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.

 

I Am The State – You Must Beg Me For Permission To Engage In Productive Behavior

page: 2
34
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 



So the message is clear. Even if you have a lifetime of credentials and outstanding service to the government, it means nothing if it is decided that you must be discredited. Welcome to the church of State & Media in all of it's glorious union.


Or they will destroy you just to advance their career.

I think the most disgusting example was that of Scott Harshbarger who STILL rides the unjustified persecution of the Amiraults to continued Political fame and fortune.

(Local papers said the kids recanted their testimony but the "State" in the form of Scott Harshbarger would not allow the information to be admitted to court)

It has been shown how easy it is to "Implant" false memories in young children. Despite that evidence and NO collaborating physical evidence the Amiraults remained in jail because of Harshbarger's POLITICAL CAREER!


The methods used to brainwash the Fells Acres accusers, turning healthy children into screaming wrecks, are themselves a devastating form of child abuse. By discrediting such methods at Fells Acres, we are likely to save hundreds, even thousands of children in the future.
www.cyberussr.com...




Harshbarger and the Amirault Case




Just about everybody has agreed that that this case was a huge miscarriage of justice that put 3 people in jail for crimes they did not commit.

Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal has exposed the systematic fabrication of evidence in this case....

.... "the mockery of reason and justice -- that began when District Attorney Scott Harshbarger mounted a sensational case of child sex abuse against the Amirault family, owners of the Fells Acres Day School in Malden. That was 1984. Today, Scott Harshbarger is the president of Common Cause, spokesman for all the latest in progressive-liberal enlightenment, and Gerald Amirault remains in prison, where he has been for nearly 14 years, with 20 years or more left to serve." Governor Cellucci's Chance, The Wall Street Journal Thursday, April 20, 2000

Why Swift should free Amirault By James M. Shannon, Boston Globe, 8/17/2001

"Former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger made a political career by framing the Amirault family on child sex abuse charges."
www.zpub.com...

edit on 12-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by goldentorch
 




Firstly if you are referring to the offences alluded to in my post then the practices existed because there were actually no ordinances in place.....



GUESS WHAT??? You just met one. My business is not regulated at all. We are VERY VERY safety conscious because we do not want to get our rears sued off.

I provide a good product and the price is reflected by that quality. A business MUST make money to stay in business but the price charged also reflects the competition's price and what the consumer is willing to pay.

For example I used to board my horse at a hack stable. He rented out horses during the summer. He insured his business for the six months he did business. (If it is 20 below you do not ride you ski
)

The insurance company and their buddies in the government decided he had to be insured year round. His customers were not willing to pay the additional cost of insurance. That industry is now totally extinct in that state.
edit on 12-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I feel you should ask the question what law has brought a punishment. You're back again with your anti-law corporate fuedalism. I live in the UK and you sound like a Baron. You have no wish to control the PTB. What law has ever had any use. What point is there pointing to a singular law in such a fashion. What about the codefying of principals as set down in the Magna Carta something that American Libetarians hold so dear as a freeing from Royal interests whilst practising Baronial interests. It did not mean much to the peasants believe you me. Still doesn't.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 




What about a chemical?

Am I suppose to be able to analyze chemicals I ingest and know the long term effects?


That is real simple. you head down to the library and get the Handbook of Hazardous Chemical Properties. Or you can buy it on Amazon (Yes it exists)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by goldentorch
 




Firstly if you are referring to the offences alluded to in my post then the practices existed because there were actually no ordinances in place.....



GUESS WHAT??? You just met one. My business is not regulated at all. We are VERY VERY safety conscious because we do not want to get our rears sued off.

I provide a good product and the price is reflected by that quality. A business MUST make money to stay in business but the price charged also reflects the competition's price and what the consumer is willing to pay.

For example I used to board my horse at a hack stable. He rented out horses during the summer. He insured his business for the six months he did business. (If it is 20 below you do not ride you ski
)

The insurance company and their buddies in the government decided he had to be insured year round. His customers were not willing to pay the additional cost of insurance. That industry is now totally extinct in that state.
edit on 12-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)


Oh crikey don't take it personal mate. I could quote many individual business people that have provided over and above so to speak.
So I have to ask you what about the stables that are abusing their animals. In fact what if there are no standards laid down. So don't take it personal I know there are white hats out there. It's the others we need defending against.
The thing is we all have a point. Some regulation is desirable some is over intrusive.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by goldentorch
 




I feel you should ask the question what law has brought a punishment....


The real question is what law has brought a punishment and to WHOM.

Here in the USA the FDA and USDA are solidly in the pockets of the Ag Cartel. Heck the lawyer for Monsanto RUNS the FDA!!!!

Shielding the Giants shows how the USDA punished John Munsell for pointinjg out ConAgra was shipping contaminated beef. A WOMAN DIED thanks to that USDA cover up and despite Congressional investigations NO ONE WAS CHARGED!!!!!

John even contacted a lawyer because he could not get the USDA to shut ConAgra down. He wrote this article:

One E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak I Think I could have Prevented



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


You can't be serious...

The library?

We aren't talking about pure elements...

OEHHA Identifies 39 New Chemicals for Evaluation Under Proposition 65
www.natlawreview.com...

And Amazon.com?

Now we have to depend on corporations to tell us what to be careful of?



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


So rather than using the MDS (Material Data Safety Sheets) which are provided free of charge by OSHA (Occupational Hazard and Safety Administration) you would encourage people to pay money for information that could be life saving?

Don't forget that the MDS and OSHA exist because of laws designed to insure safety in the workplace through open knowledge of the "material" being handled. I'd also wager a day's wages that the publisher of the book you speak of sourced the MDS extensively.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Now we have to depend on corporations to tell us what to be careful of?


If you need the State to tell you what to be careful of, I feel sorry for you.

Do you think a corporation would do anything that intentionally harms their customers if they could help it?

If they are using cheap or somewhat dangerous materials, isn't that because people don't want to pay for expensive or safer materials?

Shouldn't consumers be able to decide on their own what level of safety the products they buy should have?

Shouldn't people have the choice of purchasing cheap/dangerous products rather than having to buy expensive/safer products if they want to?

Should the State prohibit me from buying something that might hurt me, even if I know full well that it is dangerous to my health?



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


So you're actually saying that private enterprise runs the corruption of government but private enterprise is the only way out of said corruption. Way to go!!!



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by goldentorch
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


So you're actually saying that private enterprise runs the corruption of government but private enterprise is the only way out of said corruption. Way to go!!!



I'm saying government is the corporate gun.

Microsoft can't loot you or force you to buy its software.

But Microsoft sure as hell can lobby Washington to make you buy its software with your tax dollars. Almost all government owned computers use the Windows operating system and pay Microsoft licensing fees.

Let me tell you, there is an epic ton of government computers and Microsoft is making money on every single one of them.



edit on 12-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If they are using cheap or somewhat dangerous materials, isn't that because people don't want to pay for expensive or safer materials?


By why would I bother spending the money to make something safe if I can sell you something dangerous that you believe is safe?


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Shouldn't people have the choice of purchasing cheap/dangerous products rather than having to buy expensive/safer products if they want to?


I completely agree.

But this issue is about knowledge.

edit on 12-8-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

But this issue is about knowledge.


If a company willfully sells you a dangerous product while lying to you about the products safety, then that constitutes fraud.

Fraud can be remedied by a civil suit, no regulations required.

However, if a company sells you a dangerous product and is open and honest about the danger of the product, then shouldn't consumers have a right to be able to purchase that product?

Cigarettes come to mind.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
It is sad that so many can't fathom doing anything without permission from some authority to tell them what to do etc. Regulation protects markets for the politically connected period. It does not protect consumers as it is sold to the public. For instance the FDA hardly does any inspections anymore they laid off most of their inspectors and claim to have implemented some self policing system. They only inspect if there is a complaint and then they often ignore the complainant and use the opportunity to put some non-politically connected business out of business that had nothing to do with the complaint. Like raw milk for instance.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Fair enough but in the case of cigarettes the legislation was there to cover people but corrupt politicians ( individual entrepenuers ), decided we didn't know what was best for us. We sell you buy, free enterprise! Shut up.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by goldentorch
 




Oh crikey don't take it personal mate. I could quote many individual business people that have provided over and above so to speak.
So I have to ask you what about the stables that are abusing their animals. In fact what if there are no standards laid down. So don't take it personal I know there are white hats out there. It's the others we need defending against.
The thing is we all have a point. Some regulation is desirable some is over intrusive.


About abuse. I have run into it on more than one occasion. Normally it is a matter of ignorance and I have rectified that several times. Sometimes it is due to illness or a change in financial situation. Again being "Neighborly" is the correct solution not calling the cops.

If it is true abuse you can buy the animals or drive the guy out of business (I ended up in business for the specific reason that I wanted to drive an abusive person out of business and I did.)

I am not an anarchist. I think we have to have laws but we also need to keep those laws to a bare minimum.

As thinking people we have to determine how a law can be used to abuse the innocent ansd that is the thing I think many many people mis.

In trying to prevent abuse of animals we now have the USDA trying to fine the Dollarites $4 million LINKY Thanks to new laws and reams of regulations. Yet there were ALREADY laws on the books to prevent Animal abuse here in the USA going all the way back to April of 1866.

The big problem with the new laws is they are designed not to prevent Animal Abuse but to prevent people from going into business.

Can you tell me any reason Why a USDA agent said I had to spend over $100,000 to fence in 90 AC of lob lolly pine. How the heck is fencing a commercial FOREST preventing ABUSE of a herd of sheep?????? Sheep pastured on the 12 ac that were cleared.



If you step back and look at the laws as a method of protecting a monopoly for the Ag Cartel then all of a sudden the idiotic laws make sense. Not only in the USA but else where.

I suggest you read The Battle to Save the Polish Countryside and History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job


They plus SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA's “Don't Look, Don't Know” Policy show how the legal process has been abused to intentionally run independents out of business and that it has been done for nearly a century.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Don't forget building permits.

If I want to extend my front porch 3 feet, so I can have a good spot for my telescope on it, it will cost me 500.00 for a building permit.

It is beyond ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
Don't forget building permits.

If I want to extend my front porch 3 feet, so I can have a good spot for my telescope on it, it will cost me 500.00 for a building permit.

It is beyond ridiculous.


Unfortunately you come under the same rules that say you can't build a 50 storey skyscraper on 2x4" batons. Sad but true. You don't have to change the law but alter it's parameters.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by goldentorch

Originally posted by hadriana
Don't forget building permits.

If I want to extend my front porch 3 feet, so I can have a good spot for my telescope on it, it will cost me 500.00 for a building permit.

It is beyond ridiculous.


Unfortunately you come under the same rules that say you can't build a 50 storey skyscraper on 2x4" batons. Sad but true. You don't have to change the law but alter it's parameters.


How about we just let architects build buildings and the people who pay for them pay for them.

This way no one has to get robbed by State bureaucrats.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Yes I agree with you about things designed to apparently stopping you going in to business. I feel this is a wider political issue than the neccesity of certain regulations for the benefits of health and safety.
The politicians again?



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join