It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

page: 29
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by yeahright

Originally posted by Nightflyer28
I think that as many people as possible on both sides need to see reports like this.

Digg it!


That's good, but the thing is, let's face it, you come to this website, see some of the subjects and points of view, and the average person might say, "Geez, these guys are a bunch of paranoids and UFO nuts" (Come on, you've seen it here a few times), and discount the validity of this article along with the rest.

Uploading it to more conventional public sites might give it a better chance of being seriously considered, y'know?

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:11 PM

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Corporations were elevated to the status of a person by the 14th amendment in the post reconstruction period giving corporations all the rights of an artificial person but none of the liabilities or responsibilities. People were stripped of their natural sovereign human being status and made property of the state as artificial persons and property of the State and corporation.

I just had another look at the 14th amendment, and I didn't see anything about corporations being given personhood rights in there.

What part are you talking about?

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:36 PM
Just an idea for dealing with the lobbyists, since they are not elected representatives, nor reporters... CHARGE THEM!

Require registration of whom they represent, what their interests are, and charge them accordingly (and heavily) to have access to our representatives, be it at the national level or state.

Similarly enact fines and sentences for ANY subversion of this process, including the lobbyist, the companies and the politicians involved.

I don't know if there could be a fee considered ridiculous for such access, and representation of foreign interests would be classified under treason.

This would likely generate considerable income for the govt and create jobs for support personnel.

[edit on 8/14/2009 by Theli93]

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by Nightflyer28

I think perhaps what he means is that in case of a law suit against wrongdoing you cannot sue the "man behind the curtain" in the corporation, but only the corporation itself.

Just like how when a corporation is about to go bankrupt, they are granted a grace period in which they can hand out bonuses.

The people behind the corp. go scotch free and it is the legal entity (person) of the corporation itself that is damaged... which really amounts to no liability for the people in the wrong.

Nay, they just shell out the money and move on to their next corrupt venture. All the while the voice of the people is completely lost.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by Theli93

This could would likely generate considerable income for the govt and create jobs for support personnel.

Aside from the fact that it would likely take an act of God himself to persuade Congress enacting any sort of legislation such as this that in essence strips away their personal purse-strings, I don't think the answer lies in layering another beaurocratic stink-storm on top of an already burdened system.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:51 PM

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Theli93

I don't think the answer lies in layering another beaurocratic stink-storm on top of an already burdened system.

For the most part, I agree with you. However, installing the bureaucracy into the process might be just what it needs. After all we have the FDA's bureaucratic process allegedly representing the nation's physical health, why not something similar to represent our nation's constitutionalhealth?

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by Theli93

Basically because I don't trust beaurocracy.

Nor do I trust a beaurocracy to handle my health.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 05:02 PM
I don't like it either, but use of a lobbyist should be at least as cumbersome as getting a new drug or device passed (both financially and physically). And if it effectively eliminates most or all of them... OH WELL!

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 06:08 PM
I am sorry. But I know I am NOT missing something.

Welcome to the Theatre of the Absurd. All these "right-left paradigm" arguments are for the dimwitted masses that love spicy little feuds and soap operas.

There is NO such paradigm.

It is a game of distraction.

There is no "gridlock".

But there is an Agenda.

We have lost our country to smoke and mirrors.

Kick a dead corpse all you want, but it won't get up again.

either realize that the same forces that created the reason for and the debt thereof our American Revolution are still here, preserved in correspondence written by Washington himself.

The Jacobites were a thinly disguised veil of the Bavarian Illuminati. So were the Bolsheviks.

Now we have 6 Conglomerate Mega Media Companies out of 300 in the 1980's, and people are still unable to get past the propaganda.

We've already lost our Sovereignty in a coup d'tat in Oct of 2008. Why would it matter if it were Fascist or Socialist? It's the return of NAZIism for the people ruled by a Eugenicist Oligarchy.

You will not wake up because you are already brain dead.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:00 PM
I'm not very well versed on the subject. But why do we have an open legal form of bribery in our political system? You look at that and have to wonder why the system is #ed and unresponive to the people.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:02 PM
reply to post by CuriousSkeptic

Precisely. It is nothing more than bribery.

And when bribery is legal, do the 'honest' folks have a chance? Hell no.

It is like telling a cop that if he 'looks the other way' about the drugs in my car, he can handcuff my wife and have his way with her on the hood.
Now, that is illegal, but if it weren't, it would happen quite often enough. And of course in this scenario there aren't any video-cams on the dash or mics on the cops. Your word against his. And he wins.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by JayinAR]

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:23 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

"Ever since the election, and for the foreseeable future, the Republicans only have one thing on their mind, screw Obama."

Isn't this a case of projection? Just because the Democrats were out to get Bush, doesn't mean the Republicans cannot be statesmanlike.

Many who voted for Obama to end the Bush-Clinton dynasty do not support his expansion of the Bush bailouts and nationalization of health care.

Obama demonizes doctors and expects support from the health care industry?

Obama demonizes insurance companies and expects their support (using a carrot and stick approach of support us and we won't come after your profits).

I predict a lot of Congressional retirements in 2010.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:31 PM

Originally posted by JayinAR
Nor do I trust a beaurocracy to handle my health.

So, how do you get around the position that a bureaucracy is already handling your health? Go check "medical loss ratios" for some idea about the bureaucracy already handling health issues.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Nightflyer28
What part are you talking about?

You might get a clear answer....maybe not....quite often the position held by that poster fails to acknowledge this little snippet...

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

While at the same time....declaring the Constitution to be the only source of law for this country....and oddly enough, that income tax is illegal.

No fancy Latin bull# Roman Empire crap. Very clear and succinct..."Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income."

I don't know....I just shake my head and wonder......

[edit on 14-8-2009 by cranberrydork]

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:45 PM
Kudos to you. Thanks for saying it when you see it.
Great site! Been here a long time.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:49 PM
reply to post by CuriousSkeptic

This sums it up about as precisely as anything I've seen.

Government Policies: SOLD! To the highest bidder.

(Heart breaking).

[edit on 8/14/0909 by ladyinwaiting]

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by cranberrydork

Jay in Arizona answered the question in that corporations have the privelages of human beings without the liabilities of human beings.

The Constitution allowed for a Federal Income Tax only in time of War, a War that must be lawfully declared by Congress. Neither the War in Iraq or Afghanistan were declared by Congress.

Basically the founding fathers did not want a large standing army. They wanted State's to have their own well funded militias by State Taxes and would contribute troops from their Militias in times of war to be used by the Federal Government.

That way the Federal Government would not have the military power to impose dictatorial rule which is exactly what happened in the aftermath of the Civil War.

The founding fathers acknowledged in a time of 'true' war (someone is attempting to invade the United States) that State's individual militias might need to be augmented by an Army raised by the Federal Government. They realized that a central authority like the Federal Government might be in a better position to resupply State militias in the field far from their home state and provided a mechanism for the Federal Government to Tax during war to raise the money to facilitate those endeavors.

After the war was over they wanted the Federal Army disbanded and to stand down, so no dictator in Washington could take over the country. Each State's militia though still was available for emergency service in case of attack.

The main reason that the Founders did not want the Federal Government to have power to tax so that it could not grow beyond the limits they envisioned for it, as simply an arbitor of disputes between states as a last resort, in other words if North Carolina and South Carolina just could not agree on who had water rights to a river that flowed along the border, then the Federal Government could decide at that point.

They did not want a permanent Income Tax so that we would not end up with 666 massive, intrusive, cumbersome, corruption ridden, dictatorial and inept Agencies of Federal Government driving the nation into debt and robbing citizens of their fundamental liberties and rights in the process...

Which if you are living in the same United States of America I am is exactly what happened when the Federal Government imposed an income tax.

The founding fathers wanted a small weak central government to balance power, so in essence the Federal Government could not be stronger than any one state or combination of a few.

States were designed to have 'different' flavors much like restaurants. If you wanted to be a devout Catholic Maryland was a good place for you! If you wanted to be a Quaker Pennsylvania would be ideal. They wanted an federation of states where the state itself pretty much set the bulk of the laws and customs. They wanted all citizens to be able to travel freely between those states. As long as no state was violating constitutional principals or impeding passage or attempting to charge a toll for passage by citizens of other states through it, the Central Government had little business.

The Central Government was not designed to make 100,000 laws to dictate to the states.

The Central Government was designed to be small and to simply help create unified tarrifs for exports and imports so no one state had a trading advantage internationally, to help formulate a united foreign policy, and to help conduct a war if need be, and to settle disputes between states.

Now that does not sound like the costly, bankrupting, liberty robbing, corrupt and criminal government we are stuck with in Washington today because of how it grew and grew and expanded and expanded itself in unconstitutional ways based on it's unconstitutional ability to coerce taxes and dictate once it established the Military/Security/Prison Industrial Complex during the Civil War.

I am sure you like most Americans want to do good, and be good, but sadly the Powers that Be and the Corporate Government don't share your sentiments.

Don't feed the Beast.

Being a true American is following those Constitutional principals which are the only thing that lead to true individual liberty which has NOT ONE THING TO DO WITH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. It is the only thing that leads to Self Determination WHICH HAS NOT ONE THING TO DO WITH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IMPOSED LAWS. It is the only thing that leads to the pursuit of individual happiness AND WHAT MAKES YOU HAPPY CHANCES ARE WILL NOT MAKE ME HAPPY AND VICE A VERSUS.

Don't feed the Beast.

If you really need a Nanny for yourself hire one out of your pocket for your house!

No offence, but stop trying to hire them for my house out of my pocket.

I can think for and govern myself and that is what the real Constitution was about.

It wasn't about Yes we can!

It was about YES I CAN!

And I do

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:47 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

PT, I have a theory about you. I think you are Genghis Khan reborn. Is that true?

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Hal9000
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

PT, I have a theory about you. I think you are Genghis Khan reborn. Is that true?

There is no truth to the rumor that I listen to Motley Crue's version of Helter Skelter backwards all day and night.

I can prove I was not alive when Kennedy was killed!

I have never met James Hoffa Sr.

But I did steal the cookie from the cookie jar!

Mmmm yum yum!

I am the Cookie Monster!

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:33 AM
reply to post by Hx3_1963

You bring up many issues, almost all of which I agree. However it skirts the real issue and question: Is the US Bankrupt the answer is no. Is the Income Tax illegal? The answer is yes, but only because the Amendment did not get 2/3rds vote (And a Direct Tax would more likely cause higher rates of taxation than income, and reduce the poor into deeper states of poverty) and of course "Fiat" means Commanded Currency .. Gold is a Fiat, just as Production to create the Reserve notes is a Fiat. Is it right or wrong, that's another discussion .. the fact is money is money regardless of what it's called so long as it can be traded for goods and services.

You could get into the schematics of all this crap .. but quite frankly just because I owe 30 years on a mortgage doesn't mean I am bankrupt... Maybe you and Proto need to re-read the definition of Bankruptcy?

top topics

<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in