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.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
Deregulate the markets and the oversights and to Indonesia we will become!
There is no human rights protections, no safety protections, no environmental protections, no worker protections in Indonesia! Strip the regulations and oversight here and we will become them!edit on 28-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Yes you did and by saying "Government needs to get the hell out of the way!" is saying directly that "Govt better not dare threaten a corporation ever and if it does I'll be angry"!
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Your arguments are so weak they have no real ground to stand on.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
I hope you like having glass shards in your food, have muriatic acid in your soap, have rat poison in your shampoo because without regulations these will all be a reality!
Originally posted by Ghost375
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Originally posted by Ghost375
Originally posted by tooo many pills
Just imagine if our leaders still lived by the same principles as the majority of the Founding Fathers? How great would our country be? What about the rest of the world? Usurped is my new favorite word.
Like having slaves is okay?
What is the liberal obsession with slaves during the time of the American Revolution? Slaves have existed through time in all lands. They were not all of one race.
I used that and my first post to illustrate that conservatives are acting as if the founding fathers all agreed on every issue, and that they were demi-gods. They were flawed humans, like us, and disagreed on many issues.
Many of the founding fathers did indeed want a strong federal government. I don't like when people leave facts out of their argument.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
Horus,
If you notice that Slavery was never mandated or made law under the Constitution as they knew and had enough knowledge and foresight to know fully that we'd eventually outgrow and outlaw it!edit on 28-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)
I hope you like having glass shards in your food, have muriatic acid in your soap, have rat poison in your shampoo because without regulations these will all be a reality!
Codex Alimentarius is backed up by the crippling trade sanctions of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Any non Codex-compliant nation would face huge economic punishment since they would automatically lose in any food-trade dispute with a Codex compliant country.
Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has two committees which impact nutrition.
One of them, the “Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses” (CCNFSDU), is chaired by Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, a physician who believes that nutrition has no role in health. This is the “top-guy” for Codex nutritional policy, and he has stated that “nutrition is not relevant to health”.
As unbelievable as it may sound, Dr. Grossklaus actually declared nutrients to be toxins in 1994 and instituted the use of toxicology (Risk Assessment) to prevent nutrients from having any impact on humans who take supplements! It is worth mentioning that Dr. Grossklaus happens to own the Risk Assessment company advising CCNFSDU(Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses ) and Codex on this issue. This company makes money when its toxicology services are used for the “assessment” of nutrients. Here in the U.S. we call that a “conflict of interest”.
Codex is made up of thousands of standards and guidelines. One of them, the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG), is designed to permit only ultra low doses of vitamins and minerals (and make clinically effective nutrients illegal). How can the VMG restrict dosages of vitamins and minerals? By using Risk Assessment (toxicology) to assess nutrients.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
To wish for less Govt is to allow a corporation to dictate what products you can buy and not buy, what websites you can and cannot visit without Govt doing the job they were put in there to do and that is to represent us, We The People that allows it to push back and tell them "NO!".edit on 28-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by macman
mac, someone pulled this argument on me last night. For some reason certain people read the opposition to big govt as a desire for no govt at all, and a desire for minimal taxation as a desire for no taxation at all hence no govt functions at all. This is a silly argument and applies only to the most anarchic of individuals. It also seems to me an attempt at using a histrionic vision to paint their opponents badly.
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
To wish for less Govt is to allow a corporation to dictate what products you can buy and not buy, what websites you can and cannot visit without Govt doing the job they were put in there to do and that is to represent us, We The People that allows it to push back and tell them "NO!".edit on 28-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)
No, no it does not.
The way it stands now, the people are not protected, nor is there really any concern for the People, as the Govt, being at its largest ever in history, is concerned with one thing and one thing only, Bigger and more Controlling Govt.
Thought you were on the soap box of equating Smaller Govt with no Govt?
Did you see the light, or just realize how wrong your assumptions are?
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
To wish for less Govt is to allow a corporation to dictate what products you can buy and not buy, what websites you can and cannot visit without Govt doing the job they were put in there to do and that is to represent us, We The People that allows it to push back and tell them "NO!".edit on 28-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)
Implications of the new government for subsidy policy
With the recent election of a government led by the right-of-centre Venstre party, the scene seems set for a radical change in Danish policy concerning the payment of subsidies for wind electricity. It appears that the Ministry of Environment and Energy is to be split up, so that energy matters come under the Ministry of Economics. In this context, the wind turbine industry is greatly disturbed by the statement of the in-coming Minister of Finance, Thor Pedersen, that Denmark’s new government will remove the billions of subsidy for wind electricity (Rasmussen, 2001). Thor Pedersen wants wind electricity to be self-sufficient when in 2003 the government is free to negotiate a new energy reform. ["The whole idea of the liberalised electricity market in the EU is that companies and consumers receive their electricity at the cheapest possible price. But they do not get this when they are forced to buy a large part of their energy from wind turbines at five or six times the market price for electricity"], said Thor Pedersen to the daily newspaper Børsen. He maintains that the wind industry has itself stated that it can survive without subsidies because the turbines have become so effective that they can compete with traditional power stations
Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
To wish for less Govt is to allow a corporation to dictate what products you can buy and not buy, what websites you can and cannot visit without Govt doing the job they were put in there to do and that is to represent us, We The People that allows it to push back and tell them "NO!".edit on 28-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)
No, no it does not.
The way it stands now, the people are not protected, nor is there really any concern for the People, as the Govt, being at its largest ever in history, is concerned with one thing and one thing only, Bigger and more Controlling Govt.
Thought you were on the soap box of equating Smaller Govt with no Govt?
Did you see the light, or just realize how wrong your assumptions are?
Oh so that must be why you write these posts from Somalia.
What? You don't?
You mean you choose to live in America?
Wow. Why the hell would you? You hate the place and apparently it offers you no protection.
Do you ever wonder why you sit here in America just to bitch about how much you hate it?
YOU CAN LEAVE ANY TIME.
The fact that you do not, nullifies 90% of the crap you write here.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
I'm sure you like having the freedom of choice to have a selection of 50 companies that make the same damn product?
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
, I'm sure you like opening the phone book and finding 100 different electricians, contractors, plumbers, computer repair spots, food spots, doctors and whatnot?
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
I'm sure you like the fact that there is massive selection of just about every product out there.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
To limit Govt would take the choice from you as that would mean that the only companies allowed to offer their product, good or service stateside would be those that swear total allegiance to them and leave us all out in the cold.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
If they could sign a $100 Billion contract and the only thing stopping it would be that we'd have to give up a freedom, they'd spend $10 Billion to get that freedom reversed via their corporate lobbies in Congress. Their mantra is to make as much money as possible without no regard for the law, the environment, humanity and see us all as potential customers on top of everything else and nothing else matters but that!
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Now do you get it?
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Start looking at it from the veiwpoint of what's best for the nation from a citizen's viewpoint of an American and not that of from the viewpoint of a corporation as you are a private PERSON as you are not a CORPORATION!edit on 28-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)