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.

 

So you want to fix America? Here are four simple ways to start

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiggyMcBigPants
reply to post by beezzer
 

I hate this particular topic. I go back and forth between wanting regulation and wanting a "free market". There should be a middle ground because I think both full regulation and a fully "free market" are both ideas that have the potential to backfire greatly. But what kind of middle ground could there be between these two polar opposites?


A true free market society would end up regulating itself. Companies with poor products would go away becaue no one would give them money. People with safe, good products would thrive, becase that is what people want.

When governments "regulate", they try to even the playing field. And so poor companies are allowed to thrive on subsities provided by the government.




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Nice list OP!

Also, it's nice to see that there is some conservative support for #1. A couple of years ago, there were a series of threads in which all ATS conservatives were being critical of Obama for suggesting mandatory public service (which was a lie to begin with). Here is an example: Obama Calls For Mandatory Government Service

I fear that #1 would be too much of a financial burden on the taxpayer, unless those in service are producing goods to sell overseas (to pay their salary). In regards to #2, 3 &4, I see no reason to not implement those immediately.


edit on 4-2-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
#1 is unconstitutional.

If you want to go that route, repeal the 13th amendment first.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BiggyMcBigPants
 


Thanks. And I agree. In the U.S. we tend to belittle careers that do not require college, whereas in Europe, quality craftsmen are highly respected. I lived in CA for ten years and people there do have a higher respect for vocations. In general though, we should do far more in the way of tracking people not bound for college towards vocational training in any of hundreds of careers.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


You are incorrect and certainly were not alive apparently when the Vietnam draft was in place. In any event:

"The Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit the government from compelling citizens to perform certain civic duties, such as serving on a jury (Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 93 S. Ct. 1157, 35 L. Ed. 2d 508 [1973]) or participating in the military draft (Selective Draft Law cases, 245 U.S. 366, 38 S. Ct. 159, 62 L. Ed. 349 [1918])."

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by bozzchem
 


You are incorrect and certainly were not alive apparently when the Vietnam draft was in place. In any event:

"The Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit the government from compelling citizens to perform certain civic duties, such as serving on a jury (Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 93 S. Ct. 1157, 35 L. Ed. 2d 508 [1973]) or participating in the military draft (Selective Draft Law cases, 245 U.S. 366, 38 S. Ct. 159, 62 L. Ed. 349 [1918])."

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...


Good luck drafting me.

I don't need people in black robes to interpret the Constitution/Bill of Rights for me.



edit on 4-2-2011 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


So if you won't listen to people in black robes, you must have little to no respect for that same Constitution. You cannot have it both ways. And if you won't listen to the Judiciary, I would hope you'd not expect anyone to listen to you, who I presume is far less qualified to know the law -- ergo, you are an anarchist, right? I mean anything else makes zero logical sense in terms of your position.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
1. MANDATORY TWO YEAR DRAFT FOR NATIONAL SERVICE FOR ALL, INCLUDING CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS...BUT NOT NECESSARILY FOR MILITARY SERVICE


...good-bye to our feeble attempt at democracy and hello mandatory indentured servitude... no thx...


Originally posted by pajoly
2. FULL REPEAL OF THE PATRIOT ACT


...agreed...


Originally posted by pajoly
3. TAX ALL CHURCHES THAT ENGAGE IN OVERT POLITICS



...no... tax church income (just like a business) regardless of their politics...


Originally posted by pajoly
4. CONSITUTIONALLY ELIMINATE CORPORATE PERSONHOOD


...agreed but not for all the reasons you stated...


Originally posted by pajoly
So friends, these are my concrete things I think need to change and if are changed will take America back to a nation that is both prosperous and just, where its people see themselves as fellows and not adversaries.


...the usofa has never been "just" in policy application (domestic or foreign) - so, we cant go back to something we've never been...

..."fellows" indicates you're still living in the 19th century but thats just a humorous poke...



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by bozzchem
 


So if you won't listen to people in black robes, you must have little to no respect for that same Constitution. You cannot have it both ways. And if you won't listen to the Judiciary, I would hope you'd not expect anyone to listen to you, who I presume is far less qualified to know the law -- ergo, you are an anarchist, right? I mean anything else makes zero logical sense in terms of your position.


How wrong you are! I have respect for the Constitution but not for men whom I never agreed to as those worthy of telling me what it says when I am fully capable of reading it as well as the documents those who coined the original document wrote.

As far as the judiciary goes? You are correct. I have no respect for them - NONE.

If your definition of an anarchist is someone who deems themself a free man with inalienable rights endowed by their creator and not by their employees? Yes, then I am an anarchist. Your understanding of the term is in question but I'll not bother since it seems that it would be the equivalent of conversing with a wind up doll.

You on the other hand are obviously a statist who believes that the will of the state trumps all and would be the first to use force to put me in check...and others who think as I do.

If you or anyone wishes to subjugate me against my will to act as your servant, make no mistake that doing so will be seen as an act of aggression that will be met with the force required to equalize it. I will die on my feet before living on my knees.


“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” - Samuel Adams


If you wish to place me into servitude, strap on a set, head my way and let's see what you've got. If you would use others to foment your malevolent thoughts and activities based upon legal opinions by the very same who are paid by the state, you are no better than those who were deposed initially.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   
I agree with everything outside the first.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I'm more curious in your ideas to implement any one of these on a national level than the concepts themselves.

Ideas and opinions are fine, but actually going out and organizing your community are the important parts.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
OP; I tend to agree with some of this... but I don't believe you have really rooted out the problem. Maybe a few more addendums be added to the list?

5.) No direct family member of any POTUS should ever be allowed to hold office. Anywhere. Period.

6.) None of a POTUS staff or VP should be allowed to work for another POTUS or Congress after the POTUS they worked for term is up.

7.) Senators should be limited to 1 term, no more than that, and after which may not become POTUS or a Represenative in Federal Gov't.

8.) Represenatives should not be allowed more than two terms. And if they serve both terms they cannot then move on to the Senate or become POTUS.

9.)Vp's should be the 2nd highest presidential vote reciever in an election.

Basically unless we start allowing the minds of real Americans into Gov't we can't fix crap. The career politicians are not going to fix anything because public service has become a job for them instead of a patriotic duty. Worst of all they are breeding their families to stay in power.

We need the opinions of thoughtful Americans in power for short periods. We don't need to be electing officials who never do anything but work on their next campaign.

I will star and flag the thread, and I applaud your ideas. But sorry to say, America will never do anything that of which you suggest, until we get rid of the idea of career politics. Only then can it become possible to take steps toward fixing the US.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


Good lord you are a piece of work and feeling fairly special aren't you. I get of kick of you forum faux bad asses tossing threats around. Nothing you are saying is logical, but let's not let that get in the way of you misplaced belligerence. You purport a love of the Constitution, yet deny the State's right to ask you to come to its defense. You are enjoying the benefits of a civil society or are you not driving on roads we pay for? You are the sort that loves what he can get, but is not so good at giving, save for threats.

As a claimed freedom lover and Constitution admirer, I find it convenient you forgot the drafts during those same Revolutionary years and all the major wars subsequent. No doubt if you'd have been called up then, you have peacocked up like you are now, than gone back to your mother's couch.

You want to enjoy the benefits of living "free" without owing anything to the society and the blood of my brothers in years past that enabled you to get fat behind your keyboard making threats. Ten to one says you cry to the state if you call 911 when someone jingles your door handle and no cop comes running, and then you turn around and puff up like a rooster crowing about your freedom not to serve.

Where I come from, there is a simple word for you, it begins with a "p" and ends with a "y" and is much like "cat."



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by OatDelphi
 


Some interesting ideas, here, but it sort of sounds like wanting the government to set rules to save us from the government.

The restrictions you propose assume a priori that the family members of anyone who has served in politics are corrupt, as are the people themselves.

And given the current state of affairs, there is some justification in this assumption.

But the restrictions proposed go too far, especially when we consider that we the Board of Directors of the US Gov't can fire anybody we want at review time (AKA elections). And if we fire someone by voting them out, but they amazingly get "reelected" then it will become obvious and the next step may then be taken.

We the voters need to stop buying the BS spewed by the career politicos and fire their asses. How is it, for example, that John Boehner keeps getting reelected? He is famous for being a corporate lap dog. And there are plenty of ties between Pelosi and the corporate laps as well.

So instead of trying to have the government save us from themselves by implementing a bunch of restrictions that they'll just get around anyway, seems to me the best idea is to vote the buggers out.

The only way a politician can become "career" is if people keep voting for them.

ETA: Your #9 has some merit, especially if combined with the dissolution of the Electoral College and the president and vice are elected by pure popular vote.
edit on 6-2-2011 by Open_Minded Skeptic because: Finishing thought.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Some interesting ideas, here, but it sort of sounds like wanting the government to set rules to save us from the government.
You are right, I must admit this... it's true we would first half to vote the standing out before we can put in people who will actually consider stuff like this.


The restrictions you propose assume a priori that the family members of anyone who has served in politics are corrupt, as are the people themselves.

And given the current state of affairs, there is some justification in this assumption.
Jeb Bush = justification



ETA: Your #9 has some merit, especially if combined with the dissolution of the Electoral College and the president and vice are elected by pure popular vote.
That is exactly where I am going with this concept.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I love the list, although putting them to practical use will present a logistical dilema considering the state of the U.S. I am completely for #1, mandatory military service, when it comes to reforming our youth, disciplining them, giving them perspective, and making the country more internationally and politically aware. I proposed the same thing on ATS a while ago and it got shot down hard not because of the benefits it gives to our youth and the people, but because of the logistical challenge it presents. I'm assuming everyone will be getting paid for their 2 years of service, but what does the government have to gain from this financially? Yes, the government will raise a huge military, but that will just drain an even larger percentage of money into military spending, which is already disproportionally large to begin with.

So I like your idea of national service a lot. I would like to see a system where for 2 years everyone gets some options, whether it be public service, civil service, scientific research, military service, etc, and they get to choose how they will serve under the mentorship of real service members. In this way, through various projects, hopefully the government can gain some useful returns from the work of the conscripted youth.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
100% agree with mandatory military service. Cry all you want about it infringing on your rights. Honestly though, anyone with unfounded strong opinions (good or bad) about the war or citizens that sign the dotted line should reserve their comments until they have some experience. Especially the folks that walk around with an undeserved sense of entitlement. Given everything, working for nothing.

@ Bozzchem. Anyone can talk big on an internet forum
If it came to it and someone threatened you with violence, you'd probably crumble. Those that talk the biggest, react smallest. "Strap on a set and come my way, put ME in servitude.....blah, blah" Down with establishment man.
Go up to a cop and tell them nobody can hold you to the rules and attack him/her to get your point across. You wont die on your feet, but you'll definitely be in jail living on your knees.
At least you'll be making someone happy.
edit on 18-4-2011 by ncoic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 


#1 is unconstitutional.

As a veteran, you took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Change your mind about that?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I think a couple of European countries have the two year mandatory service requirement, but it isn't all military. A lot of the service is civic service like working with the department of transportation or another gov. agency in public works. The kids actually learn a skill and chose to stay in that career in lieu of college. It works there. I don't know if it would work here though because our government is so corrupt and in bed with corporations. I am afraid the government would pimp out our kids to these corps as little more than slave labor. So I can see where the resistance is coming from. We are just not set up as a nation to implement mandatory service.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


Son, and I say that because I feel that you are young, . . . the problems that we face with regulation in our food/water/energy/healthcare ARE A RESULT OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

Whenever the government pokes it's ugly head into an industry, we are scroomed!!!!



i'm 58 years old, and the "problems we face" are a lack of, or a corruption of, government intervention. corporations and companys that have millions and/or billions in profits at stake, do not care how our government takes care of it's people, so long as it's profits remain intact. there are so many examples of this throughout even the last few decades.
if it wasn't for government regulation, alot more of us would be in deep shaat.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join