Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

JFK: The Ultimate Explanation -- The Involvement of George Bush Sr.

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

I’ve vote for a unicameral legislature. The leader of the single house legislature would be the head of government. I’d vote to have the president as head of state and to serve one 7 year term. I’d vote to end the electoral college. I’d like to see run-off elections anytime a candidate fails to get an absolute majority; no more plurality winners for me. Judges would go to school first, as in the Napoleonic code countries, then I’d have them serve one 15 year term. All elections would be paid for by the public. Private money in an election would be a crime. No one who is elected to public office could work for anyone after he left office who had any dealings to the 2nd degree with the government. Ever. And etc.


I’d vote to end the electoral college. I’d like to see run-off elections anytime a candidate fails to get an absolute majority...."

REPLY: No Electoral College? This is in large part a true democracy, which is basically "mob rule", and it has been tried many times and doesn't work. What you'd have is that, since the five largest cities in America are more populous than the rest of the country, all the votes in "the rest of the country" would not count. The Founders were very prescient about that. No democracy has lasted for more than 200 years. All it does is lead to Socialism and Marxism. We have enough of that now; too much.

"....All elections would be paid for by the public. Private money in an election would be a crime. No one who is elected to public office could work for anyone after he left office who had any dealings to the 2nd degree with the government. Ever."

REPLY: A large part of elections ARE paid for with tax money. However, I agree with you on that, and the rest of the quote, above.
If the Constitution was adhered to as it was written, getting rid of half of the ammendments, it would work just fine.

Edited because the aren't working here.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by zappafan1]

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: No Electoral College? This is in large part a true democracy, which is basically "mob rule", and it has been tried many times and doesn't work. What you'd have is that, since the five largest cities in America are more populous than the rest of the country, all the votes in "the rest of the country" would not count. The Founders were very prescient about that. No democracy has lasted for more than 200 years. All it does is lead to Socialism and Marxism. We have enough of that now; too much.
[edit on 23-6-2006 by zappafan1]


I don't understand which situation you're describing, being with the Electoral College, or being without them??

If you mean that without them, we'd be a True Democracy, and that cannot work, I beg to differ. That's the only way that it CAN work. That way, the people truly have a say. With the Electoral College, the "mob rule" situation is a reality, since, like you said, a large group in LA can force all of CA's Electoral voters to vote one way, squelching the rest of the people statewide, and throwing off the balance in the election. Presidents should be elected by popular vote, not by Electoral College vote. The Electoral College is merely a way for the PTB to buy the election.

TheBorg



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   


posted by zappafan1




“ . . the Founding Fathers gave us a document for the 18th century . . is less and less adequate to the needs of the 21st century . . Security and globalization . . let’s call a Constitutional Convention and have at it!” [Edited by Don W]



REPLY: No Electoral College? This is a true democracy, which is basically "mob rule" - it has been tried many times and doesn't work. What you'd have is that, since the five largest cities in America are more populous than the rest of the country, all the votes in "the rest of the country" would not count. The Founders were very prescient about that . . “
[Edited by Don W]



Well, Z-Fan1, I beg to differ. I deny the FFs saw the needs of the 21st century. The Electoral College had always been explained to me as a lure to get the small states to go along with the new Con. 1787. Late historical research points more to the preservation of slavery as the real motive. Which is not to deny the second effect, either. The current thinking is, the South wanted guarantees of slavery and obtained what amounted to a veto in 1787. Do the numbers. MA, 8; CT, 5; NH, 3; RI, 1;‘ NY, 6; NJ, 4; PA, 8; DE, 1; MD, 6; VA, 10; NC, 5; SC, 5; GA, 3.


The number of Congressmen until the first census. Name the small states. Rhode Island and Delaware. Name the states that were slave dependent. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Many argue New York as our largest port, profited by the cotton trade and was not opposed to slavery. The opposition to slavery was primarily from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.

I agree with the “new” POV that the slavers won the 1787 Convention. Democracy was never mentioned in the annals of the 1787 Convention, so far as I can recall. Indeed, recall the famous Franklin retort? “A republic if you can keep it.”




No democracy has lasted for more than 200 years. All it does is lead to Socialism and Marxism. We have enough of that now; too much.



That is pure hoopla and unworthy of a response. Even if the premise of that declaration is admitted, which I don’t, it incorporates a fatal contradiction. “Democracy leads to socialism.” So you don’t like the one therefore you deny the other? Besides, Z-Fan1, “socialism” as you speak of it did not exist in 1787. Did not exist. Socialism was invented in the mid-19th century. Recall the grand 1848 Revolutions? That was socialism. Marxism was not invented by Marx. He merely observed that Adam Smith’s capitalism was a vehicle for the exploitation of the many by the few. It remained for others to apply that theory to real life.




REPLY: A large part of elections ARE paid for with tax money. However, I agree with you on that, and the rest of the quote, above. If the Constitution was adhered to as it was written, getting rid of half of the amendments, it would work just fine.



Thanks for the agreement on some of my recommendations. I don’t know how you can say “ . . large part . . paid by tax money . . “ In 2004, the Dems and the GOP each got about $70 million from the FEC - Federal Election Commission - but each spent over $500 million. And I’m not sure anyone includes the decisive 527s. At best, I’d say that was a SMALL part paid by tax money. Money corrupts, limitless money corrupts totally. To modify a slogan.

The Articles of Confederation used the unicameral legislature. It lacked 2 essential elements of any government. 1) No coherent, effective executive, and 2) no power to tax.

See www.yale.edu...



[edit on 6/23/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Hello, Donwhite. I provide the following:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.
From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The above describes what I said about Welfare, WIC, Medicare, et-al, and are examples of the Marxism currently happening here.
-----------------------------------------------------------

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.

These nations have progressed through the following sequence:

1: from bondage to spiritual faith,
2: from spiritual faith to great courage,
3: from courage to liberty,
4: from liberty to abundance,
5: from abundance to selfishness,
6: from selfishness to complacency,
7: from complacency to apathy,
8: from apathy to dependency,
9: from dependency back to bondage."
---------------------------------------------

Thanks to the Left, America is currently at number 8. While I again agree with some of what you mentioned, current population numbers show that getting rid of the Electoral College would allow the major population centers to negate the votes of most of the country, and bring us evermore closer to what is in the first paragraph:
"....From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury."

One only has to see what has happened thanks to Liberal/Socialist/Marxist principles already in effect: The ruination of the black family, the entropy of our inner cities, etc.

The power to tax was instituted by way of Amendment, although the amendment was never ratified by enough states for it to pass, the way it was first introduced/written; the IRS has been a criminal activity ever since, which is why they have their own court.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
That's BS. You must be blind or delusional if you think people only vote for that. If it were true, why would parties have a whole range of policies and issues to sway voters to their side?



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: No Electoral College? This is in large part a true democracy, which is basically "mob rule", and it has been tried many times and doesn't work. What you'd have is that, since the five largest cities in America are more populous than the rest of the country, all the votes in "the rest of the country" would not count. The Founders were very prescient about that. No democracy has lasted for more than 200 years. All it does is lead to Socialism and Marxism. We have enough of that now; too much.
[edit on 23-6-2006 by zappafan1]


I don't understand which situation you're describing, being with the Electoral College, or being without them??

If you mean that without them, we'd be a True Democracy, and that cannot work, I beg to differ. That's the only way that it CAN work. That way, the people truly have a say. With the Electoral College, the "mob rule" situation is a reality, since, like you said, a large group in LA can force all of CA's Electoral voters to vote one way, squelching the rest of the people statewide, and throwing off the balance in the election. Presidents should be elected by popular vote, not by Electoral College vote. The Electoral College is merely a way for the PTB to buy the election.

TheBorg


REPLY: I'd ask that you look at a county-by-county vote result:
www.usatoday.com...

This quite clearly shows what I mentioned concerning the negation of votes in less populated areas, considering the Blue areas voted Left, and the Red voted center. It's also interesting to note that the Blue areas have the most violent crime, welfare recipients and jobless people (corrected for population differences).



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
That's BS. You must be blind or delusional if you think people only vote for that. If it were true, why would parties have a whole range of policies and issues to sway voters to their side?


Sorry: I've been watching it happen for over 40 years. Many people will always vote themselves free money/services. Of course, none of it is "free", it comes out of the pockets who work and succeed, taken from us every week or two at the point of a gun.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
Sorry: I've been watching it happen for over 40 years. Many people will always vote themselves free money/services. Of course, none of it is "free", it comes out of the pockets who work and succeed, taken from us every week or two at the point of a gun.


Well, I'm not overly familiar with US Politics... but don't a considerable number of your corporations pay barely enough to survive, and yet reap great profits?

The who's scr-wing who argument can be used both ways.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
To My Feature Length Reply. Tit for Tat?




posted by zappafan1

Hello, Donwhite. I provide the following:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure . . the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." The above describes what I said about Welfare, WIC, Medicare, et-al, and are examples of the Marxism currently happening here. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years . . [Edited by Don W]



Are you quoting Socrates again, Z-Fan1? Look, aside from the fact the “200 years” thing is made up out of whole cloth, it has turned out the other economic forecast is wrong, too. Even Alan Greenspan never claimed to see beyond tomorrow. Now, as to Medicare, about 18% of US health care money is spent through Medicare. I’m on Medicare. Did you know I pay $88 a month to the US for Part B? Plus $29 a month for Part D? That I paid 1.45% of my wages during my working life for a pre-paid Part A policy? Matched by my employer or I pay 2.9% if self employed. It’s not entirely free. Oh, and I pay $180 a month for a Plan F Medicare supplement, too, to BC-BS. As a percent of income I’ll bet I pay more for health care than most people posting here. But I’m glad to have it and I thank LBJ for it. Before Medicare, old people just died. RIP.

WIC. Women, Infants and Children. The best, most cost effective program in the US arsenal against poverty and its debilitating consequences. WIC, another LBJ program, has as its mission the providing of high protein foods to pregnant women, newborns and children up to age 6. We know any child deprived of a good balanced diet will suffer brain injury or retarded development. For a few bucks spent early on, the child has a better chance to be a tax paying citizen. And etc. To oppose WIC is truly to shoot yourself in the ideologue's foot.



These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
8: from apathy to dependency,
9: from dependency back to bondage."
Thanks to the Left, America is currently at number 8. While I again agree with some of what you mentioned, current population numbers show that getting rid of the Electoral College would allow the major population centers to negate the votes of most of the country, and bring us evermore closer to what is in the first paragraph . .


Wait up, Z-Fan1. Isn’t “most of the country” you are speaking about just vacant land, as in Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, or South Dakota? Or Alaska? Are you suggesting Seattle’s 3 million people should have no more voting power than say Juneau. What if we said, OK, but Seattle will pay only the same taxes as Juneau. The country would not work. Trivia: Did you know Juneau is the largest city in America? See below.



One only has to see what has happened thanks to Liberal Socialist Marxist principles already in effect: The ruination of the black family



I thought 256 years of slavery, followed by 78 years of legal Jim Crow peonage, followed by 52 years of primarily GOP denial - not a river in Egypt {joke} - was the primary cause of the “ruination” of the black family. Oh, Z-Fan1, to what do you attribute the “ruination” of the white family? Divorces are now running 55% in 5 years of marriage. 25% of white babies are born out of wedlock. What’s up, here, Z-Fan1?




The power to tax was instituted by way of Amendment, although the amendment was never ratified by enough states for it to pass, the way it was first introduced written; the IRS has been a criminal activity ever since, which is why they have their own court. [Edited by Don W]



Z-Fan1, it’s no military secret. The 16th Amendment was passed by Congress - 2/3rds vote in the House and Senate - on July 12, 1909. It was declared adopted on Feb. 23, 1913, by the Secretary of State. After the fact, the amendment was ratified by MA and NH. This silly crapoola about the 16th Amendment not being legal comes about for this reason: Ohio ratified it in 1911, and West Virgilia ratified in 1913. Both states were counted in the ratification process.

Then, in 1953 it was discovered that the paperwork for Ohio’s 1803 admission into the Union was not signed. Further, the 1863 admission into the Union of West ‘By God’ Virginia - the 27 counties in the far west and north of Virginia - is not in conformity with the Con. Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1, which says “no state may be formed out of another state without the consent of both state legislatures.”

The Courts have said the oversight in Ohio was long since “corrected by usage” and in 1863, Virginia was in rebellion and could not object. No case. Forget it, Z-Fan1. The IRS is legal and violators of the tax laws can find themselves in the pen.

Juneau area, 2,717 sq. miles.



[edit on 6/23/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Way to go Don.


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 30-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: I'd ask that you look at a county-by-county vote result:
www.usatoday.com...

This quite clearly shows what I mentioned concerning the negation of votes in less populated areas, considering the Blue areas voted Left, and the Red voted center. It's also interesting to note that the Blue areas have the most violent crime, welfare recipients and jobless people (corrected for population differences).


But that's WHY it's such a good idea to go wtihout the EC. Without them, there would no longer be a need to have to look at the county-by-county vote, or the state-by-state vote, as the presidency would be decided simply by the numbers of people voting for a particular candidate.

I've looked over the results of that election time and time again, and I still don't understand how it is that the EC is still a good idea. Everyone seems to say that they're the balance in the system that keeps the people honest. I think they're the part of the system that makes over 50% of the population not want to vote.

That's just my opinion anyway.

TheBorg



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
If this is true, what hope do we have? Is there any "saving grace" political figure on the horizon who could end this Bush rule?


Perhaps its not too soon for Obama to run. I doubt his poor childhood with his foreign parents was rife with JFK corruption. He also might not have been in Washington long enough to have been corrupted. If he can run for the Presidency and win after one term in the senate, it might be unforseen wrench in this whole scheme.

Although even Obama has connections to those elite ivy league schools and who knows where it goes from there.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Cutwolf]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
If this is true, what hope do we have? Is there any "saving grace" political figure on the horizon who could end this Bush rule?


Us, the people. Sway the concensus that put these people in power is the only way. Bring this out to as many people and generate a large discussion.

There is an issue with a certain mindset created by the ones in power using the media where everything that´s being fed is accepted as undeniable truth, and the ones that express doubt are "unpatriotic" and "conspiracy theorists".

We know better.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by HardToGet

Originally posted by Cutwolf
If this is true, what hope do we have? Is there any "saving grace" political figure on the horizon who could end this Bush rule?


Us, the people. Sway the concensus that put these people in power is the only way. Bring this out to as many people and generate a large discussion.

There is an issue with a certain mindset created by the ones in power using the media where everything that´s being fed is accepted as undeniable truth, and the ones that express doubt are "unpatriotic" and "conspiracy theorists".

We know better.


Except you know as well as I do that if we start babbling about conspiracy theories, we'll be looked at as cooks before we have enough time to give any evidence. That is the mindset of most Americans. We'd be viewed in the same light as religious fanatics.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
SKMDC1, I’ve always admitted the Dems do about 35% to 45% of things I want done, but the GOP does only 1% or 2%. So it’s Hobson’s Choice. Damned if you do, damned (worse) if you don’t.

I have come to the conclusion the Founding Fathers gave us a document adequate for the 18th century, but which has been less and less adaptable to the needs of first, the 19th century (slavery) and then the 20th century (economics) and now the 21st century. Security and globalization. I say, let’s call a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and have at it!


One other item: ABSOLUTELY NO TOLERANCE FOR SECRET ASSOCIATIONS. NO SKULL AND BONES, NO MASONS, NO OATHS THAT TRANSCEND THE OATHS OF OFFICE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE PARTISAN POLITICS OF TODAY CAN EASILY BE CLASSIFIED AS SECRET ASSOCIATIONS BECAUSE OF "BEHIND-CLOSED-DOORS" PLANNING THAT BREAKS OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.

Mod Note: You Have a U2U- Click Here.



[edit on 30-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I just discovered this thread. Looks I got some fans here


Lemme give you a free bonus:


Unknown interview with James Files


jfkmurdersolved.com...

jfkmurdersolved.com...

Wim



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 04:11 AM
link   
You won't find this article in Google news:


www.vheadline.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
There has been some discussion regarding the James Files tapes:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And, many thanks for getting the thread back on topic :
JFK: The Ultimate Explanation -- The Involvement of George Bush Sr.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by WimDankbaar
You won't find this article in Google news:


Hi Wim, great to see you here!


Another link to Files came from that last link:

James Files on the Bay of Pigs and Operation 40

Am I correct that you have spoken to James personally?
Is there any development in breaking the case at all?

Hope you like the PDF....

Just so the other ATS members understand, Wim Dankbaar is the one who financed a private investigation into the JFK assassination.

Wim Dankbaar Bio

To me he´s a hero and ATS should be proud he decided to join ATS, hopefully he will be able to shed light on developments and more insight in the evidence presented so far.

[edit on 1-7-2006 by HardToGet]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I have not been living under a rock or anything, but today was the first time that i have ever watcher the Zapruder film. After watching this film 1 time it was obvious to me that the man sitting in front of Mr. Kennedy with the white hair is the man who did the clean up job. I know it may sound crazy, I guess because I now know that he was at that time Governor of Texas, but if you look and I do mean really pay attention to what you see, it is hidden in plain site. Watch his hands as the car turns the corner. Watch both hands not just the one...He has something in both hands the thing in the right hand is j=used to cover the object in the left hand. You can see him getting prepped to take the shot, just incase the person who takes the first shot does not get a kill, which is precisely what happened. The Governor then turns to his side in order to line up his shot with Mr. Kennedy and during all the chaos of the crown running and screaming takes the shot. I used a program that we all have to play the movie in super slomo. If you look at the film frame by frame, you will see that something impacts Mr. Kennedy's right cheek and exits from the the right back side of his head. Also I find if weird that Mr. Zapruder's camera is filming the car and its passengers nicely all the way up til the second shot, where the camera all of a sudden raises just enough to hide the Governors hands, or does it. After the kill shot mysteriously, the rest of the car reappears in the film. It is obvious that the film has been tampered, but not tampered enough to see what really happened. Look at the film and watch the Governors actions. This is a man who has been supposedly shot multiple times, but you dont see him react to being shot not once. What you do see is him holding his hands in a position that does not change even as he looks back at Mr. Kennedy to align his shot and then looks away as he pulls the trigger. His hands stay in the same position even as he turns his body over and to the floor of the car. Is it not odd that while supposedly fearing for his life he sits up and looks back to make sure that Mr. Kennedy is indeed dead. I have been reading the posts on this site, and scanned quickly through some pages on the net in order to get the back story and the "Officilal" story. Going into this think with a clear mind and not really listening to the "official story is was very easy to see what happened. After reading things posted and things on the net I still believe that my first conclusion is correct, but when you apply all of the other stoiries it becomes cloudy. I think that this is what has happened to the american people. We have been given a story and we try to apply it, and disect it instead of seeing what is right in front of us. I am not saying that the Governor was the lone gun man, I am however sure that he did fire the kill shot. He was the clean up man, because the sniper standing in front of the vehicle on the right side hit Mr. Kennedy in the throat, a shot that he would have survived.

Just my thoughts,






top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join