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.

 

Opinion: USA Now a Hatchling Parliamentary Monarchy

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
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.




posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Banning DDT caused the deaths of millions worldwide, this chemical had virtually wiped out malaria, which has since re-emerged since the environmental movement. It's contradictory to care about the planet, and care about humanity. Humans have no natural predators, one of our natural adaptations to maintain sustainable levels is warfare. It may be morally reprehensible, but it is logically apprehensible; first world nations would not be enjoying everyday conveniences and technological advances without the worst world war in history so far. The next world war, will most likely give us the ability to colonize planets, and ensure the longevity of humankind.

This is just a test planet. Like it or not.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   


It's contradictory to care about the planet, and care about humanity


Without unpolluted air and water and food from the planet people die, or get diseases, so, no, you can't care about humanity if you don't care about the planet.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   

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.



And you said you were done talking to me, stop I'm blushing.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Could you provide the information that supports any evidence that the planet can support the current human population numbers without industrialized agricultural practices?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
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.



edit on 12/4/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   

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


IKR? He was like "Look, I'm going to show the world just how childish China really is. I'm going to call the President of Taiwan, just CALL her, and then watch them freak out."



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   

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.




Who is dragging who through the coals?


The real sad thing is you judging someone by their looks, shame on you.



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

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.






George Washington's cabinet and the legislative bodies actually started out calling him, "your majesty," or, "your excellency," and I think, "your grace," which bothered him since they had just written about all men created equally and left peerage and nobility behind. So story goes after a fuss, they asked what he preferred the style to be and he said, "just call me MISTER president." Im sure everyone knows this and its not really interesting but this reminded me of it.

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?



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

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?

Did anyone mention Aristotle's "Politics"? He goes through the various forms of government and recommends what he calls a "mixed" system, but you need to be familiar with his definitions before you can understand what that means.
For example "Democracy", for him, means everybody coming to the city assembly to vote on laws and legal cases, and officials being chosen by lottery. So he doesn't think that is ideal. Pure democracy, like the Athenian version, can be irrationally ruthless towards individuals.



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   

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.
Well, now we can say it together, and insist that they listen.

I heard a really interesting piece about the difference between "allegation" journalism (reporting that someone said it) vs "evidence-based" journalism (reporting it with cross-referenced backup, verification, and actual facts).
They discussed how one news outlet will say "Trump claims that 1.5 million votes were illegal" ---- which he did claim --- that is allegation based. Yes, he SAID IT, but that does NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

That's what tabloids do. But now, we're talking about running the country....Kobach (the composer of stop-and-frisk policy) can say, "Well, that's what Trump said," and then use that as a fallacious APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.

NO! That is not "journalism" -- that is stenography. That is the "court reporter" pretending that she knows what happened since the person testifying said it and he's a somebody. "I'm going with what Trump actually said, and accepting that as fact"

WHEN NONE OF IT IS TRUE!

It's just rumors! It's a "rumor has it" published as a "this is a thing" spun to seem like "it's what happened" and "so shut up cause this is real." And sadly there are hardly any members on here actively posting anymore who take the time to cross-check, behave with civility, back up their claims, and refrain often enough to not be banned. I'm like, "new" at it. But I'm learning.


edit on 12/5/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)





WELL, I NEVER SEEN NO PLANTS GROWING OUT OF NO TOILET!

edit on 12/5/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Providing evidence does not equate to truthfulness.

For example:



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)

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I don't know of any news organization that uses scientific theory when publishing news. I also am not aware of any news organization that is not heavily biased.

Let's use another example:



Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun

www.nytimes.com...

Alright, NY Times is using evidence provided by a consensus of scientists. We are not provided with all the evidence, as per the first example. Who is their source of funding? Is that funding source pressuring those scientists to discover a predetermined conclusion? Do those scientists already have the assumption that global warming causes certain weather phenomenon?

This is a long video, but it is worth it.




posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

This is from your reply to me.

"We are in first gear now. We have a Totalitarian Populist who thinks he is God who has been carried in on the shoulders of the disgruntled. He is a wannabe dictator,,,"

I'm laughing that you're saying this about Tfump, half the country has been saying it about Obama. The thing is, it's all the leaders now, and it's been going on for decades. We aren't in 1st gear , we are fixing to shift to 4th and all we have left after that is (game) OVERdrive.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join