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.
Convene a Constitutional convention and start all over again.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
You should always use logic and intellect when deciding how a govt. should run
Then none of the Republican contenders, or the incumbent, qualify for the role of President.
What do we do now?
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
In all things, balance.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The media, and politicians: the talking-head purveyors of sound-byte mental pabulum, have convinced those who self-apply a "conservative" or "tea party" label that anything that smells like someone favoring social programs is automatically bad, a socialist, and must be spit upon. Too bad we seem to have some that drink from that jug of tainted kool-aide here.
How could a large number of grown ups want big govt. to treat them like children?
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
What if you would combine both parties together as a move of compromise.
What would you have?
The right party always wants war that they can mismanage and the left will always want social programs that can be mismanaged with borderline authority over thought.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Then none of the Republican contenders, or the incumbent, qualify for the role of President.
What do we do now?
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I'm not sure any productive conversation can begin with those flawed knee-jerk assumptions that are nothing more than parroting the nonsense fabricated by the newsertainment divisions of the media.
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
There is absolutely no knee-jerk thought process in realizing that neither party care about the people
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The issue has nothing to do with parties, and everything to do with the corruption of money from the highly-financed special interests that care nothing for the people.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Remove that money, the problems become fixable.
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Originally posted by intrepid
So is the purpose of this thread to dissect the straw poll or stir up crap aimed at liberals?
See the problem is what that statement means
I understand libs are really pro-social policy but that doesn't mean 100% of those who chose that as important are libs.
I believe that social policies is big govt. treating society like children
So to me you are saying that 100% of liberals like to be treated like children and wish to empower a very corrupt and out of control federal govt. with parenthood over society.
The only possible and inevitable outcome of such a stage is fascism.
So no I don't think that 100% of liberals are pro-fascism and don't even know it
Originally posted by Flatfish
In a society as large as ours, there are many needs that can best be met on a collective, not-for-profit basis.
Originally posted by Flatfish
I've heard it said that; "The best way to judge a nation is by the way they treat the least fortunate among them." Pretty simple actually.
Originally posted by Flatfish
I voted for a more efficient government. Not saying that I got what I voted for, but then who ever does?
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I feel we have to adapt to the divide and conquer method of the powers that be
The party system is a facade, no disagreement here
I believe if you want true change it has to come from the people first
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
As a collective I agree, such as a free market for example
However not for profit?
Why not?
Profit implies accountability, profit and therefore competition drives innovation
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I believe the quote was "The best way to judge a society is seeing how they treat their animals"
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
If your income tax was lower, there was little or no inflation and less taxes overall then more people would donate and the money wouldn't get caught up in bureaucracy with secretive balance sheets.
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
You can't at all judge a nation and it's people by the outcome of forced donations, that's insane.
Originally posted by Flatfish
I voted for a more efficient government. Not saying that I got what I voted for, but then who ever does?
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
And there lies the problem
Being an idealist despite recognizing that you probably won't get what you are aiming for
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Prospective new candidates to national office are limited in their fund-raising to a formula defined by the number of people they will represent. If they receive donations, from any source, over that limit, it must be returned. Monetary donations over the cap would be illegal.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Incumbents who desire to run for reelection cannot campaign -- no more donations to reelection campaigns. They must run on their record of representing their constituents, and can only participate in a pre-defined number of debates. Monetary or any other donations to incumbents would essentially be illegal.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It's so amazingly simple. So easy to implement. And would instantly alter the entire political landscape and the motivations of those in national office. In fact, it could be argued that it would bring things back to the original intent of the founding fathers -- pure constitutionalism.
Originally posted by Flatfish
Yeah accountability, like being accountable for the toxic baby formula and carcinogenic children's jewelry coming out of China, or accountable like ENRON was to it's shareholders, or accountable like when the airlines keep collecting taxes that are not in effect just to increase their "profit" margin.
Originally posted by Flatfish
Innovation? Do you mean like the innovation it took for GM to destroy the EV1? (electric car)
Originally posted by Flatfish
Or, the innovation it takes for the oil & gas industry to actively lobby against green energy? Or innovation like it took for the private health care industry to create entire departments who's sole purpose is to find reasons to deny claims?
Originally posted by Flatfish
The only thing "profit" accomplishes is to create a motive to do less for more.
Originally posted by Flatfish
And I thank you for that response and correction as it makes my point exactly. You can go to jail in this country for not feeding your dog or your horse, but not for refusing to feed a person. Go figure!
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Your assumption that people would donate enough to pay for government is just that, an assumption. Would you become a fireman if you knew you'd only get paid on the weeks where the donations were sufficient to do so? I mean after all, you were just lying around the firehouse waiting for a fire most of the time anyway, right?
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I wouldn't describe them as forced donations. I consider it, paying my fair share and furthermore, taxes are perfectly legal and authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Consider this two-part change:
Prospective new candidates to national office are limited in their fund-raising to a formula defined by the number of people they will represent. If they receive donations, from any source, over that limit, it must be returned. Monetary donations over the cap would be illegal.
Incumbents who desire to run for reelection cannot campaign -- no more donations to reelection campaigns. They must run on their record of representing their constituents, and can only participate in a pre-defined number of debates. Monetary or any other donations to incumbents would essentially be illegal.
It's so amazingly simple. So easy to implement. And would instantly alter the entire political landscape and the motivations of those in national office. In fact, it could be argued that it would bring things back to the original intent of the founding fathers -- pure constitutionalism.
Once again as stated in the OP please consider law enforcement as a separate topic
breaking the law and entitlements are completely separate topics.
This is not about sympathy
You should always use logic and intellect when deciding how a govt. should run
that is not being unsympathetic
It's just what would result in the best possible outcome for society as a whole