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.

 

I am running for president in 2016

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I'd vote for you..


Good to know the intelligent people support me




posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveAndrew
Don't have my vote, sorry. I support your run though.


Why wont you be voting for me?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonSays

Originally posted by slackerwire
So you think the government should regulate what adults do with other adults?
Your idea doesnt pass Constitutional muster.

Well when I stand in judgement, I don't expect to hand
God a copy of our constitution and say this is my reasoning
for endorsing sin. There is a difference between not
agreeing with it and endorsing it. If boys want to fornicate
with other boys. That is their right to do so according to
our constitution. But I won't endorse any candidate who
says it is the norm or even says it's ok to get benefits
from it. There comes a time when you have to use the
common sense God gives us and say enough is enough.
And I'm saying .... that'll be quite enough.


Those are your personal beliefs, personal beliefs that not everyone holds.
In a free country one is supposed to be able to Do, Say, Own, and believe that which he chooses and be left alone so long as he harms no one nor violates their rights.

You don't have to agree with any of the choices another person makes, but them making those choices doesn't in any way shape or form stop you from being free and living your life.

Government has no role in the religious sect, the only obligation it has to religion is to protect the right to believe that which you choose, dictating "rights" based on religious beliefs goes against the constitution and the law that bans congress from passing laws on religion aka the first amendment.

"marriage" should not be recognized, only a union which benefits two people who choose to share a financial burden should be recognized.

the problem isn't two "homosexuals benefiting because it goes against your beliefs, the problem is two people getting benefits from the government because of a religious belief..

This goes against the Constitution.



Mind you this is coming from someone who believes homosexuality is wrong.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 
This thread has had more post removed from it than any other I have seen so far and every edited one has been made by you. What makes you so qualified to be president if you can't even restrain yourself from personal attacks against those who don't share the same views as you.

Your interpretations are logically sound however lack the flexibility originally afforded by said document. Furthermore the advocation of an intellegence requirement for voting rights is profoundly and grossly unconstituional. The people are intitled to certain UNALIENABLE rights one of which is in fact the right to bear arms, but the right to vote out the powers that be are, in my opinion, far more important than allowing my local Houston chapter of the MS-13 to own a Howitser or an automatic weapon they can unload while trying to kill one crackhead., oh I'm sorry law abiding citizen.

Like your signature states if people aren' tas smart as you mow 'em down with bullets. If everybody is ignorant for disagreeing with you than my I.Q. tests must be wrong, turns out I am a complete moron.

I think you will be better served building a privately funded army and declaring yourself a supreme being. Good luck when you bring that campain through my hometown in Texas.It's gonna have to be a big army. If you wanna see people united I dare you to run on that campaign so we can unite against a warlord like you.

I agree with a couple of your views but for the most part none of them reflect the real problems of our contry they are all wedge issues given to you by the media. None of them effect anyone I know but make for good T.V.

What about our privatly owned Federal Reserve. What happened to the U.S. Treasury. Judging by your post about the impoverished, your probably an officer in one of those banks huh? What about the military industrial complex that a FIVE star Genaral, Eisenhower, warned us about? You own stock in Blackwater. too Original thought is what makes this country so great, they can burn the constitution for all I care. It hasn't helped one bit in my generation, the Gov. only brings it up when they want to distract smart people like you.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by azblack

 
This thread has had more post removed from it than any other I have seen so far and every edited one has been made by you. What makes you so qualified to be president if you can't even restrain yourself from personal attacks against those who don't share the same views as you.


I count one post of mine removed, never seen more than that?

People can attack me all they want, it is their supposed reasons and logic behind their comments that I attack.


Your interpretations are logically sound however lack the flexibility originally afforded by said document. Furthermore the advocation of an intellegence requirement for voting rights is profoundly and grossly unconstituional. The people are intitled to certain UNALIENABLE rights one of which is in fact the right to bear arms, but the right to vote out the powers that be are, in my opinion, far more important than allowing my local Houston chapter of the MS-13 to own a Howitser or an automatic weapon they can unload while trying to kill one crackhead., oh I'm sorry law abiding citizen.


Without the 2nd Amendment, you wouldnt have any other rights. Specifically, which wording in the Constitution prohibits my suggestion for an intelligence test? Restrictions are and can be placed on voting.



I think you will be better served building a privately funded army and declaring yourself a supreme being. Good luck when you bring that campain through my hometown in Texas.It's gonna have to be a big army. If you wanna see people united I dare you to run on that campaign so we can unite against a warlord like you.


blah blah blah. I am not, nor do I wish to be a warlord.


I agree with a couple of your views but for the most part none of them reflect the real problems of our contry they are all wedge issues given to you by the media. None of them effect anyone I know but make for good T.V.


Real problems for our country:

Immigration
Unconstitutional spending by government
Too much government interference in our daily lives.
Unconstitutional laws.
A lack of intelligent spending in the area of defense


What about our privatly owned Federal Reserve. What happened to the U.S. Treasury. Judging by your post about the impoverished, your probably an officer in one of those banks huh? What about the military industrial complex that a FIVE star Genaral, Eisenhower, warned us about? You own stock in Blackwater. too Original thought is what makes this country so great, they can burn the constitution for all I care. It hasn't helped one bit in my generation, the Gov. only brings it up when they want to distract smart people like you.


I am adamantly opposed to the Fed and the IRS.

The Constitution has never helped you? Ever bought a gun? Been pulled over by a cop? Been to court? I could go on and on about the ways you have been helped but might be too naive to realize.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 

I deleted my original reply whichargued alot of points you have made, with quotes and all I'll try to paraphrase as it took me an hour!

The right to vote:
1973b) Suspension of use of tests and devices which deny or abridge the right to vote.
This law was passed due to the denial of blacks on the basis of literacy tests or otherwise, People have already tried these test and it was ruled there cannot be even a literacy test.

Oh yeah portions of the posts you made were deleted on two occasions and the complete post was deleted only once. sorry

You stated a Supreme Court decision in one of your other insulting arguments let me find that one:McCulloch v. Maryland

"The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable, the U.S. Bank was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law is generally recognized as specifically targeting the U.S. Bank. The Court invoked the necessary-and-proper clause in the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers as long as those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers.

This fundamental case established the following two principles:

that the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government, and
that state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.
The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall, a man whose many judicial opinions have shaped modern constitutional law."
I don't see where this prohibits Foreign aid or even relates to it and I didn't see any mention of James Madison in the Judgement
This decision is one that provides the interpretation giving the right of the govt. to mandate a National Bank in this case the 2nd Bank of the U.S. which, coincidently, after establishing the Democratic party Andrew Jackson closed this bank on his way out stating it supported the invention of a new evil in our country the corporation. He was opposed by Henry Clay most famously who in turn established the Rebulican Party. This is just a few of the arguements made by my deleted post and I'm out of time so I'll come back to you later.

Please refrain from using any personal insults against me such as nieve, I only wish to ridicule your ideas not you as a person as you have a right to your opinion I wish not to interfere with such. But I will not get in an insulting match with you but could think of several. There are rules against even this small insult and I may act on them,if desired, as I am insulted.
My point was the constitution has almost been rendered useless as they is covered up w/miles of controversial amendments. These AMENDMENTS such as the bill of rights provide those you used in your "naive" insult. Not the constitution directly. There are many more points which are clouded by my anger of insult,and loss of first post, so I will prove them later.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by azblack
 

I messed up when quoting the interpretation of the Supreme court case. I forgot to mention it was from wikipedia, I also used various sources to base my opinions on it as I read the entire judgement. Sorry, I'm pretty new.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Sorry Slackwire ol pard but the according to the doom sayers we all are going to be dead, slaves, in a civil war but mostly dead buy 2016

Besides all of that you still must deal with Congress, you ain't running for King.


Best run this year.

Roper



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


Hello slackerwire, i have a few things to say about your position on your 2016 presidential run, so here we go...



-Secure the borders by whatever means necessary. This includes militarizing the southern border to deal with the continued threats from mexico.


i would like to be informed about the 'threat' that mexico pocess's, i dont think that there that bad to be honest. I think that immigration should be tightened.



-End all foreign aid. Unconstitutional, and a waste of our taxpayers money.


You are aware that this 'no aid' rule would work both ways. So if the US was hit by a WMD or a very bad natural disaster you would be givin NO aid.



-End welfare. If you want help, you WILL work. No one can be on welfare for a period longer than 6 months.


This is something that we nearly agree on. I belive that if you can work, you should work. Help society. But there are some people that cannot work, due to loss of limbs, mental problems. There are many reasons why people cannot work. But i think that if you can work, you should work.



-End Iraq conflict. complete withdrawl with the exception of a small security contingent so that we may take however much oil we need.


I think that the withdrawl of Iraq will be the hardest part of this conflict, i think that the US should not of went to Iraq, but your there now. So make sure the Iraq forces can handle it before you leave. For the taken of oil sentimate, i belive that they ned it just as much as you do, research new types of power, atleast try to move on.



-An immediate reduction in spending of 15-20% in all federal programs.


I guess this could work, but i think that some groups will need continued funding. Not all groups within the US are evil.

Later on you come to say that you are...

Pro gun - US gun crime is stupidly high, dont hand more out, start sorting this out.

Anti tax - If you go no tax, US will fall apart, where are you going to get your money from to help the US ?

Pro Small government - This is something that i agree with you. Short it down and make it simpler.

Im sorry, i dont have alot of time at the moment so ive just talked about the ones that stood out to me.

Dorian Gray




top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join