polls and through other means, the better chance we have of seeing some real and meaningful change.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: MysticPearl

I agree the current system is not without it's faults. But instead of just not voting, how about trying to reform the system?

Check out this montage of the March in March that happened in Melbourne, Australia. March in March I think we can learn from these types of demonstrations and fight the government decisions that our hurting our own country.
edit on 12-11-2014 by JesseVentura because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JesseVentura

Voting is like the saga of the ancient mariner.

Water, water e'erywhere, and all the boards did shrink.
Water, water e'erywhere, and nary a drop to drink.


We are thirsty for justice, for liberty, and for a voice. "Vote" we are told, "Without it you have no voice". We keep going to that well, drinking deep from its waters. And still, we walk away thirsty. Still craving libery, justice, and a voice.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: JesseVentura
a reply to: MysticPearl

I agree the current system is not without it's faults. But instead of just not voting, how about trying to reform the system?

Check out this montage of the March in March that happened in Melbourne, Australia. March in March I think we can learn from these types of demonstrations and fight the government decisions that our hurting our own country.


what, trash the two party system and reform the electoral college? good luck with that!
edit on 12-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JesseVentura
Change? How? Democrats and republicans control redistricting, who participates in debates and voter laws and legislation? I 100% agree with you about not supporting either main party, but they control everything about voting. How can we possibly change anything when our government is brought to you by "insert corporate lobbyist here". Voting looks good on paper but its a false hope, more people everyday are waking up to the concept yes we must change our government, but voting may not be the answer.

Pitchforks? Is it time yet, it seems to be rapidly approaching. Look at the change happening in Ferguson based on violence!

I don't support violence yet but if the powers that be leave us no choice then that will be the natural coerce of events. Our founding fathers revolted for much less than whats going on today.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

On voting they said much, but they did NOT say that ones right to free speech hinged upon anything other than having a voice.

Frankly, I think you're sweating the small stuff...go ahead and bitch, then, if it makes you feel engaged. Just don't pretend that you're going to fix anything by pouting and whining. But it's easier than tacking the problem, isn't it? If I sound somewhat acerbic, it's because I am hearing nothing...nada...on how to fix anything. Just a bunch of 'I don't wanna play any more.'

I'm sure the 'Framers' would be aghast.


Good point. If you 'bitch,' let it be productive.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: JesseVentura

Jesse, if you don't run for office then don't bitch.

Tit for tat.

I don't even agree with everything you say, however I admire the fact that you stand on principle and you have the guts to stick to it.

Lead from the front.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ThichHeaded





The statement you said above only applied to white males who owned land at the time the Constitution was written.. It did no include black, natives, mexicans, woman, poor people and slaves.. Just a bunch of rich white guys..


Are saying that the document has written verbiage to explicitly exclude non whites?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
Are saying that the document has written verbiage to explicitly exclude non whites?

Actually,

At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, only 6 percent of the population–white, male property owners–was eligible to vote. The Fifteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to former male slaves in 1870; American Indians gained the vote under a law passed by Congress in 1924; and women gained the vote with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Link



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I conducted my own voter campaign the week before the election. I plastered buildings, subway stations, the backs of busses, atm machines, you name it, with signs reading "Don't Bitch. Vote" all over my area of Brooklyn. And not one media outlet picked up on it. The press is so apathetic. But voting was up in my neighborhood according the stats at the Board of Elections so perhaps it made a difference. I particularly enjoyed the 4 foot-letter sign I posted on a highway overpass. I dont seem able to attach my pix to the message. But if anyone would like them, email me at nevercheckluggage@gmail.com



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ThichHeaded

I was already aware of the original limitations and exclusions of the Constitution at it's inception. This is one of the most contentious issues in the left/right paradigm.

I see the Constitution as a living document - evolving over time. New Amendments corrected limitations or cultural shifts that the Framers were unable to see. They knew this, which is why they included the Amendment system.

Others feel, very strongly, that the Constitution was set in stone in 1778 and that not a word of it should be added to or changed.

Dealing with the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments, however... Those are the cornerstones upon which all subsequent Amendments must hinge.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: ThichHeaded



The statement you said above only applied to white males who owned land at the time the Constitution was written.. It did no include black, natives, mexicans, woman, poor people and slaves.. Just a bunch of rich white guys..


Are saying that the document has written verbiage to explicitly exclude non whites?


Ya I didn't stutter.. Read what I wrote.. I also said poor people as in white.. So that basically means nobody except rich white people can vote.. That wasn't a generalization it was a fact..

In order to be able to vote then you had to be white, male, and own land..

a reply to: Hefficide

You know what you said is a double edged sword.. They can write a something there that can limit what we can do.. They do it now with guns, free speech zone, and where we can protest..

After learning some of early history(I aint all that done yet..) I can pretty much say that alot hasn't changed since then..

Rich white people control the voting now..


originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: interupt42

It was a States rights issue.



No that is how the constitution was written..


edit on 11/13/2014 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Yet the original clearly stated all men are equal yet it allowed slavery. This document is not what I thought it once was. How can every ten or 20 years can we have a new interpretation of said document? In the 60's drug testing was declared unconstitutional yet in the 80's its made into law? How can this document serve anyone if the interpretation can be changed by none elected lifetime members of the supreme court? Abortion was declared legal, but I expect that will be overturned in the next few years, among other issues.

The party system is a affront to the document when these judges rule by party ideology, its a joke and needs to be changed!



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

The Framers also left open the door for subsequent Constitutional Conventions should the need arise. IMO the need has arisen. Basic human rights have been highly redefined since the eighteenth century. I'm not saying throw the baby out with the bathwater - I am saying that a bath may be in order.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ThichHeaded

If you can quote the part of the Constitution dealing with the vote only belonging to white male property owners, I will happily acknowledge my mistake. However I believe the only parameter set out within the document itself is the word "male" and nothing more.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

It would make sense to support this, but with hyper politics and ideology what kind of document would be created, I certainly don't trust a democrat or a republican nor a mix of each to do this.

I think its too late, we have seen the best we can do, we have been the aggressor in the world since 9/11, its only a matter of time till the petro dollar is replaced then we will not even recognize our country after that.

When you have one of the two main political parties openly decide they wish to wreck the presidency of a duly elected president at the downfall of the country, really is there anyway to recover from that?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

You are being semantic about this..

What is written and what is reality is not the same thing.. You know that..

Land owners at the time were only white men and who were basically well rich.. That is common sense..
edit on 11/13/2014 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join