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.

 

We're Taking Back Our Government, and This Is What We Have To Say

page: 7
48
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuroSlam
I believe Dr. Paul has made it very clear that without the "protections" that government gives to corporations, they would have to behave or face an unprecedented number of private individual lawsuits.


Lawsuits brought by whom and with regard to what?
How are you going to sue a company for doing something that is no longer against the law for them to do? How are you going to fund it?




posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by NuroSlam
I believe Dr. Paul has made it very clear that without the "protections" that government gives to corporations, they would have to behave or face an unprecedented number of private individual lawsuits.


Lawsuits brought by whom and with regard to what?
How are you going to sue a company for doing something that is no longer against the law for them to do? How are you going to fund it?



Very good points too...

The entire idea opens up many new questions, unfortunately considerable wealth is required in this proposed world if you have a mishap. Or like in Texas where they are trying to make the loser foot the bill in for legal action, could a corporation just "out resource" the majority of individuals in every case?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
"an unprecedented number of private individual lawsuits"

I will be blunt... I think that is a load of hogwash. I actually think it is complete fantasy that is so over the top of oblivious it offends me.

First, let me thank you for your opinion, but in truth, that is all it is.


Do tell, can you drop several million dollars on a protracted lawsuit?

I cannot,,, in fact, not one person in my life could even begin to fund a high value suit.

Monopolies can thrive in any circumstance sire, look at the genesis of the word itself... Older than this country or its current regulations.

Please explain how this wave of private suits is going to make the corporation quiver, more over explain who will fund this wave and how you will prove the genesis of things like pollution and mutual collusion. Both things are inherent benefits of power and excessive resources.

I cannot afford a lawyer and I am unable to maintain a protracted lawsuit

I am not going to attempt to educate you to the ideas of Austrian Economics, that's better left to people like Hyack, Haslet and others. I will say this, that its a loser pays world in free market lawsuits. Imagine if you will, that in this little fantasy world, there was no cap on civil lawsuits like the one that said BP couldn't be sued for more then X dollars, Now scratch your head a moment and think about what would happen if every person in the gulf sued BP. You don't think if they had the choice to drill in 500 as opposed to 5000 feet of water, they wouldn't choose the actual safer place to drill? For one, no insurance company would in their right mind insure such an operation knowing the potential for litigation. It is without a doubt the government "regulation" system that this crap to continue. But why shouldn't it, keep the eye off the true enemy of man through history and put it on some fictitious entity that has somehow granted the positive right to acquire property as opposed to the individual so accountability doesn't exist.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by NuroSlam
I believe Dr. Paul has made it very clear that without the "protections" that government gives to corporations, they would have to behave or face an unprecedented number of private individual lawsuits.


Lawsuits brought by whom and with regard to what?
How are you going to sue a company for doing something that is no longer against the law for them to do? How are you going to fund it?


Brought by the individual in regards to harm and damage to property or life. If it violates someone's right to life, liberty and or property it is a crime. it mainly handled by arbitrators. Since arbitration requires a consensus of the parties in question and since loser pays as long as your case is solid, there should be little issue of getting an arbitrator to take on a corp.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuroSlam
Now scratch your head a moment and think about what would happen if every person in the gulf sued BP. You don't think if they had the choice to drill in 500 as opposed to 5000 feet of water, they wouldn't choose the actual safer place to drill?


I couldn't sue a flee myself, maybe you could loan me $9,000 retainer for the filing? In the case of BP, you have a deep water diving machine you can spare, a couple scientists too, a lab, several dozen experts???

Individuals create corporations to buffer themselves from legal action, there is little if any potential, personal financial harm for the owner or the agents of a corporation.

Would you risk your job for a billion dollars? These's your answer, that is risk equation you and Paul fail to see.

BTW you cannot sue someone for damages if you are not a party to the suit, i.e I you cannot sue me for running over my neighbor, I cannot not sue BP for destroying a 20th of the worlds oceans, because I do not own that ocean and it has caused me no provable harm.

there are holes everywhere my friend, think harder, it is sieve of a proclamation
edit on 4-8-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SpringHeeledJack
 


please tell me your not serious about having religious leaders evolved in running this country. i think all have seen the major mistakes and catastrophes made by religious leaders.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

I couldn't sue a flee myself, maybe you could loan me $9,000 retainer for the filing? In the case of BP, you have a deep water diving machine you can spare, a couple scientists too, a lab, several dozen experts???

What you personally think you can or cannot do is not the issue. If your case is solid, without the governments protections granted to companies it would be very possible to sue.


Individuals create corporations to buffer themselves from legal action, there is little if any potential, personal financial harm for the owner or the agents of a corporation.
And yet you don't support getting rid of these protections


Would you risk your job for a billion dollars? These's your answer, that is risk equation you and Paul fail to see.

BTW you cannot sue someone for damages if you are not a party to the suit, i.e I you cannot sue me for running over my neighbor, I cannot not sue BP for destroying a 20th of the worlds oceans, because I do not own that ocean and it has caused me no provable harm.

there are holes everywhere my friend, think harder, it is sieve of a proclamation
edit on 4-8-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

I believe that everyone living on the gulf coast has been harmed by the BP spill, so my statement stands, or did you not read "everyone in the gulf"?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
This is about the last thing I need. A bunch of angry Christian extremists who are more worried about gay marriage than taking care of poor and sick children are not going to take back my America for me. My America has room for both them and my self in it. Their America sounds like a terrible place.

I would rather live in an America filled with angry Christians (and rightly so) than an America overrun by Islam. It is NOT America's job, duty or responsibility to take care of the world. LEAST OF ALL, when leeches like Putin publicly demean our country and calls us, The United States of America, a "PARASITE" on the world. Keep your America for a fountain cannot dispense both sweet water and filthy water at the same time... to paraphrase.

The first paragraph is a quote from an earlier post. The second.. Mine.
edit on 8/4/2011 by FrankieNinja because: Clarification.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
i fully support the tone of this letter. only an idiot would say this country is in great shape. the argument that we shouldnt do anything because what would we replace our current system with is akin to saying were diving over a cliff and not turning because we dont know the absolute best direction to take. sometimes you have to make a decision now. sometimes you have time to plan. this country is running out of time and the edge of the cliff is getting closer.

though personaly i think we have time but we have to act soon or it will only be more dificult to prevent catastophry. you cant keep paying the credit card bills by taking out new credit cards it just wont work the fact that our government has done so year after year has left us with a bill that will take generations to pay, and if their just gonna keep doing the same thing why pay the debt? lets increase spending/borrowing/letting the next generation pay it. we are a nation of debt junkies and maybe we need to get our fill before we can quit



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
WE THE PEOPLE aren't you if you're not on the side of WE THE PEOPLE.
That means that if you're against WE THE PEOPLE removing a corrupt tyrannical government and their subsidiary corporations, then you're an ENEMY of WE THE PEOPLE.

does that clarify it for you???

edit on 4-8-2011 by anumohi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Where was this "WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK" rants and nonsense when Bush was President?

Can't wait to hear all these folks who preach so called Liberty (based on their ideologies, of course) shut up when a Republican gets into office. Then they'll act like the country has been saved.

Hypocrisy.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


I find this notion that it's only because a liberal's in office absurd. Bush was just as bad as Barry, if not worse, and I was saying the same things then that I am now. We're not arguing political parties or ideologies here, we're arguing the case for respect of freedom.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ForeverDusk
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


I find this notion that it's only because a liberal's in office absurd. Bush was just as bad as Barry, if not worse, and I was saying the same things then that I am now. We're not arguing political parties or ideologies here, we're arguing the case for respect of freedom.


You claim you were making the same argument under the Bush Administration. Well, you were part of a minority. Many Tea Partiers and Conservatives were "living life" when the Texan cowboy was ruining things for America. Now a Democrat is in office, they must resort to gossip, rumors, scandals, and anything they can get a hold of to bash the current President.

Granted, Obama isn't my favorite but I'm extremely grateful to live in this country compared to North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Are things rough? Of course. But we must not forget that Obama did not begin this mess...which is what many close minded individuals believe.

By the way, I don't want my country back. I want it forward. I want Planned Parenthood to survive. I want gay marriage to be legalized in all 50 states. I want marijuana to be legal. I want the drug war to end in general actually. I want this country to progress and move forward.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by anumohi
WE THE PEOPLE aren't you if you're not on the side of WE THE PEOPLE.
That means that if you're against WE THE PEOPLE removing a corrupt tyrannical government and their subsidiary corporations, then you're an ENEMY of WE THE PEOPLE.

does that clarify it for you???

edit on 4-8-2011 by anumohi because: (no reason given)


There is a huge difference between teaming up to remove something and deciding what to replace it with. So maybe we will clean out Washington before we turn on each other. Either way, we can all be against the corrupt government but that hardly puts us all on the same page, same team, same ideas.

Let's say I just say screw it and get in line behind you guys and help in your revolution. Then...when all that is said and done. We are all going to totally agree on how to proceed next, right?

People need to stop pitting people in corners they do not belong in. There is an old man that lives down the street that hates the government...almost as much as he hates dark people. Yeah, he and I can agree that we need to do something about the government. What do you think the chances really are that this 70 year old KKK wannabe and myself are going to be working toward the same goals?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuroSlam
Brought by the individual in regards to harm and damage to property or life. If it violates someone's right to life, liberty and or property it is a crime.


What you are advocating is regulations. The same regulations that Paul is against.


it mainly handled by arbitrators. Since arbitration requires a consensus of the parties in question and since loser pays as long as your case is solid, there should be little issue of getting an arbitrator to take on a corp.


Notice how you did not even actually answer the question I asked? Yeah, I noticed that too.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ForeverDusk
 


I've been ready. This sh*t in the white house is nothing but pure evil. This sh*t in the congress is nothing but pure evil with very few exceptions. We either do it now or watch this bastered in the white house declare martial law. He's (obama) .. little o on purpose) a f**king fake and most americans are fat zombies. I'm going to enjoy watching their sorry fat asses get marched off to Fema camps and stuffed into one of those coffins.. Hard to imagine these idiots waking up in time.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by NuroSlam
 


Let's take a look inside your corporate utopia for a moment.

President Ron Paul removes all those evil regulations on companies such as the ones preventing lead based paint in toys for toddlers and infants.

You find out your 9 year old child suffers severe mental disabilities most likely due to exposure to lead.

Who do you sue?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
Very good points too...

The entire idea opens up many new questions, unfortunately considerable wealth is required in this proposed world if you have a mishap. Or like in Texas where they are trying to make the loser foot the bill in for legal action, could a corporation just "out resource" the majority of individuals in every case?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by anumohi
WE THE PEOPLE aren't you if you're not on the side of WE THE PEOPLE.
That means that if you're against WE THE PEOPLE removing a corrupt tyrannical government and their subsidiary corporations, then you're an ENEMY of WE THE PEOPLE.

does that clarify it for you???

edit on 4-8-2011 by anumohi because: (no reason given)


There is a huge difference between teaming up to remove something and deciding what to replace it with. So maybe we will clean out Washington before we turn on each other. Either way, we can all be against the corrupt government but that hardly puts us all on the same page, same team, same ideas.

Let's say I just say screw it and get in line behind you guys and help in your revolution. Then...when all that is said and done. We are all going to totally agree on how to proceed next, right?

People need to stop pitting people in corners they do not belong in. There is an old man that lives down the street that hates the government...almost as much as he hates dark people. Yeah, he and I can agree that we need to do something about the government. What do you think the chances really are that this 70 year old KKK wannabe and myself are going to be working toward the same goals?


I have read through all of your posts and you seem to simply criticize everything being said. Instead, why don't you offer solutions and not worry about making everyone in America happy. Of course there will be disagreements among the people...there already is, everywhere. So, I already know you disagree with the OP, but now offer some solutions that might, in your mind, progress this thread in some way. If you are saying that the OP is wrong then you have voiced your opinion and there really is no point to keep arguing with people that agree with the OP. It then seems that you are angry that certain people are not agreeing with you...which seems hypocritical.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
so when is this call to action



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join