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: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


You know what Whatukno? Your last response to me combined with your response to End is a great example of how difficult it can be in choosing the best candidate. While your understanding of the problems with big government makes you a very attractive candidate, especially your desire to away with DHS, but then there is your response to End over the Citizen's United ruling.

On the matter of Citizen's United, this was not a case on whether corporations have the same right as individuals, this was a case about First Amendment prohibitions on Congress. The First Amendment is not granting rights to anyone but instead telling Congress they can't write legislation that treads upon certain rights. This is an important distinction as you are running for a legislative office, and it is imperative you understand what laws you can legislate and what laws you can not.

Further, it is a crazy legend that it was SCOTUS that declared corporations as a person since the UCC clearly defines them as such, and as such courts are bound to honor that definition, or strike it down as unconstitutional of which I don't see how it is. Since it was very real human people who had to petition the FEC to gain permission to air their "documentary", and/or face the fines imposed with not complying with the FEC that have to be paid by human people, then the portion of that finance campaign law was indeed "chilling" speech of very real people, not corporations, but people.

It is going to a very hard uphill battle for you, and I don't mean your campaign, I am assuming you will be elected, and if your are that is where the real battle begins. I would feel better about you as a legislator if you understood that the First Amendment is not about who gets rights, it is about what Congress can't legislate.




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
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.


Yes, I agree with S.Dog's first thought completely. There is nothing more to add to that, and at the risk of rambling endlessly I honor the two line rule.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Except the problem being is End is running for POTUS and I am running for a seat in the House of Representatives, and have no real desire for the white house. It is my opinion that no sane individual would want the position of POTUS.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Except the problem being is End is running for POTUS and I am running for a seat in the House of Representatives, and have no real desire for the white house. It is my opinion that no sane individual would want the position of POTUS.



I am assuming this is a reply to my agreement with S-Dog's suggestion. Has End actually thrown his hat into the ring or is he just speculating? I don't think End would have a problem with debating you as if he were running for Representative.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


While I have no problem with individuals being able to spend as much money as they wish to promote or denounce a candidate. I do have a problem with corporations doing so.

The ruling is akin to allowing corporations to lobby the people directly and influence an election. I cannot agree that corporations have such a right under the Constitution. I have to say that the people individually do have such a right. But not the entity of the corporation as a whole.

The business of the federal government is mainly to the people that it represents. It should do everything it can to provide an environment where a business can prosper, but I don't think that business has any business influencing the people.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Have you seen the list of "businesses" that were allowed to denounce or discuss the candidates?

Lo and behold, they were the MSM and other Mega Corps. See how that works? Now anyone can say anything prior to an election.

The argument against the ruling was an obfuscational trick. Perpetrated by the powers in BOTH parties. They do not want anyone having a chance to denigrate either party.

I am surprised that both of the parties did not stand up and cheer Obama, when he was telling the SC they had made a mistake, with the ruling on National Television!

Now as an individual, I can create a video and release it. Now any corporation can create anything they want and release it.

Sorry, the Scotus made the right decision. Period.

It was also a red herring maneuver. What people should have been decrying was that corporations are given the same rights as individuals. See my thread here-Tell me, are you a person, citizen, resident, corporation or a HUMAN BEING?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





While I have no problem with individuals being able to spend as much money as they wish to promote or denounce a candidate. I do have a problem with corporations doing so.


Of course, as we all know, corporations are incapable of speech and must rely upon people to speak on their behalf. Corporations do not walk or talk and they most certainly don't go to jail, but people do. Just because a person, (human), takes on an official position on behalf of a corporation does not mean they waive any rights in order to do so.




The ruling is akin to allowing corporations to lobby the people directly and influence an election. I cannot agree that corporations have such a right under the Constitution. I have to say that the people individually do have such a right. But not the entity of the corporation as a whole.


Here again you reveal a fundamental flaw in your thinking which makes you a scary candidate for Congress. Especially when you use such language as "allowing". If the government, federal, state, or local, allows anything, it is through license to do that which is illegal. Congress has not been granted any license to disobey the First Amendment. That First Amendment is clear in its prohibition of legislation abridging speech. That same First Amendment does not qualify who or what has the right to speech it simply states that Congress may make no laws abridging speech.

This is of primary importance concerning members of Congress, and it is imperative that all members of Congress understand what they can and what they can not do. There is no need to consult any "Constitutional scholars" on this matter of speech, it is not at all confusing what the First Amendment say's, and if you become a member of Congress then you are not at all allowed to enact legislation that would abridge speech.




The business of the federal government is mainly to the people that it represents. It should do everything it can to provide an environment where a business can prosper, but I don't think that business has any business influencing the people.


There is much to like about your positions but it is nonsensical to think you can prevent business from influencing people. McDonald's, Coca-Cola, GM, and Microsoft, to name just a very few, have all influenced people. In fairness, I probably should just assume that you mean that business has no business influencing people in a political campaign, but of course, that sort of thinking would then necessarily mean that the press or media would have to be restrained from offering any analysis or opinion of political campaigns, which is a horrible idea, not to mention unconstitutional.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 



**PROD** **PROD**

End, I am still waiting to hear your answer to my question of taxation? It seems to me in past threads you have advocated some form of income taxation is this correct? What I would like to know is whether or not you would challenge the current revenue laws regarding income taxation and if you are advocating an income taxation would that be a direct tax upon property or an indirect tax on some sort of activities?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Sorry, I should quit writing so many threads.


Taxation, I think I went over my ideas on that in another thread, let me see if I can find it.

Yes, here we go-from this thread-If the Conservative Movement succeeds then What? My response!





# A Fair Tax will be the only allowed form of tax to be implemented EVER. A use tax, per se, something that is applied for all purchases. Their will not and cannot be a luxury or sin type tax to be installed. It will only be allowed to be across the board rates. Allowance for removal of products is a possibility, like food, clothing or possibly rental of basic living quarters. All transactions other than this need to be enforced, including such items as the transfer of stocks and the like. What I am getting at here is a consumption tax. Something that cannot be avoided by the ELITE of our country. The more you spend, the more you pay. I suggest the removal of the food and such for the benefit of the poorer of us. Their purchases are more in line with their sustenance.

# All yearly property taxes will be eliminated. When you purchase your item, you own it! The government is not allowed to continually tax you forever on something. See Fair Tax proposal. This is in regards to the Allodial Title. This is not a State issue, any detriment to completely owning property hence having to pay future taxes on said property, is a detriment to our rights of ownership. Allodium Title-"land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgement to a superior. It is thus opposed to feud." No more illegal use of Eminent Domain to take private land, if the land is needed for the use of the government that is allowed, no more better tax base bull.


Alright, in regards to the taxation system in the US.

We have different levels of government, City, County, State, and Federal. Each one has there own tax schemes. I am talking in regards to all of them. Licenses, fees, income, property, blah blah blah.

Hell, just the income tax scheme is a monster.

Here from the Cato Institute-



The U.S. "tax army" is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq. Income taxes are so complex that there are up to 1.2 million paid tax preparers in the country -- six times more than the number of troops in Iraq. The tax army includes legions of accountants, lawyers, and computer experts -- some of the best minds in the country. Unfortunately, their brainpower is adding little to the nation's standard of living.


As of right now, there is over 45,000 pages in the IRS tax code!

Let us think of the old saying K.I.S.S.-

Remove all tax schemes. All of them, no property tax, no this no that.

Break it down to a simple sales tax, ON EVERYTHING, including items like stock purchases etc etc etc. Let us slow down the world a little bit. Corruption and Fraud is fraught in complex tax systems.

So, items like food, clothing (under a preset value) and the domicile in regards to rentals to be tax free.

Certain businesses such as Farms, Health care, and other certain humanitarian type businesses could be exempt from the tax system to keep the price of those things low.

Now, we set a certain percent tax like say 25% for everything not exempt. This would be than broken up for the different levels of government.

Say of the 25%, 5% goes to the city, 10% goes to the county, 25% to the State and 60% to the Federal.

Now this does many things, it prevents fraud and corruption, it prevents the government's from being able to HIDE taxation, it prevents the government from many sundry things. It is fair and equitable to the poor and the wealthy alike.

Just my latest idea on a true and equitable taxation system. For the matter of spending, I would include a provision that if the government cannot spend within it's means, they do not get paid a dime.


[edit on 4/9/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Thanks to the supreme court, the freedom of speech rights given to corporations includes lifting the ban on campaign contributions. Which means, now, you can have blatant sponsorship of political candidates via corporations.

They can promote whatever candidate they choose, for argument sake, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals could give millions to a candidates campaign with the understanding of that candidate sponsoring legislation giving Pfizer products easier times through the FDA.

I wonder, would it be a violation of the constitution to require legislators to wear corporate logos of companies that are directly sponsoring them? After all, it would show the American people who these people are really listening to.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Wuk, you are a maddening candidate to be sure! While on the one hand, the more you keep insisting that rights are something government gives, the less I like you as a candidate, but then you turn around a say something all together likable, such as:




I wonder, would it be a violation of the constitution to require legislators to wear corporate logos of companies that are directly sponsoring them? After all, it would show the American people who these people are really listening to.


It reminds me that you are running a grassroots campaign and that can't be easy. That said, your insistence in using language that speaks of rights as if they are something to be given by government is a huge problem, and your insistence that large political donations from corporations are unacceptable reveals just more nanny state type thinking.

While people can too often act like lemmings, they do not need a government "protecting" them from the influence of large political donations. In an ideal situation voters will not vote based upon soundbites and spectacular advertising but will vote their conscience based upon the issues, and their understanding of them. Even if this ideal is not the reality, it does not excuse Congress from ignoring the First Amendment in some misguided attempt to "protect" the public from "undue" influence. There just simply is no excuse for it.

I hope you don't mind me using this post to speak to End and tell him thank you for clarifying his thoughts on taxation, and I will reply when I've had the time to consider his ideas more thoroughly. Also, I would ask the same of you, since your are running for The House of Representatives, what say you on the matter of taxation? What say you of this so called "Personal Income Tax", and how would you approach taxing the public in a way that does not punish anyone, yet manages to generate the necessary revenue to keep government running?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Should I do like other candidates and tell you what I think you want to hear instead of how I really feel?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Should I do like other candidates and tell you what I think you want to hear instead of how I really feel?



Are you serious? I mean I'm pretty sure your just being clever, but come on! I realize the matter of taxation is a difficult one, and not a very entertaining, but it is the central issue to all governments for without it government can't run. Taxation is necessary but income taxation is not. I offer the first 90 years of our country's history as evidence. If you are an advocate for income taxation then say so. If you are, it would certainly be easier to just say so, than attempt the very difficult issue of finding a better solution as End is trying to do.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   
"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The largest thing I have studied and researched is only a portion of the small part of the Declaration of Independence I have quoted. "deriving their powers from the consent of the governed."

This is probably the most powerful statement that we, as the People could ever hold but have neglected and ignored for nearly a century now. The consent to be governed flows from us, not the Central Government, yet we continue to give them more and more power.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Should I do like other candidates and tell you what I think you want to hear instead of how I really feel?



Are you serious? I mean I'm pretty sure your just being clever, but come on! I realize the matter of taxation is a difficult one, and not a very entertaining, but it is the central issue to all governments for without it government can't run. Taxation is necessary but income taxation is not. I offer the first 90 years of our country's history as evidence. If you are an advocate for income taxation then say so. If you are, it would certainly be easier to just say so, than attempt the very difficult issue of finding a better solution as End is trying to do.





You are right about taxation but it has to come with representation and it seems that the more time goes on the more this is overlooked. But we do need roads and schools and infrastructure. And the thought of not paying any taxes is in a way unpatriotic.


What we need is a fair and balanced approach for our government. We need to stop the wars and stop the foreign aid and also any bailouts. The things we need are so easy it boggles my mind why they dont do it. It is like they want it to fail or something. I would hate to think they are that incompetent. But it is either incompetence or planned there is little gray area here.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Should I do like other candidates and tell you what I think you want to hear instead of how I really feel?



Are you serious? I mean I'm pretty sure your just being clever, but come on! I realize the matter of taxation is a difficult one, and not a very entertaining, but it is the central issue to all governments for without it government can't run. Taxation is necessary but income taxation is not. I offer the first 90 years of our country's history as evidence. If you are an advocate for income taxation then say so. If you are, it would certainly be easier to just say so, than attempt the very difficult issue of finding a better solution as End is trying to do.





You are right about taxation but it has to come with representation and it seems that the more time goes on the more this is overlooked. But we do need roads and schools and infrastructure. And the thought of not paying any taxes is in a way unpatriotic.


What we need is a fair and balanced approach for our government. We need to stop the wars and stop the foreign aid and also any bailouts. The things we need are so easy it boggles my mind why they dont do it. It is like they want it to fail or something. I would hate to think they are that incompetent. But it is either incompetence or planned there is little gray area here.


Boggles the mind indeed! I would also suggest that I am right about taxation not being entertaining. Lol! It is a dry subject to be sure. I would also suggest that if we eliminated the current revenue laws regarding income taxation, this would necessarily stop all those wars, foreign aid and bailouts, or at the very least, put a crimp on government spending.

The income taxation in this country has effectively made "cheaters" out of many, and if taxation were simply left to imposts, duties and excises, these sort of taxes can be defeated so there would no such thing as "tax evasion".



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Nice try but you were still wrong last night. But tonight is a new night.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Taxes are going to be a part of your life as long as you are alive. There is no real way around it.

But, in order to lower taxes, (which is what everyone wants to hear) you have to reduce spending. Which the government has to do. Of course, you still will have to pay taxes. But it will be a less amount because there would be less things for the government to have to spend it on.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Taxes are going to be a part of your life as long as you are alive. There is no real way around it.

But, in order to lower taxes, (which is what everyone wants to hear) you have to reduce spending. Which the government has to do. Of course, you still will have to pay taxes. But it will be a less amount because there would be less things for the government to have to spend it on.







Would you not agree that the progressive movement in both parties only wants to spend and spend into oblivion. It seems a truly consrvative fiscal policy is best. The problem is the right has moved to the left and that is why things are out of control.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Subjective Truth]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Taxes are going to be a part of your life as long as you are alive. There is no real way around it.

But, in order to lower taxes, (which is what everyone wants to hear) you have to reduce spending. Which the government has to do. Of course, you still will have to pay taxes. But it will be a less amount because there would be less things for the government to have to spend it on.





Your first statement is just empty rhetoric. Who here has stated that there should be no taxation? Or are you suggesting that the so called "Personal Income Tax" will be a part of my life as long as I am alive, and that there is no way around that?

Your next statement is akin to putting the cart before the horse. Lower taxes and spending will necessarily have to be reduced or the government goes into even more debt. You are avoiding my question and attempting to "answer" it by answering some other question, of which I never asked.

What is your stance on the so called "Personal Income Tax"?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join