It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It's contradictory to care about the planet, and care about humanity
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: thesaneone
Keep reading my archives. Do try to keep up. If you want to come to meetings with me, you have to pay attention to the things I say.
Even just in my last couple of threads, I have addressed the things that have been upsetting me, and finding ways to relax.....
so if you are not aware of that, yet still have the balls to come on here and decry my efforts, then - well, troll.
originally posted by: suvorov
Trump saved us from present and future conflicts. He is addressing future china problem as if he is doing it by mistake. He also know that Russia is democratic country and once Putin is gone Russia will be a great partner, unlike china
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
You guys, really.
I want you to look at this picture. Read all of the news --- not just the kind that makes you feel happy....read ALL of the news. And look at this photo.
I said a few months ago that I truly feel sad for this man. I think he is either utterly out of touch with reality, or being paid an ungodly ransom in gold and power.....
yet he is presented as "the emperor's new clothes"..............and is he aware of that?
I feel like the world is totally and completely mocking this poor man --- and feel like he's utterly alone in his delusional, King Midas world.
I think he needs help.
Mental health help. And his son Barron as well. These people are not "hale and hearty."
Must we drag them through the fire and hot coals? It makes me sad.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
As someone living in a parliamentary monarchy and knowing something about the background, let me comment about the historical process involved.
The first point is that having a parliamentary monarchy involves reducing the power of the monarchy, not increasing it. That was the lesson of the Civil Wars.
Your Presidential system has been getting more monarchic, what with all the "First Lady", "First Daughter" business, but in order to become a parliamentary monarchy you need to turn your Presidency into something which is all ceremony and no power. You can allow him to have absolute power, on condition that he does absolutely nothing except "on the advice of his ministers". That's the way it's done.
How to get power away from him? The seventeenth century taught that financial control was the key; the king gets no money unless the legislature is willing to vote for it. OK, you've got that sorted.
Theorists came up with the idea of improving on this by keeping government ministers out of Parliament. We flirted with that concept, but went for a typical compromise.For a couple of centuries, any M.P. who got a post in the government had to resign his seat temporarily and fight a by-election, just to check that his constituents still wanted him.
What really killed off the idea was discovering that there was a better way of achieving the same result. If you not only allowed government ministers in Parliament but insisted on it, and if you insisted that no government could even take office without being able to win votes in Parliament, then Parliament was controlling the government instead of the king doing it. That's parliamentary monarchy.
You went the whole hog with "separation of powers" and even put it in writing, which means you are now stuck with it. Otherwise you could have quietly backed away from it, as we did.
And the result? You have one body controlling income and a completely different body controlling expenditure. In other words the "budget standoff" is deliberately written into the constitution.
To have a parliamentary monarchy rather than an absolute monarchy, this is what you would need to do;
Nobody can be in the Cabinet without also being a member of Congress.
The Majority leader in Congress to be head of the Cabinet and effective head of the government.
Any government which cannot muster enough votes to get a budget through Congress would have to resign, and be replaced by one which can.
Then the President can be allowed to get on with state openings of Congress, the launching of battleships, inviting foreign heads of state to their daughters' weddings, and addressing the nation with a televised Christmas message at 3.00 p.m. on Christmas Day.
That would be a parliamentary monarchy.
originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat
Just a semi related comment though, in see college course our professor had us guess what the best form of government a country can have is (in theory) and what the best form of economy is. Then we read a really gray piece explaining the common answer according to a pool of professors of government and philosophy and all. Anyone know what the "answers"are?
Well, now we can say it together, and insist that they listen.
originally posted by: CB328
soon to be a full-fledged Kingdom
I've been saying this for years and no one listens.
One of our top Universities did a study of our government and concluded we are now an oligarchy, not a democracy.
If your last name if Trump or Bush or Cinton or Romney you can be a ruler and never have to work again, unlike the rest of us who have to work more and more.
For example, prior to 1998, multiple observational studies demonstrated that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) decreased risk of heart disease among post-menopausal women 8, 9. However, more recent studies, rigorously designed to minimize bias, have found the opposite effect (i.e., an increased risk of heart disease with HRT)
Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun