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.

 

Occupy My Heart

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
It isn't impossible, you're right but it is unnecessarily hard.


I feel this is where you and I may have a different outlook on life. My sentinment is that you are not guaranteed and 'easy' life and it will be what you make of it. The challenges that I faced made me who and what I am and I would not trade them for a more 'simple' route. Adversity made me strong and pushed me to do more.




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



Finally, allow me to fall back on my pedantry and repeat what I so often do:

Legislation is not law, at best it is merely evidence of law, at worst it is flat out unlawful. All law is simple, true, universal and absolute. No piece of paper, digital text, or any other artificial construct is law. No one can grow a crop of corn on a map of Iowa. No one can drive the word vehicle, and no one will know the genuine pleasure of being touched by a beautiful woman by their picture. A picture of a pipe is not a pipe.


as these are being enforced daily it is hard to take a pilisofical opproach


Corporations are legal entities that exist by permission of the state. In the United States, the state is We the People. The vast majority of the Fortune 500 corporations are chartered as corporations in the State of Delaware. Currently, the Attorney General for the State of Delaware is Beau Biden (Vice President Joseph Biden's son). It is the Attorney General of any state who has the authority of charter revocation. If the Occupy movement truly wants to put an end to corporatism, they would have a much easier time of doing that by occupying Delaware and demanding that States Attorney General revoke the charters to those corporations guilty of malfeasance, instead of occupying Wall Street.


i will take up your suggestion and ask what it would take to prove a chater for incorperation should be revoked?
why is the signifigence of incorperating in delaware?
is their some obscure loop hole in their legislation these corperations are abusing?
could bringing to light this loop hole expose tax exemptions?
or special rights no ordinary person would receive

xploder


edit on 4-5-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


It's a vicious cycle isn't it? I believe there should be a safety net for people that get in a jam or start out life way behind the pack but it needs to be an honest safety net, an actual boost instead of signing your life away to the cycle of scraping by if you're lucky. The middle class life used to be easy street now it is one pay check away from skid row. A system that can condemn a person to destitution because your health care doesn't pay for your cancer treatments and your boss doesn't give a crap is a system in need of much more fixing than personal accountability can provide.


It begins with personal accountability, and it ultimately ends with personal accountability. The vicious cycle comes from acquiescing to tyranny. The multitude of licensing schemes thrust upon the American people, from top to bottom or bottom up, local, state, and federal, has killed any semblance of a free market. Consider just this single act of legislation by one single city in America:

Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 42.00 (b)


Street Sale of Goods Prohibited. (Amended by Ord. No. 169,319, Eff. 2/18/94.) No person, except as otherwise permitted by this section, shall on any sidewalk or street offer for sale, solicit the sale of, announce by any means the availability of, or have in his or her possession, control or custody, whether upon his or her person or upon some other animate or inanimate object, any goods, wares or merchandise which the public may purchase at any time. This subsection shall not apply to the sale of poppies, badges and labels as defined by Military and Veterans Code Section 1800 on a parkway or sidewalk by persons bearing a valid information card issued pursuant to Article 4 of this chapter authorizing such person to do so.


By what lawful authority does the City of Los Angeles find the audacity to prohibit people from selling their wares on a public sidewalk? How many people are oppressed by this ordinance? Of course, I live in Los Angeles and this ordinance doesn't stop the street vending, it only allows the L.A.P.D. to extort hard working entrepreneurs who are just trying to make an honest living selling socks, underwear, plants, and other lawful goods. The argument I often hear in defense of this ordinance is that it is not fair to the licensed brick and mortar stores who've gone along with the system. However, most stores who've done this never had to acquiesce to the oppressive licensing schemes thrust upon them, they just did, and probably out of expedience.

It is all about revenue generation and aggregation of power for governments, and as government aggregates more power and generates more revenue at the expense of the People, the harder it becomes or those People to act with the charity that most assuredly is in their hear. Does this make sense?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Don't get get me wrong, I don't believe life is supposed to be easy, in fact I think it's probably hard even if you're born with a silver spoon in your mouth. I just think there's something wrong with a system that depends on keeping people down.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I completely agree with you and people need to stand up and say this isn't right, which is exactly what's happening.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Be careful not to so deeply entrench yourself in this scarcity paradigm just to be right about your own perception of helplessness. It benefits no one, most importantly you!

I am always amazed how many people there are so willing to dismiss natural law as a "philosophical" ideal, as if gravity is "philosophical", as if bodies in motion is "philosophical" in the context you mean it to be.

Frankly, I am amazed at how many people use this dismissal of "philosophical" as if philosophy is merely a luxury instead of a fundamental basic need. Everyone has a philosophy whether they know it or not. Those who know their philosophy are better off than those who don't. Either way, everyone has a philosophy.

If you want to view your own unalienable rights as merely being some sort of luxurious ideal only real in the comfort of coffee houses and academic institutions this is your business, but I guarantee you that if this represents the general attitude of the Occupy movement, we're all screwed.

Let us just take your argument of juries and consensus. Consensus generally means a general agreement. A jury verdict, however is not a consensus, in most states - when prosecuting a criminal trial where threat of incarceration of six months or longer exists - there must be a unanimous decision for either a guilty or not guilty verdict, without that the trail ends with a hung jury and the defendant must be set free, although the state has the luxury of recharging that defendant.

There are more things in Heaven and on Earth, XPLodER, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I am one who dwells on the hill and I on occasion come down to check things out and sit on the fence, looking at both sides of the coin, seeing the paradoxes and it is hard for me to agree with either side because I think while they both have the welfare our our society in their hearts, they have such extreme differences in how to fix our nations problems, it becomes so much more than a right or wrong black or white issue in my mind, and for the extremists on both ends of the spectrum, this is viewed so often as spineless, mediocre, lacking conviction or belief, and a futilistic attitude.

Really, it is not that I don't care or lack conviction in general but rather neither side has done enough of a good job at convincing me yet exactly why I should be on "their side". I see too many holes in each sides philosophies to embrace either at this point in time. Ideologically I am not comfortable with big govt but I also, like Kali feel that we as a society should do more to help our fellow man.....I am just very hesitant of putting this task on our govt, when in principle I feel it is our responsibility to help our fellow citizens, yet....somehow we have gotten away from this.

I have so many more questions and very few answers, so I come to ATS to look for those answers, I have read some brilliant posts that lead me to think if we ever did get together and really hammered through these ideas we could find a consensus.....that is what people ultimately crave I think......not this side versus that side but rather a strategdy that we all can agree to, more or less.....and that is what occupy should aim for in my mind.

Jean Paul, another excellent bit of writing there.....you expressed alot I could relate to. S&F.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Mijamija
 


Thank you for joining us, my friend. What thrills me about this thread is that those who have joined from either side have shown a tremendous willingness to discuss the issues instead of attacking each other. How cool is that?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Yes, it is not only cool, but also very encouraging in my mind. This is exactly the kind of conversations I feel people from all political backgrounds should be having.....if we could ever get past the left wing right wing stuff, and sit down at the big table as AMERICANS, I think we could move in the direction of common ground solutions to our problems....maybe I am idealistic on this, I think I am truly, but it is happening to a small degree it seems. Really as people and as Americans we all want to same basic things, our problem is deciding how we go about acquiring these basic things.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Be careful not to so deeply entrench yourself in this scarcity paradigm just to be right about your own perception of helplessness. It benefits no one, most importantly you!


i cant speak for OCCUPY so dont take my answers as their opinion or consenus,
as this is not the case, i am one, in general assemblies their are many these are my humble opinions only

without a measured and fair balence of scaricity inovation would not be nessacery,
hard work would be of no benifit,
but it is the "extras" in life that are the reward
not the necesaties,


I am always amazed how many people there are so willing to dismiss natural law as a "philosophical" ideal, as if gravity is "philosophical", as if bodies in motion is "philosophical" in the context you mean it to be.


i find it hard to be philosofical while people are losing their holmes and businesses
when the day to day of existence under pervailing laws so many wronged and devorced from justice.


Frankly, I am amazed at how many people use this dismissal of "philosophical" as if philosophy is merely a luxury instead of a fundamental basic need. Everyone has a philosophy whether they know it or not. Those who know their philosophy are better off than those who don't. Either way, everyone has a philosophy.


people are uniquely peaceful,
violence is deplored universally

there is a small percentage who defy this.


If you want to view your own unalienable rights as merely being some sort of luxurious ideal only real in the comfort of coffee houses and academic institutions this is your business, but I guarantee you that if this represents the general attitude of the Occupy movement, we're all screwed.


i can no more represent a million people with individual ideas,
than i can wear a million hats


everything i say is MY Humble Opinion
i can engauge you with my perception of the situation and debate
what is the problem
what are viable solutions


Let us just take your argument of juries and consensus. Consensus generally means a general agreement. A jury verdict, however is not a consensus, in most states - when prosecuting a criminal trial where threat of incarceration of six months or longer exists - there must be a unanimous decision for either a guilty or not guilty verdict, without that the trail ends with a hung jury and the defendant must be set free, although the state has the luxury of recharging that defendant.


the example was to show that group consensus does have a place in law considerations
and that it is people that make those considerations


There are more things in Heaven and on Earth, XPLodER, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.





it is the philosophy of the people as a whole distilled to a commonality,

What Can You All Agree On?

is it that we are all free?
is it that banking works perfectly for all involved?
that lobbying is bribary?
that men are created equal?

to ponder the questions begs for answers
to ask others the question invites answers

why must we not ask the question,
why is wall street above the law?

xploder



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


this vid has the type of philosphy i like,


the one where the only real change is one of the heart,
i am not a hippy, i am science minded,

but this makes sence in a symbiotic level,
that for the world to work we must care for one another,
because the money at all costs paradime, is costing us our futures.

xploder



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Innovation is not dependent upon scarcity, simply need. Need should not be equated with scarcity. We need water to survive. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the known universe. The beauty of this is that here on Earth we have Oxygen. These two elements combined in the form of H20 brings us water. It's abundance, however, does not eliminate needs.

Hard work always has a benefit and that benefit lies in the satisfaction that comes once the work is done. Hard work for the sake of hard work is a faulty premise probably shoved down poor peoples throats by those who don't want them to flourish and prosper. The simple reality is that no person will ever get rich through hard work alone. If you are dependent upon only your own physical effort to earn income, then you can only earn as much as the effort you put forth combined with what the market determines that effort is worth. When you learn to earn income while you sleep, then you'll finally begin to flourish and prosper.

Necessities are just as much a reward as any "extras". It is good to be grateful for all we have, not just that which we deem unnecessary.

I find it hard to understand why people continue to insist that being "philosophical" means foregoing concerns about real world problems. Real world problems do not get solved by people with unknown philosophies.

What are viable solutions? I keep insisting that they lie in our own personal efforts to flourish and prosper. You have to come to your own conclusions on what it takes to flourish and prosper, but once you have, the next step is to ensure that.

You seem to be missing the points I make. As in, for example, the point of law that jury's must reach a unanimous decision of a guilty or not guilty verdict. It is not through consensus, but through a unanimous decision. When the Supreme Court makes a unanimous decision, such as the one in Bond v. United States, this is noticeably different than a consensus derived by split decision such as Citizen's United v. FEC.

This insistence on somehow keeping a banking system that offers so little in the way of goods and services instead of just simply refusing to do business with a bank unless you have so much wealth it makes sense to store most of it in a bank or you are able to obtain a loan to start your own business is the problem, not banking in and of itself.

The scam was when banks created a system of credit that allowed people to live beyond their means. It was remarkably naive to believe that one could simply just live beyond ones needs on credit and not expect that bill to come in at some point.

The answers are there, but not everyone likes the answer, and my concern here is that by consensus people will decide to reject the answer in favor of a solution that will not work.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



You seem to be missing the points I make. As in, for example, the point of law that jury's must reach a unanimous decision of a guilty or not guilty verdict. It is not through consensus, but through a unanimous decision. When the Supreme Court makes a unanimous decision, such as the one in Bond v. United States, this is noticeably different than a consensus derived by split decision such as Citizen's United v. FEC.


a corperate person gets found guilty in a civil court and pays civil fines, (how come)
a real person gets found guilty of crimes in a criminal court then faces civil charges= jail and fines


This insistence on somehow keeping a banking system that offers so little in the way of goods and services instead of just simply refusing to do business with a bank unless you have so much wealth it makes sense to store most of it in a bank or you are able to obtain a loan to start your own business is the problem, not banking in and of itself.


the banking industry is lending your own money to you at interest,
0.0025% from the back of the tax payer,
+
bank rate
06.5%
=
6.4975% profit for the bank

profit = private
cost = citizen



The scam was when banks created a system of credit that allowed people to live beyond their means. It was remarkably naive to believe that one could simply just live beyond ones needs on credit and not expect that bill to come in at some point.

and let me guess delaware is where all the credit card companies are incorperated?

cont
xp



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



I find it hard to understand why people continue to insist that being "philosophical" means foregoing concerns about real world problems. Real world problems do not get solved by people with unknown philosophies.

What are viable solutions? I keep insisting that they lie in our own personal efforts to flourish and prosper. You have to come to your own conclusions on what it takes to flourish and prosper, but once you have, the next step is to ensure that.



i would say the increase in debt is a trick to put people into servatude,
why is no one getting pay rises?
why does this co-incide with the increase in debt offered?

it is when the comodity that is money of a nation works for that nation, and not for an outside interest that individuals can flourish, else the bill on the interest will always drown the needs of the many.

it has always been boom bust with the extensuion and contraction of the money markets,
that deprive people of their property, always

look to the bank of north dekota, state bank pays its devidend to the state,
could be used for hospitals and schools instead of private profits for the few

infrastrucutre state banks that have a federal charter for a specific infrastructure spending project,
the seed company can "loan" in state to customers, their interest is set aside for infrastructure projects,

promotes jobs
non inflationary
provides competition in the lending market

stability
lowers systemic risk
not a monopoly of the creation of the comodity that is money

xploder
edit on 4-5-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


In an earlier post I listed several real live human beings who worked for corporations that were subsequently convicted of crimes such as fraud and other atrocities and spent time in prison. Why are you ignoring this indisputable fact in order to cling to you perplexity on this red herring of corporate "personhood"?

You then ignore my suggestion of rejecting the banks as an individual just so you can complain about their interest rates.

Finally, are you being sarcastic about the State of Delaware and the obscene amount of Fortune 500 companies chartered for incorporation in that state? Are you expecting me to do your work for you in doing the necessary research to inform yourself on charter revocation?

Killing Korporations



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by XPLodER
 


In an earlier post I listed several real live human beings who worked for corporations that were subsequently convicted of crimes such as fraud and other atrocities and spent time in prison. Why are you ignoring this indisputable fact in order to cling to you perplexity on this red herring of corporate "personhood"?

it is from behind these corperate "faces" that legislation is written to allow these corperate "actors" to do things no human being would ever do.
a corperation cant be given the death penilty yet it can kill


You then ignore my suggestion of rejecting the banks as an individual just so you can complain about their interest rates.

you ignore the role money creation plays in the outcomes of society,
and the standard of living is tied directly to the interest demands on society


Finally, are you being sarcastic about the State of Delaware and the obscene amount of Fortune 500 companies chartered for incorporation in that state? Are you expecting me to do your work for you in doing the necessary research to inform yourself on charter revocation?

Killing Korporations


not at all,
do you think individuals can compete with these corperations in any way?
do you think it is co-incedence these corps can play one state against each other?
i am sure no real person can play those games

xploder



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I went out of my way to offer you not one, but two sources, one a thread I busted my ass off to create myself called Killing Korporations, just so that you could ignore that effort and insist that corporations cannot be killed. They can be killed and I have offered information on how to do so.

Further, I am most assuredly not ignoring the role of money, but unlike you I am not foolishly so indoctrinated that I think that money and banking are the same thing. Congress was authorized to print and coin money by Constitution and no mandate was given they relinquish this job to a private banking cartel!

I think individuals should ignore all this bogus legislation regarding corporations and learn to flourish and prosper in the free and unregulated market place.

I think you can have parallel markets where chartered corporations can live under the regulations of the state, and individuals can operate outside those regulatory schemes as sole proprietors.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I went out of my way to offer you not one, but two sources, one a thread I busted my ass off to create myself called Killing Korporations, just so that you could ignore that effort and insist that corporations cannot be killed. They can be killed and I have offered information on how to do so.


your information is much appreciated

i am sorry if you though i had ignored it, i have some science under way atm and it takes up some of my time



Further, I am most assuredly not ignoring the role of money, but unlike you I am not foolishly so indoctrinated that I think that money and banking are the same thing. Congress was authorized to print and coin money by Constitution and no mandate was given they relinquish this job to a private banking cartel!


i am glad we agree this is not the way it is ment to be

i would point to the fractional reserve requirements and the creation of money document as published by the FMOC


I think individuals should ignore all this bogus legislation regarding corporations and learn to flourish and prosper in the free and unregulated market place.


when the corperations push laws like stand your ground and imigration laws it makes it hard to prosper,
when lobbying from banks removes the glass stegal firewall,
when ALEC is more powerful and flooding the congress with legislation and capturing the time of the legislators it makes it very hard to just survive. when the laws are stacked against the little guy
, in favour of a multinational how can the average man or woman succed?


I think you can have parallel markets where chartered corporations can live under the regulations of the state, and individuals can operate outside those regulatory schemes as sole proprietors.

no individual can compete with the corperate profits and there is no setting for individuals to write then lobby for their own "taylor made" law changes.

the scales of justice are tipped in the favour of corperations, and this makes many small business imposable.

xploder






posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


The Stand Your Ground Legislations are closely related to Castle Doctrine, which in terms of the common law the United States relies so heavily upon can be better understood by checking out William Blackstone's Commentaries of the Laws of England. What that has to do with corporations as you imply is not clear.

In terms of the Glass - Steagall Act, this act established the FDIC, however, I keep insisting that you don't need to do any business with banks at all. Indeed, the sooner people come to understand this, the sooner we can return to an age where banking institutions do not have such a stronghold on economies they have no business controlling!

You seem to want to trust government to write up legislation that would protect you from evil, including the evils of banking, but this is pure folly. Why is doing business with banks so important to you?

Finally, you asked me if I thought individuals could compete with corporations. My answer was clear enough. Individuals should not have to compete with corporations. Corporations should be regulated as much as necessary. Individuals should be regulated as little as possible. When you have individuals who can own and operate their own businesses without the monstrous intrusions of regulatory schemes and the bureaucracy's that implement and enforce them, this gives them an advantage over corporations...of course, this last time out you changed your position somewhat and now are insisting that individuals cannot compete with corporate profits.

The profits of one market from the other are irrelevant. You can place your focus on the free and open market where you are not in any direct competition with corporations and strive to flourish and prosper. If it is corporate profits you desire, then form a corporation and live with the regulations that come with this.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Not to derail the thread, but I found something for Jean-Paul and the other naysayers on Page One who jumped down my throat for being a Marxist and a Maoist:







new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join