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.

 

The endisnighe, if I ran for President, would you vote for me?

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


BTS is not oblivion, it's not a garbage dump, and its not a bad place at all, fact of the matter is, I like BTS more than I like ATS.

You could have continued your thread in BTS just fine, but you chose not to.

Now, this isn't my thread, so, it's not my soap box.

If you want my solutions, you can find them here and here.


I have not declared BTS as oblivion, I have declared it what it is. BTS is not ATS, and this is undeniable. If you are such a fan of BTS, then why are most of your posts in ATS?




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Your solution including Tariffs would FAIL, wuk. Complete and utter failure.

I never entered that thread because no one wants to hear the true fix for this country and every country in the world.

Corporations in and of the way they act are the problem.

I actually had a pretty good idea earlier in this thread, not allowing a corporation to own land. I do not know why I never thought of that before. I have to work out the theory better but I will tell you why tariffs fail.

Artificially increasing or decreasing product price will only hurt the consumer. What your end game being is the movement of business out of the country is the problem but the tariffs will not work. Removing the ability of a foreign corporation from owning or running a business in this country or our corporations from running in another country would solve the problem.

Did you know in Mexico you are no longer allowed to own property if you are a foreigner. Why do you think that is not a law in this country anymore?

It is because the elites do not want this country to excel, they want their corporations to excel.

If a corporation is forced to make money in this country, it will help this country's citizens only.

More brainstorming on my part necessary in this hypothesis. Still think that idea of the corps not owning land is a pretty good idea.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Mutter
Join us won't you?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


There you go! While I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of Wuk's ideas, you have wisely taken the high road, and Wuk could take a valuable lesson from that since he is the declared candidate and you have merely suggested an interest in running. Smart strategy brother. Especially if your silence in this matter is because you disagree with me because if you do, how could I know? On the other hand, Wuk has foolishly attempted to make me wrong for attempting to urge you both to just stay on point and address the issues that matter.

I remain steadfast supporters of you both, (which given my current label as hypocrite, probably means nothing to either one of you...but,), I still admire you both, and see greatness in you both, and your attempt at engaging him directly on the issues is most admirable and very statesman's like. Especially since you are so willing to admit you have much to consider on the issue. This is what we need. More honesty and willingness to engage in real issues instead of the current POTUS and his legitimacy. Please Wuk, engage in the honest debate End has offered and illuminate us on why End might be mistaken, if he is at all.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Mutter
Join us won't you?


On the very first page of the link you provided, there is not a single thread created by you, but inexplicably, you expect me to troll through each thread to find your contributions. Fuggedaboutit! I am not required to do such work, you as a candidate are required to show me in "reality", or at the very least your prospective constituents, what it is you will do to effectively protect their rights.. I don't care how funny you are, I care how much you are willing to fight for freedom.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Tariffs will only hurt consumers. The purpose of tariffs was to even up trade practices between countries when the country's corporations were not Multi National. Hell, we have corporations based in China running things here. We have Corporations based in numerous countries running things who knows where.

Now some would say these are publicly traded companies. Bull#, those stocks are not the real stock. You know about the special stock of some companies. Hell I have only learned about those things over the last couple of years.

These frelling lawyers and politicians have things so frelling convoluted you cannot even tell who owns these companies anymore. Blind Trusts, Foundations etc etc etc.

Anyway, how can you start a tariff war with other countries when our companies are around the world. Do you think it will bring our companies back? It is like saying, we will double prices, that will help.

I know the business mathematicians will use the same formulas I know. The profit margins in regards to the Min and Max of profits. Yes, over the years the companies will slowly return. That time is gone. Over the last 30 years wages have been stagnate but costs have risen. That is part of the reason why we are in the downturn we are in. There are so many factors that doing just a little tweaking will never work.

Now the truth to how much money the Fed has printed up and given to the banks is starting to come out. The banks have SUPPOSEDLY paid the money back. That TARP money was a smidgin of the money given to the banks.

I would say about 5% we have been told about that they received. If that info gets out, you will see bankers and politicians alike in the same boat as a few years ago in France.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


But End, Corporations are people, don't you remember the SCOTUS decision? (
they should have been drug tested for that.)

Also, at what point does a business get too big? And why should they be punished for success? Big businesses weren't always big, they grew because of their own successful choices.

Now should we bail them out if they are huge and make dumb decisions that puts themselves and their stockholders at risk? No!

Should we tax the hell out of them so they send jobs overseas? No!

Should we make it so that small businesses are able to become big businesses? Yes!



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Look at the right hand side of the screen


Shesh oh Pete!



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I never said I disagreed with you, I simply allowed for the possibility that Wuk had a valid point. Given his hesitancy to engage on this issue, perhaps he doesn't. That said, you should know me well enough to know my own revulsion towards taxation in general, but that said, tariffs are def-eatable taxes, and I have seen you advocate some form of income tax, (forgive me if I am mistaken, but it seems to me that you have suggested some form of income taxation), which is not so def-eatable.

If you do indeed intend to run for office, the matter of taxation is crucial as this is absolutely necessary to running a government. Income taxation is out of the question, especially under its current revenue laws, so my big concern is how would you tax the public to run a government without punishing the public for having a government?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by endisnighe
 


But End, Corporations are people, don't you remember the SCOTUS decision? (
they should have been drug tested for that.)

Also, at what point does a business get too big? And why should they be punished for success? Big businesses weren't always big, they grew because of their own successful choices.

Now should we bail them out if they are huge and make dumb decisions that puts themselves and their stockholders at risk? No!

Should we tax the hell out of them so they send jobs overseas? No!

Should we make it so that small businesses are able to become big businesses? Yes!





Big business is antithetical to anti-trust laws all ready in place. No, we should not bail out big business and should enforce anti-trust laws that support a free market scenario. Your heart seems to be in the right place on this issue but we must tax if we are to have a government, and in doing so we must at some point realize that a big government is unsustainable, so what becomes paramount is what sort of taxation is proper and what is not? I suggest, income taxation is only proper as a direct tax only in dire circumstances and all other taxes remain in the category of indirect taxes which would include tariffs. Whether End is right about tariffs or not is not as humorous as birth certificates but a much more valid debate. But then again, I'm a "hypocrite" so what do I know?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Yeah, bringing up the Scotus on that ruling shows exactly how much you know about the Constitution and the laws enacted in this country.

Because of the FUNDAMENTAL flaws created by the UCC codes and several major takeovers by the Federal Reserve banks and the implementation of income taxes and property taxes has allowed these evil and corrupt power brokers to create EMPIRE. And you think we are going to solve it because we elect a few more people into government.

Fundamental problem with all of your ideas. They will not work. Right now we are on a cusp of two decisions. One is to remove the power of those that have created this problem in the first place and enact freedom or the other is leave their power in place and live in slavery forever. You think this mess can be turned around by just tweaking it a little with more taxes, more controls, more this, more that. You are wrong. How are you going to do it? The tax man cometh and he has all the guns.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Big government is unsustainable, that is for sure. I think that this government does need to go on a serious diet.

Take for example, the Department of Homeland Security. to me, this is a unnecessary department, I would like to see this go away. Why do we have the National Security Agency?

This government needs to go on a strict diet and part of that diet is the military itself. We need to end the wars, we need to pull our troops back, bring them home, dismantle bases around the world. We are not supposed to be the worlds police force. That would save billions in taxes.

The only way to reduce taxes and not increase the deficit. (like anyone should really care about that.) is to decrease spending, the way to do that is to eliminate government jobs, eliminate stupid bureaucracies that do too little cost too much and aren't really mandated by the Constitution.

reply to post by endisnighe
 



Yeah, bringing up the Scotus on that ruling shows exactly how much you know about the Constitution and the laws enacted in this country.


If you read correctly you would realize that I disagreed with their decision. I don't think that it's right for corporations to have the same rights as individuals. The individuals in that corporation have rights, the entity of the corporation itself should not.


Fundamental problem with all of your ideas. They will not work. Right now we are on a cusp of two decisions. One is to remove the power of those that have created this problem in the first place and enact freedom or the other is leave their power in place and live in slavery forever. You think this mess can be turned around by just tweaking it a little with more taxes, more controls, more this, more that. You are wrong. How are you going to do it? The tax man cometh and he has all the guns.


It's not as black and white as that End. The way to fix this government is the same way it got to this point to begin with. Slow methodical processes that will dwindle the size of the government, allow for more freedom, and not put people into shock.

I understand you want Anarchy, but I tell you, that will not work on a national scale. Yes, the government is too big, but it can be scaled back, it really can, there is not a law on the books that cannot be repealed. We can fix this government, now it makes it hard for anyone to want to vote for a president who's goal is the complete annihilation of the United States government. There really is supposed to be a national government in this country, it is supposed to be as small as possible, but I don't agree with you that it should be nonexistent.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


"if I ran for President, would you vote for me?"

I like your platform. Throw in free grass for sick people, bring out the free energy and stop burning oil, make America property tax free, to attract business, ban Lobbyists from government permanently, remove Patriot Act, and Patriot Act 2, and all Presidential "Decrees", "Edicts," and "Proclamations" circa 1860. Swear to protect, and defend, and follow the law therein, of the Constitution of the United States...and you have my vote!



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


See, the problem is, End would do that, except there would be NO government.

His freedom would mean, your children could get lead filled toys, paint, and hazardous drywall. (no regulations remember? Not the government's problem)

His freedom means no minimum wage, no environmental protections (hope you like bottled water)

His freedom means no regulations at all for airlines.

Sure you would get your weed, (probably all you would really want anyway
) But there would be nobody to protect the general welfare of the nation because according to End, this would be unconstitutional.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Would it be possible for me to bring over a bunch of Czechoslovakian girls and start up a "massage parlor" I promise they will all be "clean". I love free enterprise. We plan on having a "two fer" Tuesday with fresh jacuzzi water and a complementary lap dance. And for all you Fathers out there "Day Care" will be provided.

and don't forget to visit our "Toast Wagon" try our special spread. yummmm!


For our weekend special; if you come dressed in plaids and stripes; free rubber implements in an assortment of colors for you to take home to the little woman.






[edit on 8-4-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Actually, in all reality, that IS a state issue.

But why import when there are plenty of domestic available?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by whaaa
 


Actually, in all reality, that IS a state issue.

But why import when there are plenty of domestic available?



Look if there are no federal restrictions; I sure as hell don't need any state geeks telling me how to run my business! Come on my property and expect a "hillbilly surprise" takes weeks to heal. You have been warned!!

My business is my business and I'll goddamn well run it the way I see fit.
I love free enterprise. May the best entrepreneur win.

You got the money...step right up, no age restrictions, no nothing.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by the end and the what
 


You two should do a hypothetical podcast debate as if you were competing for office.

I'd have suggested JPZ to join ya but he's not into "editing" if you know what I mean ... not saying he rambles endlessly and would take him half the podcast to preface one thought, just saying.


But you two should do it.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by whatukno
 


Right now we are on a cusp of two decisions. One is to remove the power of those that have created this problem in the first place and enact freedom or the other is leave their power in place and live in slavery forever. You think this mess can be turned around by just tweaking it a little with more taxes, more controls, more this, more that. You are wrong. How are you going to do it? The tax man cometh and he has all the guns.


*PROD* *PROD* - Hey I've got questions way back on page 3! And I'll add one more to them: Will you make a Youtube of yourself in bondage gear, or possibly crawling around barking like a dog? I want to determine whether once you get to office you'll be acting like more of a public master or more of a public servant.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


If I was elected, I would follow first the State Constitution as it is written, second I would follow the US Constitution as it is written. Third I would listen to the people on their viewpoints. Fourth, I would pound the government every chance I got to eliminate any and all legislation that has been passed, that is in direct violation of either the State Constitution or the US Constitution. Been reading up on my State Constitution lately. Found something QUITE interesting amongst others. Wondering how common law is state to be followed here. If it is, I have to find the reasoning behind the use of UCC law in our Courts. Notice the part that states the Court can abrogate the Common law? But prior to it states the legislature has to be the one to do it. Something screwy is going on in this Constitution. If Common law was to be the basis of it, why does it state that either the legislature or the courts can change the law willy nilly.

Still reading this bevy of legalese.





Common law continued in force. SECTION 13. Such parts of the common law as are now in force in the territory of Wisconsin, not inconsistent with this constitution, shall be and continue part of the law of this state until altered or suspended by the legislature. Enactment of s. 905.01 is an alteration or suspension of the common law. Davison v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 75 Wis. 2d 190, 248 N.W.2d 433. The common law privilege to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest is abrogated. State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), 96−0914. This section does not codify English common law circa 1776, but preserves law that by historical understanding is subject to continuing evolution under the judicial power. The supreme court court has authority not only to alter but also to abrogate the common law when appropriate. The court’s responsibility for altering or abolishing a common law rule does not end due to legislative failure to enact a statute to the contrary. State v. Picotte, 2003 WI 42, 261 Wis. 2d 249, 661 N.W.2d 381 01−3063


There are a few more things I am having trouble understanding but I have to read some of the decisions by the courts. The WisConstitution has the court decisions on the different components listed directly in it. Gets to be a quite long read.

One has to know only two things when running for office. Their State Constitution and the US Constitution and Declaration of Independance.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join