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 had to look that up are you trying to make me feel stupid?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by XPLodER
Can you not distinguish between unalienable rights and civil rights? Do you have no idea what it means to possess unalienable rights? No individual anywhere needs any goddamned consensus to enjoy unalienable rights. No goddamned democracy is needed, no goddamned republic is needed as the rights exist with or without government.
The more you insist on blathering on and on and on about democracy the more sure I am you are a threat to freedom. Not a threat to government, you're not. Just a threat to freedom.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by XPLodER
i had to look that up are you trying to make me feel stupid?
In my experience, stupid people do not bother to look up words in a dictionary. This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, make you erudite.
well i had to look up erudite as well lol
so i guess my learning not finished yet
The point you keep missing over and over...sport...is that democracy is just another form of governance and as long as so many are willing to couch rights into boxes like citizenship (I get that you owned up to that usage and it appears as if you thought it inappropriate to use as you did) or as inalienable rights, or civil rights, then we are going to have out of control government trampling all over those rights. That is the very real and serious problem across the world, that so few are willing to actually defend unalienable rights and would instead rather ramble on and on and on about democracy.
im going to pretend sport is a term of indeerment
i wish people would "exercise" their unaliable rights,
i would love to see people use the language that instills these rights,
my god given rights ect
i want people to get together and discuss how to protect their and the comunities unaliable rights.
when people get togther in support of these unaliable rights and moral codes
and discuss how to make a stronger country through unity,
express the ideas of freedom and what it means to live in a republic.
while in a public place in a comunity of people who are all equal to express share and remember these rights and that EVERYBODY has them and all are equal in doing so.
when everyone is equal and all are working for the comunity then "democracy" only applies to how people interact withoin that comunity
everyone with equal unalialbe rights equally aloowed to speak or help or eat or just "be" in an equal footing with everyone else
i wounder if me using democracy in this new definition is aceptable,
but the word seamed to sum up the co-operation of a society to produce "equalness" in the social setting
xploder
i want people to discuss what is happing in the world and care enough about the other people around them to acually try to do something legal positive and inspiring
Originally posted by XPLodER
the media are so infatuated with what there idea of demacracy should be the miss what organic democracy means,
i watched RT Today and only one of the comentators could understand a key point to the OWS protest,
the democracy we are told is the only democracy is one where corperations tell the leaders what they want in the bills that govern us.
organic leaderless democracy is where the acual people decide what they want to see in the bills before congress.
the fact that all people must be free to speek and a true consensus must be achived shows the difference between the
corperate driven legislation,
and the people driven legislation.
there is no mecanism for the people to drive these bills anymore and there is a lack of debate with the majority of people.
OWS allows all people to give the ideas to others to generate bills WE want passed.
only when people have the same ability to create bills and have them passed will there be true democracy
i want people to get together and discuss how to protect their and the comunities unaliable rights.
i want people to get together and discuss how to protect their and the comunities unaliable rights.
reply to post by XPLodER
i suggested bills written by people for the people to take to congress and show them what THE PEOPLE want to see in bills and ligislation, NOT pass it themselves, pass to legislators the things THEY want to see made into bills and passed into law, at the moment the only ones building ligislation are the corps
Can you please start of by explaining what you mean by a "social democracy" and that of a "governmental democracy"? I would also like to understand your stance on what form of government is currently employed within the United States. I ask these in attempts to find the common ground here to discuss your ideas.
A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government and where offices of state are elected or chosen by elected people.[1][2] In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[3][4] The word republic is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair", and often used to describe a state using this form of government.
This is why there are people here that staunch in their defense of the First Amendment and the Right, as a human being, to speak freely. It seems your real irk is that of the collusion (and rightly so!) between select corporations and Government. Am I right?
How is there no mechanism for what you claim? Your ability to redress the Government is displayed clearly by the OWS movement. But your speak of the "majority" is telling to your overall stance as to what you want; a Direct Democracy. I give you this for educational purposes, can you find a Direct Democracy on a country level that has been successful? Most employ a limited form of such (as we do here as intended -- at the lowest forms of Government and society.)
Ah! But you do have the ability to create the bills. Did you not know this or learn this? Only the passage of such bills is confined to the halls of Congress, but the presentation or formation is open to all; farmer, president or "illegal" alien, all have the ability to redress their representative to present the bill.
You clamor on about your desire for a "social" democratic movement -- when such is already in place. But laziness and completely ignorance of the system of governance has led us to this path in which we feel we are powerless and nothing.edit on 23-11-2011 by ownbestenemy because: Fixed a quote issue.edit on 23-11-2011 by ownbestenemy because: And fixed a badly spelled word.
You mean like write these bills they want and then have a representative bring this to washington?
gota work with whats there
Novel Idea..........
Oh wait..........dont we already have those? arent those called "Representatives"
You mean , have get togethers where people discuss issues and then offer up solutions........? Awesome!
Wait, dont we have Town Halls?
sorry How bout OWS utilize the avenues we already have to do so..........my bet is, probably because they are ignorant of how to do so
Also wouldnt that ALSO mean youd have to have people in charge of that, because it could and would be abused......?
Wouldnt that go against the whole "OWS doesnt have a leader"
Everything you are talking about is already in place .........Im now convinced OWS has no clue of how government works on any level........
OWS is either totally ignorant of how government works, or they just want us to abandon the current system of corruption for their OWN brand of corruption......................or both........
Again no solutions, we already have all the same systems in place.........
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
I think the central core of OWS knows how government works; but the followers that amass see it as an idea to grasp and take hold of without actually thinking. The overtones of the overall movement are "I don't like people with money" -- so naturally they take aim at the the moneymakers. When sadly, there is no Occupy movement in front of the halls of Congress or the White House demanding redress.
That is all I have to know to understand the overall movement.
It isn't about change in practice; it is about change in the leadership of the Kingdom to be able to utilize the treasury to how they see fit. To utilize the arm of Government that allows them to dictate and direct what is and what is not acceptable.
no a simple fedex will do
they are also to busy with lobyests and insider trading to listen most of the time (some are geniune)
im sorry i cant make out what your point is are you saying that town halls are available to Occupy for over night use? please elaborate?
lol haters guna hate but i will talk to some OWS and pass on your sugestion thanks
your definition of leaders includes FEDEX?
Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by XPLodER
I am unsure of what organic leaderless democracy is also...but I would remind everyone this country was founded as a constitutional republic...I am unsure of where the whole idea we were formed as a democracy crept in...
Originally posted by schitzengigz
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
You keep bringing Soros up.
What does he have to do with this?
Soros agents? What are they? Sounds sort of looney