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.

 

If the Conservative Movement succeeds then What? My response!

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


3S time is always good time! Enjoy the break. You bring up such a thought as to what those men went through. Imagine having to go to a tavern, in secret to discuss the future of a nation. Whereas we get to sit behind a computer screen sipping a latte or a beer in complete comfort nor threat...




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Wow you guys are FAST. Maybe need to lay off the caffeine? Just kidding...


Edit to add:
Hahaa... before I could even post this you posted this:

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by endisnighe
 


3S time is always good time! Enjoy the break. You bring up such a thought as to what those men went through. Imagine having to go to a tavern, in secret to discuss the future of a nation. Whereas we get to sit behind a computer screen sipping a latte or a beer in complete comfort nor threat...


Geesh my posting finger is sloooowww.

[edit on 2/1/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Immigration reform and welfare and S.S. are probably going to be the hardest I personally don't think welfare should be abolished totally, because there to many cases where a man will run out on his family leaving the mother unexpectedly with no income, children and no one to watch them while she goes out to look for a job. The current welfare system wouldn't do much to help her get on her feet either.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Way to articulate it!
However, for me I say let's do #1 and tell the government to # off. If they don't maybe we need to bring up something more similar to the Articles of Confederation to limit the feds from usurping power they have no right in having.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Here is the original will be adding a limitation clause onto the end-

12. Any and all future laws will be required to be posted on line 7 days prior to any vote. All laws will be required to be in final form and will be required to written in common sense and common law verbiage. No pork will be allowed to be attached to any bill. Pork will be voted on on a per case basis period.edit add-constitutional justification necessary also, if no justification-no law; additionally the submitted bill will only have related language pertinent to the legislation at hand to eliminate riders

also there is a limit to the length of a bill of 250 pages, if at anytime it becomes necessary to exceed this limit, the display period will be extended another 7 days for each and every additional 50 pages



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


There is currently a British movement, the name which escapes me, but it is dedicated to having everything written and spoken in clear, precise language. Could definitely use some of that over here in the States!



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
So here is the thing guys, i have no health care (unemployed right now all of the local businesses are down as much as 70%), yet i do not think it is fair for other people to have to pay for my healthcare? What do we do for people like me? I figured ideally we would rely on charity to take care of these problems, but charity alone can't take care of the millions of others of americans who have no health care. What do we do? I feel the government has some sort of obligation to protecting the health of citizens.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DeathShield
 


You bring in an interesting view and question DeathShield. One that is sure to bring the guns a blazing, but from what I have seen here, so far in this thread, it would be welcomed. I am quite confident that it would actually be debated more here than it was in congress



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DeathShield
 


Actually Death,

Hey that works pretty good. I feel the whole not being covered is a bunch of malarkey.

So far in my life I have had two severe injuries where I was not insured. One cost as much as $80,000 dollars. Double wrist fracture requiring several surgeries. Both taken care of without no seizure of assets. Of course I did not have any. Now the other was taken care of by a Religious Hospital for free. If something catastrophic happens you will be taken care of.

For one thing though, the actual crazed costs of health care were not even addressed at all with this whole scam the Congress perpetrated. My Opinion-so no one can jump on me.

Lawsuit costs need to be removed totally from the picture. Cross state policies need to be allowed. A legitimate pay in insurance account type situation could help.

What they have gone and done is unconscionable. Forced insurance?

Anyway, that subject is a long one and I do mean long.

But for your information, if you need some care, go to any emergency room and you cannot be turned away. That is the law!



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Someone336
 

Totally off topic on my part.


[edit on 1/3/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
"Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society." - John Adams

Says it all in regards to language. Politicians rely heavily upon the misuse of words and underlying meanings to push their loop-holes through.

What we may see as a laymen term, legally it means another. The upper-hand lies with those that command the language.

Maybe every bill should have a list of terms and the meanings they actually meant at the end of the bill. Wouldn't take any extra effort and it would clear up to the general public what is actually being pushed forward



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 

reply to post by Someone336
 


Yes, that is why I had wrote into the component of the law writing statute, they would need to use Common Law verbiage.

Their fascinating use of uncommon vernacular and legalese is one of their greatest weapons.

Hell, I cannot wait til this health care feasco goes in.

It will be whatever they want it to be. They will just change it as they seem fit.

Happens all the time.

[edit on 1/3/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm

reply to post by DeathShield

reply to post by endisnighe

Welfare and health insurance are two very good examples of things that should be left up to the individual state governments if they so choose. The federal government should be very limited in what it provides. The state and local governments are the appropriate place because they are closer to the needs of the people will have to live side by side these people.

[edit on 2/1/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


I just read your doctor's warranty.

That is fabulous. Sweet and to the point.

Nuff said.

Did I say this before, I just had deja vus.


[edit on 1/3/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
In case you haven't noticed I am very much in favor of states' rights. I believe it to be one of the most important tenants of the constitution. I also believe that states' rights are slowly being taken away little by little. The only thing the federal government should be responsible for are things (commerce, infrastructure, defense, etc.) that must cross state lines. The constitution limits state powers but limits federal powers even more stringently because of the distance factor - the distance from the ultimate holders of power, the people. We don't realize how much has been taken from us because we are used to the way things are now. This may seem radical but it was always the intention of the constitution. We've really been degraded.

[edit on 2/1/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


There have been to my knowledge 33 states that have restated their 10th Amendment rights.

Your viewpoint is not radical, it is Constitutional.

Damn straight, this has to do with State's rights.

Power in the United States of America Breakdown-

1) Sovereign Individual
2) Sovereign State
3) Sovereign Nation

IN THAT ORDER; is supposed to be the balance of power!

That is why I placed Return to the Constitution as my #1 issue.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


You sir? are quite correct. There has been a long march of centralization and consolidation of power into the Federal portion of our government. Although they can exist together, the power needs to shift back towards the States. Period.

I place the beginning of the shift on the Marshall Court, the acts passed after the Civil War and the New Deal saga. All designed to strip the power of the State and the People. Even the Federal Highway Act, though maybe not intended, is used to this very day to strong-arm states in dictating things such as: legal-drinking age, seat-belt laws, child-safety seats, etc, but withholding large sums of money if they do not comply with what the Federal government wants.

The most overlooked amendment is the 10th amendment I believe and it is time we begin to utilize in a manner that will eventually drive back the Imperialist and again have the States and the People back in power.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
What an awesome thread! A breath of fresh air! I love seeing people come together to work out solutions in an honest and open discussion. Starred and flagged good sir!!!!



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
All that was written in the original o.p. sounded great, with the exception of some of the mandatory stuff.
That, however, seems to have been solved by the o.p. and others, for that matter.
Here is a question that I have always struggled with in my vision of returning to a Constitutional State.

Mineral rights, specifically, oil.

On one hand, it would seem that if an individual discovered oil, it woud be his to do with what he pleased, including selling the rights, or land to a larger company.

On the other hand, it seems that the wealth and power that follow minerals, be it gold, oil, copper, tungsten, etc... may need to be in the hands of the people, or, in this utopia, the government.

I am well aware that the government controlling these resources flies in the face of what our nation should be, however, these resources have been controlled by private interests so far, and look where that has gotten us.

Any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Kaploink
 


Yes, I am beginning to see any mandatory is getting me crap.

For anyone else-Mandatory is out!




I've been reading/watching this thread since its conception and I have to say, I agree with that other member who complemented this thread as a Breathe of Fresh Air. I agree completely.

With regards to mandatory, I don't think we should walk away from one of those mandatory concepts. And that one is, it is mandatory to vote. In one of the cities I live near, there is a law that was passed a few years ago that makes it mandatory to own a fire arm for home defense. That law is not enforced and was done more as a statement to criminals. However, with regards to mandatory voting. The Federal Government should have zero say so, however, that option should be available to local governments. As I stated in another thread, I believe that is a wonderful idea. The reason, as we have seen, apathy is absolutely deadly to our freedoms. That mandatory law should only impose a fine, that is only imposed by the local citizens. If that is incorporated within these new laws helping to enforce personal freedoms and personal responsibility. I believe that will go along way to ensuring future generations will remain free.


Now I realize some will say not voting is the epitome of freedom. I would strongly disagree. Freedom demands we stay diligent. To do nothing means you don't care about the outcome, and that is one of legs that have helped this nation fall so low, along with our freedoms. So you can decide not to care all you want, but its gonna cost ya. I mean, you still have the right to do nothing, but it aint gonna be cheap. Because as we are living, the pain that is caused... by doing nothing... isn't cheap either.


--Charles Marcello


[edit on 2-1-2010 by littlebunny]



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join