Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Republicans continue on their quest to destroy everything the U.S. stands for.

page: 8
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


You must have missed my post about the Founders providing for a mechanism of changing the Constitution. They knew times would change and thats why the Constitution can be amended. They also did not want the governing document of our Country to be easily subjected to whim and political fancy so they arranged the process to amend the Constitution to insure that the change was truly wanted by We The People.




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
So... anyways....
Truthfully I can say I
Am soooo begining to believe
Republicans have no intentions to
Steal back the white house next election.

I'm seriously starting to believe this.

I haven't seen any action or behavior from the Republicans that demonstrates their willingness to participate in taking ownership for this country's current problems. They are not willing to accept blame for past mistakes. And, how can one realize that a change in one's pattern of behavior needs to change without being willing or capable to admit to one's self such mistakes were made?

Didn't the Republicans just vote down something concerning a Consumer Protection Agency?


The first story was about a new, simpler credit-card agreement that's getting a test run. If you have a credit card, you've entered into a legal contract with your bank that typically runs about 5,000 words, few of which you've probably read, many of them in fine print — and none of them there to protect you.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau launched the new agreement, which is written in — what a concept! — plain English. The document has only about 20 percent of the verbiage banks use and is broken down into three simple sections: costs, changes and additional information. You can check it out at www.consumerfinance.gov.

The form will be tested over the next six months at the mammoth Pentagon Federal Credit Union, and consumers will be asked to give feedback at the website above. Banks are not required to use the easy-to-understand form, but it could be a start toward a small but important — and much overdue — piece of reform of value to millions of plastic-toters.

The second story was an account of Senate Republicans derailing the appointment of Richard Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general, to head the new bureau that produced the user-friendly credit-card agreement prototype. The Senate on Thursday voted, 53 to 45, to reject a procedural motion to begin debate on the appointment. Only one Republican, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, sided with Democrats in voting to begin debate.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created under last year's Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation as the centerpiece of efforts at reform in the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008. A moderate piece of legislation that was greatly watered down after heavy lobbying by financial interests and their allies in the Congress, it charges the CFPB with overseeing payday lenders, private student loan providers and other nonbank lenders, certain mortgage originators and servicers, debt collectors and credit-reporting agencies. Those players make up a financial sector responsible for some of the most harmful and deceptive lending practices of the past decade.

The CFPB is the brainchild of Harvard law Professor (and now Massachusetts Senate candidate) Elizabeth Warren, who was passed over to lead the agency because Republicans objected to her, and because Cordray, although a Democrat, was considered more politically palatable. But Republicans, who had said for months they would block any nomination to run the agency, say it should have no director at all. ...[snip]...
Republicans denied they want to weaken the new agency or undermine its mission to protect Wall Street cronies.

"This notion we are against consumer protection, that we're trying to gut CFPB, is just silly," Sen. David Vitter, R-La., a member of the Senate's banking committee, declared with a straight face.

Read full article here


Secretly, I don't think the Republicans have any intentions whatsoever of reclaiming the white house next election. Though, financially, it is a good idea to have candidates anyways







edit on 11-12-2011 by ILikeStars because: fix bb codes and beg for a star, too. You did give me a star, didn't you?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


The only thing that cannot be amended is the first 10 Amendments, known more affectionately as "The Bill Of Rights" as well as any amendment added since!



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Your right they didn't have to worry about unsafe meds. They had to worry about a tyrannical Monarchy that rules over every aspect of their lives. They had to worry that they could be drug out in the street and shot for saying something that went against that government. They had to worry that despite being heavily taxed they had no representation in their government.

Then the oppressed rose up against that government. They took it upon themselves to throw of the bonds of oppression and create a land of freedom and individual opportunity.

Surely if the Founders had the courage to do all this then surely we, as consumers, can have the courage to research and study products before we consume them. To expect the Founders to have gone through all of this to create a country where the people are babied by a Nanny State is ludicrous.

Of course I speak of the free market system first created in this country by those Founders. Founders that saw that the Government served a limited role in the lives of the citizens and that the citizens were responsible for their own lives.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Seriously?

Amendments can be "unamended" via another Constitutional amendment. You are wrong to say otherwise.

To prove my point:

Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:


“ Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution:




“ Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission here of to the States by the Congress.


There you have it. An ratified amendment was nullified by another ratified amendment. This same process could nullify any of the original amendments collectively recognized as The Bill of Rights.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ILikeStars
 


This is their mantra and flip anyone who thinks otherwise :

The GOP plan for America -
1. Continue and guarantee that the top 10% of earners don't have to contribute a thing to the economy.
2. Continually allow the banks to do whatever the flip they want and to blindly give them another multi trillion dollar bailout package whenever they get a bug up their tail.
3. Continually send our jobs oversees which will double and triple the unemployment rates.
4. Engage us in an armed conflict with Iran and North Korea while keeping the Wars Over Energy going.
5. Deny people the basic right to essential services like Medicaid, Social Security and cancel all social programs effectively leaving those like me who are unable to hold down a 40 hour 5 day a week job to fend for ourselves!
6. Allow time and time again the poisoning of our food and water supply while protecting the companies that are harming us.
7. Kill off the electric and non petrolchemical powered transportation.
8. Allow for more foriegn influence into our process domestically (law passages, elections)
9. Kill off any non white people!
10. Kill our chance to compete on the world's stage while cutting public school education while leaving the private schools alone.
11. Turn this "War On Terrorism" into a "Holy War" between Islam-Muslim and Christian-Hebrew!
12. Allow time and time again your health insurance company the control to deny you and your family any treatment they want. < These are the real "Death Panels" a bunch of insurance company employees sitting around dictating who gets what coverage.
13. Do nothing about this immigrant issue so the multi trillion dollar lobbyists firms can contunally exploit them for cheap and dirt cheap labour all the while not demanding that any of it remains stateside all while evading the Federal Income Tax laws,
14. Allow you to lose your job and home for whatever reason your employer and lender dictates and not have the populous the right to challenge any claim.
15. Return to an era whereas an African American was legally declared 2/3 of a person and Women weren't allowed out of the kitchen, forget about having the right to own property, hold down a job, have a say in matters pertaining to thier own bodies, have the right to vote, be forced to endure consistant beatings and belittements if they didn't have dinner done in time, being subjected to forced spousal rape. Do y'all really want to subject your daughters, mothers, sisters, aunts to this? African Americans would be forced back into the cotton fields stripped of all rights, properties, jobs, and all money earned. McCain admitted this while on The View in Ear 08!

Couple this with the McConnell stance of making Obama a "1 term POTUS" means they are Anti American treasonits bastages!



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


The 21st overturns and nullifies the 18th and that is the only one but the Bill Of Rights are untouchable regardless of what The SCUM or any of their henchmen think or want!



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
A little background-
I'm an Anarchist, I have kept up with politics, activism, conspiracy theory, actual science, and so on for a good number of years, and in a focused fashion that is farrrrr more in-depth than the average person, even if they're interested in politics.

I have, WITHOUT A DOUBT, learned that the Republicans DO NOT WORK FOR US. The Democrats... they're very questionable, but the Republicans are the worst of the worst.

VOTING REPUBLICAN BECAUSE YOU'RE SICK OF DEMOCRATS IS LIKE MAKING A DEAL WITH SATAN HIMSELF BECAUSE YOU'RE SICK OF YOUR CORRUPT BOOKIE




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
To expect the Founders to have gone through all of this to create a country where the people are babied by a Nanny State is ludicrous.



See the way I see it... I doubt the founding fathers went through all the trouble to establish
a country where 95% of the population are dominated by fictitious entities through a system
of oligarchy. Ever wonder why the oligarchy is trying to initiate that things YOU are against too?


Eliminating the only real opposition that keeps them from dominating America completely.
You and the elite/oligarchy both want to curtail the hard fought laws and rules that are here
for all people. I know for a fact that you cannot face down a fortune 500 company in a legal
dispute, you don't have the resources or the time necessary to do so and if you do, then your
desire to obtain more power over your workers makes sense to me...



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


The Bill of Rights is not untouchable. There is no language in the constitution that makes the bill of rights untouchable. Please cite it if there is.

Ps

I love how you went from:

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


The only thing that cannot be amended is the first 10 Amendments, known more affectionately as "The Bill Of Rights" as well as any amendment added since!

(emphasis mine)
to:


Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


The 21st overturns and nullifies the 18th and that is the only one but the Bill Of Rights are untouchable regardless of what The SCUM or any of their henchmen think or want!


You were wrong. You were shown you were wrong. Is it really so hard to admit you were in error?

edit on 11-12-2011 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


its not a question of retaining power. It is a question of retaining rights. Business owners have rights too. Business owners rights are infringed every time a regulation is passed which somehow defines or restricts in what ways the can operate.

In a free market if a company operates in a way that is "illegal" under the current regulatory system it suffers a fate far worse than the fines and fees our current system brings; it goes out of business.

A free market would have never bailed out the banks for a bad decision. A free market would also not have put into a place a system when enabled those banks to reach a point that they needed to be bailed out. In a true free market those banks would have crashed and burned long before they could have wreaked havoc on our country/economy.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by mastahunta
 


You must have missed my post about the Founders providing for a mechanism of changing the Constitution. They knew times would change and thats why the Constitution can be amended. They also did not want the governing document of our Country to be easily subjected to whim and political fancy so they arranged the process to amend the Constitution to insure that the change was truly wanted by We The People.


So are you saying that people want to:

Consume meds that give strokes 6 years after initial dosing?

Work for 20 hours a day or face blacklisting in the entire community?

Send their children to scrub cow guts off of machinery instead of sending them to school?

Have people making the modern equivalent of $4.00 a day for 20 hours of work?

These are common things that were not considered over 200 years ago.

Did you also know that people use to be burned alive on giant piles of wood?

So you wonder if people support the above???

Really?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


No what I am saying is that if people do not like the circumstances of their employment, health, or any other aspect of their lives it is up to them to bring about change; not the government.

In a free market no company would release medicine that killed. They would go out of business. In a regulated market they will pay fines and fees for murder but not go out of business.

In a free market draconian work standards would result in lower production standards, which would create weak products, which would drive the company out of business. In a regulated market the draconian standards may not be as harsh but the company still doesn't go out of business if it abuses employees it gets fined.

In a free market system, a true free market system, everything you just mentioned would bring about financial ruin to a company. A company that would have no recourse of "bail out" if that happened. Therefore that company would see to it that all aspects of operation were in place to support continued business.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


They thought when they instituted the 18th that the nation would be better off but due to the smugglers, the mafia and outside entities made repealment necessary hence why they ordered it repealed. Evidence brought to light later on ordered the repealment, to prevent the mafia from gaining too much control in the operation of Govt!

There is a common misconception that everyone needs to know that needs to be debunked and that is the Congress or whoever can literately sign and pass a million laws restricting and amending our rights and freedoms but ultimately it is up to you, The American People to maintain and retain said rights leaving final law totally up to The People of The United States Of America to never relent, never refrain, never forfeit these sacred vows and rights bestowed upon us in The Constitution Of The United States Of America!

They are ours and not theirs, remember this. Non-negotiable, non relinquinsable, non grata whose points are anchored, padlocked and cemented!

USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, NOW AND FOREVER!
edit on 11-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 



There is nothing illegal about a corporation firing me for saying things that the corporation does not want said. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise but your feelings cannot change the truth.


Sorry, but a corporation can not fire you for expressing political beliefs that they disagree with, unless it directly opposes that companies business.


I am not asking you to prove a negative.


That is exactly what you are doing when you demand that I prove that the constitutional protection of individual freedom does not extend to corporate abuse of individual freedom.


I, along with most of the free world, recognize that the Constitution was written to provide for a limited government and to protect the rights of the people from that government.


I also recognize this. Our debate has never been about Constitutional restriction of government, it has always been about your claim that corporations do not have to respect individual rights.

Do you have any link to this quote of Madison? Or do you think it has any meaning placed out of contect here?

Even then, it does not support your claims.

Your intellectual dishonesty is your attempt to change the debate from one that you know you can not win, to a debate about something that was never questioned. Stick to the debate at hand. Cut and run if you like, you have yet to win a single point.

edit on 11-12-2011 by poet1b because: forgot a "not"



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by mastahunta
 


its not a question of retaining power. It is a question of retaining rights. Business owners have rights too. Business owners rights are infringed every time a regulation is passed which somehow defines or restricts in what ways the can operate.

In a free market if a company operates in a way that is "illegal" under the current regulatory system it suffers a fate far worse than the fines and fees our current system brings; it goes out of business.

A free market would have never bailed out the banks for a bad decision. A free market would also not have put into a place a system when enabled those banks to reach a point that they needed to be bailed out. In a true free market those banks would have crashed and burned long before they could have wreaked havoc on our country/economy.


The business owner already gets a MASSIVE choice of how to own the employees actions, person and time.

How much power do you want to give to one person to enforce on another?

The employee already gets to determine when you wake, what time you can eat, how much you will be paid,
if you can spend time with your family... How much more power do you reckon should be granted over other
people?

Freedom is not a method to ensure privately institutionalized abuse and service.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


In other words it is up to Americans to insure that the Constitution is followed. A Constitution written to restrict government and protect the people from their government.

Would you agree?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


That is outright falsity! The business owner does not own the person or the person's times. The employee agrees of his own free will to work for a business. That business and that employee negotiate a pay relevant to the work level being performed as well as the hours work is to occur.

If the employee does not agree with the contract between himself and the employer his is free at any time to refuse the position. If the employee feels that he can be better compensated elsewhere he/she is free to do so.

If the employee is capable of sustaining himself and his family through the fruits of his labor via owning a business then good for that employee! If that employee is incapable of that task then the employee works for someone whom is capable of doing so and by doing so is providing a framework to provide for sustaining of the employees needs/wants.

I do not own the business that I manage. I work for someone else. I enjoy my working environment, my coworkers, my employees, and a sense of pride about where I work. If I didn't enjoy this I wouldn't sit around complaining and expecting the company to change the way it does business; I would seek employment elsewhere. To force them to change to suit my whim would be fascism, to leave for better employment is freedom. A freedom we American's enjoy despite so many in the world that do not.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


This double speak and you know it!

"A Constitution written to restrict government and protect the people from their government" is a Catch 22 predicament meaning that Govt needs to be empowered with the claws and fangs that keeps these corporations living in fear but is not an indicator in wishing for a powerless, smaller Govt who is a rubber stamper for whatever the corporations want.

Reword your phrase to the following :

"A Constitution written to restrict private entities that empowers Govt using it's broad reach and authourity in order to protect a smaller entity (the people) from larger entities (corporations) to ensure that the will of the majority of people's wishes and demands are not drowned out because they can't afford to outlobby the lobbyists!" Then the statement is true.

GOVT WILL NOT EVER BE A RUBBER STAMPER FOR ANY CORPORATION AND THAT IS JUST THAT AND TO WISH FOR ANYTHING ELSE IS A DISSERVICE TO OUR GREAT NATION!



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


I am not rewording my phrase. I stand by it and so does anyone that in a strict constructionist and an advocate of individual liberty!





new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join