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.

 

Mitt Romney: I dont know what the Constitution says! Ask Ron Paul

page: 8
70
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by dadgad

You know what is the most annoying thing about you Libertarian conservatives. Each and every personal opinion is taken as an abomination against some holy doctrine. Why do you call Annee ignorant multiple times?. Don't you see how weak your arguments become once you start to insult to prove a point?


I am not trying to insult her, it is the truth.

So, according to you a person who doesn't learn from past mistakes made by mankind and written down on paper is not ignorant?

Anne wants a one World Government, where the state/government has all power, but what does history have to say about nations who have gone down such a road?

Isn't it ignorant and foolish to once again try to go down that same road?


edit on 10-1-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


That would really depend on the type of system that would be used. Do you consider America to be a dictatorship? A democratic system with a centralized government on world scale could solve so much conflict. A unified world would be the most beautiful thing ever in my opinion. It just depends on the people, what system will there be used.




posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad

Don't you see how simplistic you approach certain matters?

What is wrong with protecting minorities on a federal level? The Civil Rights Act is a mile-stone in political history. I just understand why that is so hard to see.


It is not simplistic, it is an educated opinion. Giving civil right powers to the federal level gives more powers to such a federal government, which in short takes away powers from the states and the people.

BTW, I am hispanic, so I am a minority, but I have also experienced what happens when the state/Federal government has all the power, and it NEVER leads to any "mile-stone in political history", it just puts us a step closer in a dictatorship.

Look, even some of Hitler's "PROGRESSIVE" legislation helped Germany's economy, and SOME of it's people, but what did such "PROGRESSIVE legislation" in general do?


edit on 10-1-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Federal government protecting civil rights? Does stripping a business owner's right (property rights) to maintain his business the way he likes, count too?

I guess the federal government can't protect them all.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by dadgad

Don't you see how simplistic you approach certain matters?

What is wrong with protecting minorities on a federal level? The Civil Rights Act is a mile-stone in political history. I just understand why that is so hard to see.


It is not simplistic, it is an educated opinion. Giving civil right powers to the federal level gives more powers to such a federal government, which in short takes away powers from the states and the people.

BTW, I am hispanic, so I am a minority, but I have also experienced what happens when the state/Federal government has all the power, and it NEVER leads to any "mile-stone in political history", it just puts us a step closer in a dictatorship.

Look, even some of Hitler's "PROGRESSIVE" legislation helped Germany's economy, and SOME of it's people, but what did such "PROGRESSIVE legislation" in general do?


edit on 10-1-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


Of course it grants power on a federal level. That is the entire point. It is a law designed to protect the rights and liberties of minorities which were heavily discriminated. It's a fantastic law. And don't tell me things have not changed since, because that is just plain preposterous. Things might still be in a progress, that is different.

You argue as if this law grants the federal state some extraordinary power to inflict immense harm upon the innocent American, which I think is far from the truth.

To preserve the rights and freedom of the people, especially minorities, strict authority is a necessity. Maybe hard to accept, but thats just how it goes.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad

That would really depend on the type of system that would be used. Do you consider America to be a dictatorship? A democratic system with a centralized government on world scale could solve so much conflict. A unified world would be the most beautiful thing ever in my opinion. It just depends on the people, what system will there be used.


Such thoughts are idealistic, but impractical. You claim such a world government could solve conflicts, I say it will intensify conflicts worldwide.

A unified world would only convert every person in that world into a robot, it will destroy individualism, and the human spirit.

This reminds me of a few quotes which are directly related with this article.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H.L. Mencken

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

"Find out just what any people will quitely submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." -Frederick Douglass.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad

Of course it grants power on a federal level. That is the entire point. It is a law designed to protect the rights and liberties of minorities which were heavily discriminated. It's a fantastic law. And don't tell me things have not changed since, because that is just plain preposterous. Things might still be in a progress, that is different.

You argue as if this law grants the federal state some extraordinary power to inflict immense harm upon the innocent American, which I think is far from the truth.

To preserve the rights and freedom of the people, especially minorities, strict authority is a necessity. Maybe hard to accept, but thats just how it goes.



But the thing is that such a law already exists in the U.S. Constitution, there was no need to give more power to the Federal government... In the U.S. Constitution it doesn't say that only white men have such rights, if it does please show me...

Things have not become better because of the Federal government, but because more PEOPLE understand that such rights are afforded to EVERYONE no matter their race, gender, or creed...


edit on 10-1-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


wow he don't know !@$%, but the slaves still laugh with him... I can't feel sorry for the brainwashed slaves anymore sorry...



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by dadgad

Of course it grants power on a federal level. That is the entire point. It is a law designed to protect the rights and liberties of minorities which were heavily discriminated. It's a fantastic law. And don't tell me things have not changed since, because that is just plain preposterous. Things might still be in a progress, that is different.

You argue as if this law grants the federal state some extraordinary power to inflict immense harm upon the innocent American, which I think is far from the truth.

To preserve the rights and freedom of the people, especially minorities, strict authority is a necessity. Maybe hard to accept, but thats just how it goes.



But the thing is that such a law already exists in the U.S. Constitution, there was no need to give more power to the Federal government... In the U.S. Constitution it doesn't say that only white men have such rights, if it does please show me...

Things have not become better because of the Federal government, but because more PEOPLE understand that such rights are afforded to EVERYONE no matter their race, gender, or creed...


edit on 10-1-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


So you are actually denying that there was an immense racist undertone in American society? Just because the constitution equals all men doesn't mean that in practice it works that way. I mean, history proves that. Throughout American history African-Americans and other minorities have been oppressed, discriminated and treated as second-class citizens because of their skin color only. If this proves only one thing, it is that a few lines in a constitution don't guarantee anything. That is why the Civil Rights Act was necessary. And it is a mile-stone in political history, if not only because it recognizes the fact that a constitution alone is not enough to provide for everyone that what is god given (excuse my terminology).

You treat the written constitution as some holy and perfect doctrine. By doing that you simply ignore the reality of everyday to day life and undermine the way humans behave. If the written constitution would have been enough then there would have been no racism.


edit on 10-1-2012 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by dadgad

That would really depend on the type of system that would be used. Do you consider America to be a dictatorship? A democratic system with a centralized government on world scale could solve so much conflict. A unified world would be the most beautiful thing ever in my opinion. It just depends on the people, what system will there be used.


Such thoughts are idealistic, but impractical. You claim such a world government could solve conflicts, I say it will intensify conflicts worldwide.

A unified world would only convert every person in that world into a robot, it will destroy individualism, and the human spirit.

This reminds me of a few quotes which are directly related with this article.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H.L. Mencken

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

"Find out just what any people will quitely submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." -Frederick Douglass.



Do we not already live in a world of intense conflict?

Why is that? I see three main reasons, you are free to disagree.

1.Nationalism
2.Religion
3.Capitalism

All three have one thing in common, namely that it divides. Nationalism divides origin, Religion divides believes and Capitalism divides wealth.

I see no future in any of these three things, unfortunately. I also think that a world government under these conditions is impossible because of the inherent mechanisms, namely the way it divides. Should we ever become so evolved to reach something such as a World Federation, I think an entire new system needs be re-invented.


edit on 10-1-2012 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad
I also think that a world government under these conditions is impossible because of the inherent mechanisms, namely the way it divides. Should we ever become so evolved to reach something such as a World Federation, I think an entire new system needs be re-invented.


That's interesting thinking.

Progression will happen - - pseudo safety nets - - will only delay it.

There will always be conflict in transitioning. I'd be more concerned with Who and How - - not If and When.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
You do realize that Mitt said that as a jab to Ron Paul...right???

I don't think Ron Paul caught that either.



When it's a bad thing to know too much about important, relevent information, just like children are embarassed to read a book.

"OMG, you're reading a BOOK? Teehee.."


That is when everyone fails........



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 





That is why the Civil Rights Act was necessary. And it is a mile-stone in political history, if not only because it recognizes the fact that a constitution alone is not enough to provide for everyone that what is god given (excuse my terminology).

You treat the written constitution as some holy and perfect doctrine. By doing that you simply ignore the reality of everyday to day life and undermine the way humans behave. If the written constitution would have been enough then there would have been no racism.


You treat the Civil Right Act as if it was some holy and perfect doctrine, but it did not put an end to racism and you know it. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Black American's make up 37.5 percent of the federal prison population, but the overall population of Black American's only 12.2 percent. There is the simple math of your precious Civil Rights Act, a grossly empowered federal government has imprisoned more black people per capita than white people, and quite obviously so.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by dadgad
 





That is why the Civil Rights Act was necessary. And it is a mile-stone in political history, if not only because it recognizes the fact that a constitution alone is not enough to provide for everyone that what is god given (excuse my terminology).

You treat the written constitution as some holy and perfect doctrine. By doing that you simply ignore the reality of everyday to day life and undermine the way humans behave. If the written constitution would have been enough then there would have been no racism.


You treat the Civil Right Act as if it was some holy and perfect doctrine, but it did not put an end to racism and you know it. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Black American's make up 37.5 percent of the federal prison population, but the overall population of Black American's only 12.2 percent. There is the simple math of your precious Civil Rights Act, a grossly empowered federal government has imprisoned more black people per capita than white people, and quite obviously so.





Of course I know. What can you say, things are in progress. But nonetheless, much has improved.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Theres something wrong with ROn Paul, and ill tell you what that is....he has a plan, knows the problems,knows how to fix them, respects the consitution and is a true american freedom fighter.....im not used to this


If America gets this wrong im moving to canada!



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
If you want style vote Romney and if you want substance vote Paul. The message couldn't have been more clear from Mitt himself. Laughing, absolutely. He might as well have shook Paul's hand right there and resigned.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Misoir
Does a state have the constitutional right to ban contraceptives?


States don't have rights. They have powers. Do they have the power to ban contraceptives? If Ron Paul has his way, they will.


That is wrong. Power is granted from the residents of the State, not from the Federal Government. Rights are "inalienable,"


Rights are inalienable, to human beings, not governments, State or Federal.


So, at this stage in the game, it takes someone like Ron Paul to shutdown the Federal Governments intrusions, and return the power back to the people.


Just because Ron Paul wants to shut down the Federal government, doesn't mean that he wishes to stop an intrusion of liberty or privacy from occuring. Ron Paul has no problem with State governments intruding into the private lives of individuals. I support protecting fundamental rights of individual Americans, from both the State and Federal governments and from the mob rule of the majority. Ron Paul and his supporters don't agree with this, and this is where the problem lies when they claim they support liberty and freedom.


Once that is accomplished, then the State's will have a right to ban contraceptives or the letter Q if a majority of the residents so desire,


Which will essentially cost him the general elections if he were to somehow gain the nomination. The majority of Americans want their individual rights to be protected from all forces, they do not wish to maximize the powers of the Federal or State governments. You may think this view is prevailing in public, but it isn't, the movements which lead to Brown vs Board of Education and Roe V Wade are good examples of this. I understand that Paul is for the maximization of States powers first and formost, but this view, the policies surrounding this view, go against what this country is suppose stand for.
edit on 10-1-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad

I see no future in any of these three things, unfortunately. I also think that a world government under these conditions is impossible because of the inherent mechanisms, namely the way it divides. Should we ever become so evolved to reach something such as a World Federation, I think an entire new system needs be re-invented.


edit on 10-1-2012 by dadgad because: (no reason given)


Easy there Star Trek.

I don't forsee a "World Federation" occuring until the Klingons find earth and attempt to occupy us
Want to see a one hell of a space race and all the governments of the world working together? All we need is a few angry little green guys.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Great post. Thanks for that.

Beginning to think I was all alone out here.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
You do realize that Mitt said that as a jab to Ron Paul...right???

I don't think Ron Paul caught that either.


I think they realize it...

I just think like most people with a brain that they know he's a complete idiot but can't really do much about it.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by dadgad
 





That is why the Civil Rights Act was necessary. And it is a mile-stone in political history, if not only because it recognizes the fact that a constitution alone is not enough to provide for everyone that what is god given (excuse my terminology).

You treat the written constitution as some holy and perfect doctrine. By doing that you simply ignore the reality of everyday to day life and undermine the way humans behave. If the written constitution would have been enough then there would have been no racism.


You treat the Civil Right Act as if it was some holy and perfect doctrine, but it did not put an end to racism and you know it. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Black American's make up 37.5 percent of the federal prison population, but the overall population of Black American's only 12.2 percent. There is the simple math of your precious Civil Rights Act, a grossly empowered federal government has imprisoned more black people per capita than white people, and quite obviously so.





I wonder why your post gets so many stars. ATS is strange now and then. I mean its not that you have actually mentioned something substantial.

I mean you are trying to defend some obscene view that the Civil Rights act isn't necessary because it 'doesn't function' in your opinion.

I really don't understand why people star you for your ridiculous post. It just amazes me.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join