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.

 

What exactly DO we want?

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


Interesting perpsective, I can relate in a way. I live in a very rural area but have lived in a large city as well. The environments are pretty different and the local governments are extremely different!
I am glad I was born and raised in the small town, but value my 10 years in the big city as well....but very happy to be back "home".

So the federal government needs to serve as "facilitator" and organize the different state governments to ensure that everybody is on the same page? I can see the benefit in that. Even though we each want to live our own lives, so does everyone else and there has to be some kind of basic standard set so we don't encroach on one another's freedom.
It seems to be taken to extremes in today's government, but it's not really something we can get rid of completely or we may be back to the ideas of the "Old West".

I can see the benefit of "everyone for themselves" as well as the benefits of "a common standard"....

Maybe the next question (and there may be differences of opinion on this, just please, no political bickering, only open dialogue, it's the only way to accomplish anything)...what do we want

1. A common standard set at the federal level
2. Each state sets their own standards without requirement to acknowledge those of other states unless they choose to do so

... keep in mind, the civil war wasn't fought over slavery, at least not slavery alone. There was a difference in opinion on state control vs federal control and our nation went to war with itself... let's not take it to that point please


Although it's from a movie, there was an interesting quote in National Treasure: Book of Secrets ..
Before the Civil War, the states were all separate. People used to say "United States are." Wasn't until the war ended, people started saying "The United States is." Under Lincoln, we became one nation.

edit on 4-6-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Although it's from a movie, there was an interesting quote in National Treasure: Book of Secrets ..
Before the Civil War, the states were all separate. People used to say "United States are." Wasn't until the war ended, people started saying "The United States is." Under Lincoln, we became one nation.



Absolutely true! And it wasn't until Lincoln's 14th amendment, that supposedly made everyone "equal", that all of the people in all the states were equally put "under the jurisdiction" of the federal government. Prior to that they were state's citizens with state's rights. As Lincoln said, he only cared about keeping the "union" intact, and what that really was, was a move to strengthen centralized federal control over the states and the people.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Constitutional Republic Checklist:

The ‘Federal Government’ is solely responsible for BORDER DEFENSE as this is beyond the scope of individual states.

Only individual states may enter into contractual agreements with residents pertaining to taxation. As such, citizens would know the fate of every penny spent.

Politicians are not paid because there is no reason to assemble delegates from across the country in one location so they may ‘vote’ as there would be little left past the state level. This system allows the people to represent themselves.

A majority of all laws and statutes are passed at a county/town/city level. The Founding Fathers intended for citizens to ‘choose’ where to reside. For example, if you do not agree with regulations in Town A, move to Town B; County A, move to County B; or State A, move to State B.

Initially every state was intended to issue its own currency and regulate its own economic activity.

States would vote individually in regards to any military action. This is why every state has the right to form and keep a militia.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I would like a contract stating all the things the presidental electoral candidate said he/she would do for America-and I want that contract signed by him/her before entering in the office-and if he/she does not uphold their contract: I want repercussions. I want results. I don't want the elite having control either. I want a better FDA system-one that stays on top of BS drugs(like bathsalts-that should never have been legal) and legalize marijuana; I want men to butt out of women's health issues/concerns and stop voting against things that are needed and less expensive in the long run, I want places to be responsible to help everyone get employed(the over 40, the fresh out of college with degts, and etc. not just the military) and offer bonus's for each category filled; I want other things-but this would be a start.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Although it's from a movie, there was an interesting quote in National Treasure: Book of Secrets ..
Before the Civil War, the states were all separate. People used to say "United States are." Wasn't until the war ended, people started saying "The United States is." Under Lincoln, we became one nation.



Absolutely true! And it wasn't until Lincoln's 14th amendment, that supposedly made everyone "equal", that all of the people in all the states were equally put "under the jurisdiction" of the federal government. Prior to that they were state's citizens with state's rights. As Lincoln said, he only cared about keeping the "union" intact, and what that really was, was a move to strengthen centralized federal control over the states and the people.



Not political baiting in any way, but it's ironic that Lincoln was the President that initiated strengthening the centralized government, is one of the "icons" of the Republican party and the Republican party is at the forefront now of returning to state's rights. Have we come full circle in our political ideologies? .... or perhaps half-circle would be a better description.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
Constitutional Republic Checklist:

The ‘Federal Government’ is solely responsible for BORDER DEFENSE as this is beyond the scope of individual states.

Only individual states may enter into contractual agreements with residents pertaining to taxation. As such, citizens would know the fate of every penny spent.

Politicians are not paid because there is no reason to assemble delegates from across the country in one location so they may ‘vote’ as there would be little left past the state level. This system allows the people to represent themselves.

A majority of all laws and statutes are passed at a county/town/city level. The Founding Fathers intended for citizens to ‘choose’ where to reside. For example, if you do not agree with regulations in Town A, move to Town B; County A, move to County B; or State A, move to State B.

Initially every state was intended to issue its own currency and regulate its own economic activity.

States would vote individually in regards to any military action. This is why every state has the right to form and keep a militia.


One of the things that struck me greatly was the mention of no need to assemble to vote on matters (you said because not much would be left past state matters), but even now, with the federal government handling a great deal, would it be more realistic for them to ... "telecommute" so to speak? With our present technology, the entire congress could do video conferencing and there would be no need for them to be in DC, maintain their offices there, maintain housing there, and no need to have the very large salaries since they would be able to continue their careers and their representation would be a part-time second job that would take only a few hours a day, if that.
Would it be possible for us to cut the corners, have them videoconference, make the salary,... say.... $10,000 per year, which is generous considering the amount of work they do? This could help eliminate them being so easy to wine and dine for those seeking "favors" as well and cut out some of the more obvious corruption.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MoEskiMo
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I would like a contract stating all the things the presidental electoral candidate said he/she would do for America-and I want that contract signed by him/her before entering in the office-and if he/she does not uphold their contract: I want repercussions. I want results. I don't want the elite having control either. I want a better FDA system-one that stays on top of BS drugs(like bathsalts-that should never have been legal) and legalize marijuana; I want men to butt out of women's health issues/concerns and stop voting against things that are needed and less expensive in the long run, I want places to be responsible to help everyone get employed(the over 40, the fresh out of college with degts, and etc. not just the military) and offer bonus's for each category filled; I want other things-but this would be a start.


I completely agree that they need to be held liable for the campaign promises they make but never keep! What type of reprecussions could we use?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Is it fair that Presidents continue to draw their salary/benefits for the remainder of their lives? Do other politicians also retain their salaries for higher offices? That's one heck of a retirement plan!!!!



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I think we need:

1. A centralized government that concerns itself with only the operations of its own country, and the operations of other countries that affect the country it's watching over.

2. Corporations must always put the customer first, regardless of how it affects revenue. This means the corporations cannot manipulate the government in order to get more sales, in return for giving the government a cookie or something ($5,000,000 to install a new tile floor in the second floor bathroom, by the Lincoln wing. *cough cough*).

3. The people must have employment by which they can support their families, but the government can only interfere in the employment process to ensure it runs smoothly. Discrimination laws and such.

I'm not in the mood to describe exactly what I want. I just realized this is a political sausagefest which will most likely end with people shouting political terms in an attempt to make their judgmental bigotry sound educated instead of the overly ripe heap of rotted tripe it actually is.

Have fun with that.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 
I'm not in the mood to describe exactly what I want. I just realized this is a political sausagefest which will most likely end with people shouting political terms in an attempt to make their judgmental bigotry sound educated instead of the overly ripe heap of rotted tripe it actually is.

Have fun with that.


Perhaps, but I intend to do all I possibly can to prevent that



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
We are seeing a great deal of
1. smaller government
2. smaller corporations
3. fewer laws
4. fewer intrusions
5. more responsibility and rights to the individual

It seems we are off to a very good start as well as doing very well with respect and dignity to one another. Thank you for all you've offered so far!!

Now, where do we go from here? What qualities do we need in the next "leader"? Are there any changes we would like to make in the internal structure of the government?
The concept of videoconferencing is very interesting to me. Our congressmen could easily videoconference instead of spending time in DC, maintaining the offices and living accomodations and hob-nobbing with the people wanting to line their pockets for special favors.
Any thoughts on these or any other ideas that could be constructive?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Good luck with that, then.

In the meantime, let's enjoy a display of absolute lack of education in the field of how to run the government properly. Something the schools pointedly avoid including in their average curriculum.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Good luck with that, then.

In the meantime, let's enjoy a display of absolute lack of education in the field of how to run the government properly. Something the schools pointedly avoid including in their average curriculum.


ahhhh, but if we're changing the running of the government, that would have been futile anyway other than for historical reference


...I do miss schoolhouse rock.... I'm just a bill, I'm only a bill, sittin here on capital hill....

edit on 4-6-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Yea, I got more.

I would like it be put on the books that every official political convention everywhere in the United States be broadcast live on national TV. Also, I would like this to be thoroughly advertised.

I'd be happy if my tax dollars went towards that.
edit on 4-6-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Haha...no.


3. fewer laws
4. fewer intrusions


Here's where we already have our first problem. You're assuming we have decency to behave ourselves. Looked around lately?

From what I can see, the fact that we are still making arrests because of people whose judgment wasn't quite fine-tuned, or just mad idiots who decided to run amok...fewer laws, really? We don't have enough people dying?

Fewer intrusions. Okay, show me a state that has a crime rate of 0% for five years running. I could go 10, but I'll be nice and keep it at five. Any takers? No? Okay then. Why in Hades should we have fewer intrusions?

I'll tell you what people want: they want the ability to be stupid without the consequences. That is exactly what they want. They want to stick their whole face in the fire and not get burned. They want to get wasted and drive perfect.

That's all these people want. Period.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Yea, I got more.

I would like it be put on the books that every official political convention everywhere in the United States be broadcast live on national TV. Also, I would like this to be thoroughly advertised.

I'd be happy if my tax dollars went towards that.
edit on 4-6-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


Excellent!! Full Transparency!



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Haha...no.


3. fewer laws
4. fewer intrusions


Here's where we already have our first problem. You're assuming we have decency to behave ourselves. Looked around lately?

From what I can see, the fact that we are still making arrests because of people whose judgment wasn't quite fine-tuned, or just mad idiots who decided to run amok...fewer laws, really? We don't have enough people dying?

Fewer intrusions. Okay, show me a state that has a crime rate of 0% for five years running. I could go 10, but I'll be nice and keep it at five. Any takers? No? Okay then. Why in Hades should we have fewer intrusions?

I'll tell you what people want: they want the ability to be stupid without the consequences. That is exactly what they want. They want to stick their whole face in the fire and not get burned. They want to get wasted and drive perfect.

That's all these people want. Period.


But that is why this one is included

5. more responsibility and rights to the individual

Stress on RESPONSIBILITY
....of course reprecussions would have to be swift and appropriate, which does get complicated.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
i didnt read the op but i replied anyway.
if thi was a thread about spaghetti i could say somrthing constructive. because i like spaghetti.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by lacrimosa
i didnt read the op but i replied anyway.
if thi was a thread about spaghetti i could say somrthing constructive. because i like spaghetti.


gotta admit, spaghetti is pretty good!



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread847180/pg3#pid14261189]post by PurpleChiten
 


Not political baiting in any way, but it's ironic that Lincoln was the President that initiated strengthening the centralized government, is one of the "icons" of the Republican party and the Republican party is at the forefront now of returning to state's rights. Have we come full circle in our political ideologies? .... or perhaps half-circle would be a better description.


No baiting allowed without a fishin' pole in your hand.


What's confusing to me about the left right paradigm is the crazy conglomeration of fiscal cons/social libs or the reverse and all the other mismatched odds and ends ideas. Sometimes its hard to put people in little boxes, but I do know people who are conservative to the bone who are big time tenth amendment supporters, so yes, states rights is a big deal to them. But I'm pretty socially liberal and agree with them 100% on that issue.

Just can't help it, whenever I think of circles the only thing that stands out in my mind is the drain we're circling.

On your comments about teleconferencing ~ I don't think we'd ever get them to agree to that for several reasons, but mostly because of Article 1, Section 6, which states (paraphrasing) that reps and sens can't be arrested while coming or going from attendence at their sessions and although I'm not sure why that's even in there, it sure gives one pause to wonder if state officials might not be as patient with insider back room collusion and dirty dealing by federal congressmen when they're in their states or districts. Not sure what all might constitute malfeasance or misfeasance, but one of them would probably fit in that event. But besides that, schmoozing with lobbyists and other movers and shakers in the glitzy city is half the deal and those guys with the money bags hang out in DC.

Hmmm, teleconferencing is starting to sound real good. Well, to us anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join