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.

 

Constitution Fail - Why you keep doing it and how to prevent it.

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: seeker1963

Well, I don't want to derail this thread so further discussion would need another but that was in 2012.


Grant you it was, but it was a non issue.

Like I said, the only reason it's and issue now is it's political!

Did the Christians raise the hell then that those who are raising hell against this woman? Maybe that's the problem! Christians need to start fighting back?

Honestly? I am already prepared for the hell that we have coming. When it comes? I don't want to see anyone crying! We all brought it upon ourselves because we refuse to understand the meaning of the word "freedom". We chose to put our lives in the hand of corrupt men and women in our government that violated their oath of office due to their greed, and we did nothing more that continue to vote them into office because they were smart enough to divide us!




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: karmicecstasy

Thank you for posting this. I think every American should be aware of what you say. Its sad that our education is so lacking. I eagerly anticipate reading everything in this thread.


Thank you, I am glad you are enjoying the thread.


AugustusMasonicus for Consul....err...ummm...I mean President.


Clever. Consul is fine, you going to be my co-Consul?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Federalist -> Whig -> Republican -> Progressive -> Social Democrat (the real political class of the Democrats).

Democrat -> Progressive -> Social Democrat.


If I am reading this properly it reiterates what I have said in other threads that both parties are opposites sides of the same coin.


IMO, I might be a bit too broad, anyone who uses the government to enforce a required behavior, as opposed to preventing an infringement of a persons rights, is a Federalist.

On firmer ground, both parties favor Central Fiat Banking, the income tax, Central Planning, and a strong Federal Government for this and that.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
IMO, I might be a bit too broad, anyone who uses the government to enforce a required behavior, as opposed to preventing an infringement of a persons rights, is a Federalist.


Understood and agreed.


On firmer ground, both parties favor Central Fiat Banking, the income tax, Central Planning, and a strong Federal Government for this and that.


Which brings us to the unpalatable political situation we have devolved into which makes it no surprise that political 'outsiders' are polling well while career politicians should be thrown in a well.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't think I would be as qualified as you. I do not think I would make a good vice.....oops misspoke again...co-Consol. Now let me fade back into the background and stop being silly, so I could learn a thing or two by just reading the thread.

edit on 9-9-2015 by karmicecstasy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
IMO, I might be a bit too broad, anyone who uses the government to enforce a required behavior, as opposed to preventing an infringement of a persons rights, is a Federalist.


Understood and agreed.


On firmer ground, both parties favor Central Fiat Banking, the income tax, Central Planning, and a strong Federal Government for this and that.


Which brings us to the unpalatable political situation we have devolved into which makes it no surprise that political 'outsiders' are polling well while career politicians should be thrown in a well.


The current situation was at least 100 years in the making. every election some group of the population was bought or discouraged from further expectations. The simplest way to fix the system would be 100 years of elections in the other direction. That requires the dissemination of information.

On the bright side, Ayn Rand has sold tens of millions of books.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: karmicecstasy
I don't think I would be as qualified as you. I do not think I would make a good vice.....oops misspoke again...co-Consol.


Well then, how about Tribune of the Plebs?


Now let me fade back into the background and stop being silly, so I could learn a thing or two by just reading the thread.


We all could, which is the good thing. I have already picked up a very interesting process from Semicollegiate which I never knew existed.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The current situation was at least 100 years in the making. every election some group of the population was bought or discouraged from further expectations. The simplest way to fix the system would be 100 years of elections in the other direction. That requires the dissemination of information.


I think we would get 2 cycles at best before one party merged into the new party and degenerated their message.


On the bright side, Ayn Rand has sold tens of millions of books.


Four of them are on one of my library shelves.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   



Well then, how about Tribune of the Plebs?



That is probably where I would be more comfortable. But then if we disagreed on a nationally mandated taco Tuesday. I would have to use my veto. Then it would be a whole thing. You would declare yourself emperor like your namesake, and then all my power would go to you.

So sometimes its good to be the little guy.

And now since you have made a liar of me. I say good day sir.


edit on 9-9-2015 by karmicecstasy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: karmicecstasy
That is probably where I would be more comfortable. But then if we disagreed on a nationally mandated taco Tuesday. I would have to use my veto. Then it will be a whole thing. You would declare yourself emperor like your namesake, and then all my power would go to you.


Hehe, keep in mind you guys voted him that power, he just made the suggestion.



So sometimes its good to be the little guy.

And now since you have made a liar of me. I say good day sir.


No worries. For a guy who claims to know little you certainly underestimate your prowess.




edit on 9-9-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If rights are not granted by the government, then who are they granted by? Nature? A creator? I'm still searching my person for these so-called self-evident rights that I was supposedly born with, but it seems they are not so self-evident, not so inalienable, not so inherent after all. One look in the world shows how easily they are taken away. Rights are a comfort one should not get so comfortable believing he is entitled to them.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If rights are not granted by the government, then who are they granted by? Nature? A creator?


That is up to the individual to decide. The person of faith will say a Creator. Those who are not may say the are inherent. We they come from is debatable unless the claim is they come from the government.


Rights are a comfort one should not get so comfortable believing he is entitled to them.


I am not so comfortable to think that there cannot be an attempt to take them away but the ones doing the taking should not get comfortable thinking I will not deal with them using extreme prejudice as well.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




That is up to the individual to decide. The person of faith will say a Creator. Those who are not may say the are inherent. We they come from is debatable unless the claim is they come from the government.


Didn't they come from Hobbes and Locke? Neither inherent nor endowed.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Didn't they come from Hobbes and Locke? Neither inherent nor endowed.


Some of the philosophy used came from Hobbes and Locke (among others) but the concept is more universal which, from their writings, is clear.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Some of the philosophy used came from Hobbes and Locke (among others) but the concept is more universal which, from their writings, is clear.


I'm not sure how a concept is universal if it doesn't exist beyond human imagination and intersubjective fictions. The greatest irony of Jefferson's famed quote was that he was wrong. These rights are not self-evident, not inalienable and not endowed by any Creator.

Anyways, I'm just being a pest. Great writing. S & F.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: seeker1963 any time the Constitution is thwarted is a big deal, that's why. I haven't heard of this other judge but if its true she should come under equal fire including jail time.



So tell me why all the people carrying about about Kim Davis really don't give a rats behind when it comes to the 14th amendments rights of gun owners, and rich folks ?

Oh that's right it doesn't fit their agenda.

Ain't it funny how the people shouting how 'oppressed' LGBT's are the biggest OPPRESSORS in the country.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
Misread..
edit on 9-9-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: neo96
Misread..


I will say it another way. Just for the hell of it.

Basically the christianphobes,the bankerphobes,corporationphobes,gunphobes,richaphobes are mad at the homophobes.

But that is perfectly socially acceptable.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: neo96
Misread..


I will say it another way. Just for the hell of it.

Basically the christianphobes,the bankerphobes,corporationphobes,gunphobes,richaphobes are mad at the homophobes.

But that is perfectly socially acceptable.


May I simplify it Neo?

We are all so damned divided that at this point in time where our national debt is unpayable and our jobs suck so bad the people who work minimum wage jobs are demanding a wage unrealistic for their skills, that anyone not prepping for a societal breakdown has their head in the sand?

But let's fight over who we will elect to continue our demise to the One World Government? (That's political correct speech for a New World Order)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You forgot xenophobes.
Some even will allow the Government to take away their rights to control the foreigners won't they?.
Papers please.



new topics




 
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join