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.

 

Gary Johnson on Obamacare Ruling: “Now it appears we need a new Supreme Court."

page: 2
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I agree with you 100%, so does most of america and we HAVE agreed on this point for some time. So why the hell hasn't anything been done about it? How do we get the ball rolling on this?

Also my beef (now) with passing this mandated tax is that there are too many excluded: congress, unions other special interest groups and some states. How can that possibly be a fair tax? That is the way to fight this: special tax for certain groups. Let's say I'm a non union worker who has to pay the tax when a union worker doesn't? How can that be legal?


I would say it's because us little people aren't greasing the hands of these corrupt, lobbyist kissing, under-handed, corporate-kickback taking, lying, cheating scoundrels.

Basically, if you can do something to entice them or fill the "Whats in it for me?" requirement, you can get anything done. Thus why all these "special interest groups" are getting waivers.

Complete BS!




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 
Why would you or anyone that can think and reason not know that if the progressives under the control of the socialist and the communist movements have infiltrated every facet of the government and educational systems that they don't have control over the supreme court.
This is a rigged game that has been in play for many decades, the word "inevitability" comes to mind.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Revolution will leave us crippled. Look at what happens when nations have revolutions these days:

1) They lose their sovereignty.
2) They sell out to wealthier, more powerful nations, or rather, are conquered by wealthier, more powerful nations.
3) A large power vacuum is left after the old leadership is dismantled, leading to warring parties.

Basically, it would be pure chaos. China would swoop in and enslave us to centuries of debt in a heartbeat.

Gary Johnson is the only candidate who I'd bother voting for, even though my vote won't matter. Considering the amount of controversy, as well as lack of campaign funding, the Obama campaign has gotten itself into, I think we can safely assume Romney will be our next Warlord.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
We need a new country period.

One that doesn't constantly think of ways of ripping off its citizens and growing into this huge unsustainable train wreck of a government.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Government subsidised heathcare works just fine in Australia and much of Europe. In fact, I don't know where we would be without it, nor can I imagine my country without such a system. Everyone has a right to health regardless of your socio economic bracket. I don't know what all you people are worried about. It's fear-mongering at it's best... Every man for himself in the US. Glad I don't live there!

IRM



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Thanks for responding. I'll forward this thread to the GJ campaign and see if they'd like to comment. It's undoubtedly something that will come up as he gathers more steam, in any event.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   
I am not really sure, what you all want:

- you don't want a huge government.
- you don't want big business ruling the government.

Fine by me, but WHO should run the county? Nobody? The people? Well, you HAVE voted for your president, maybe not you in person, but you in general. So, the people have voted for your president, and as long as he is president, he will do what he is allowed to do.

Next problem:
Now there is a decision by a court which you don't like - so you want a new court. If this kind of thinking kicks in, you will get NOWHERE. You will have a jurisdiction which belongs to the legislative powers - so two of the three main political powers are in one hand.
You won't want that, trust me. Who would control the presidents/congresses/senats decisions in legal ways, so that those decisions are legal? They would affirm their own decisions. Which is bad.

If all of this is too complex and makes your head hurt, think about only this: Who watches the politicians?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


Revolution at the voting booth?

Surreeee, pick another puppet! Maybe things won't be so bad after all.

Give me a break!



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
I am not really sure, what you all want:

- you don't want a huge government.
- you don't want big business ruling the government.

Fine by me, but WHO should run the county? Nobody? The people? Well, you HAVE voted for your president, maybe not you in person, but you in general. So, the people have voted for your president, and as long as he is president, he will do what he is allowed to do.


You're thinking very narrowly. Ideally we would operate by removing the executive branch and replacing with a parliament. Our parliament would operate similarly to that of the British parliament, especially in terms of elections.

Another option would be to go fully utilitarian and hold majority votes on every issue. The problem with this is that issues which divide the nation would cause a stalemate and we would have to decide where to draw the line on what we define permissible dismissal/negligence of minorities; would a 90:10 vote suffice? How about a 70:30 or 51:49?

Basically, our current system really sucks and is not serving us. If our democracy is to be by and for the people, let the actual people run it. A term-based system is imbecilic, especially when there is the option for re-election. It turns the entire presidency into a circus act to garnish votes.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 


Main problem with going full utiliarian is that there are just too many people who are misinformed by biased media so that they would decide in ways which are bad for the country. Another problem is deciding where to cut it: which problems are for the people to decide on their own? If you do that with every political process you would have to get the people to vote every other week - with diminishing numbers of voters, of course.

Democracy is the leadership of the people, by definition. But as not all people can always be informed about every detail or don't have the time to do so, you would always have a huge number of badinformed people who would vote for the loudest voice in their media. Better to let only some and dedicated people do so, under constant supervision.

Therefore the current version of democracy is quite on the right track, in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Battleline
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 
Why would you or anyone that can think and reason not know that if the progressives under the control of the socialist and the communist movements have infiltrated every facet of the government and educational systems that they don't have control over the supreme court.
This is a rigged game that has been in play for many decades, the word "inevitability" comes to mind.


When I first read the Biblical predictions of the Antichrist, I thought "That can't happen here. The Constitution stands in the way."

Well, the good news is that Jesus comes and destroys the Antichrist. All we have to do is hold on until then!



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by circlemaker
 


Good God, no! True Democracy simply would not work. What you would have is mob rule....or worse. Those productive members of society wouldn't have the time to intelligently research positions and vote.

Come to think of it, this may be exactly where we are today.
edit on 6/29/2012 by scottkuma because: grammar edit.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Gary is a smart guy, he has a good head on his shoulders. He was our Governor for a few good years and he did well for New Mexico. Common sense and a sense of direction go a long way !



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Another sad thing is that this ruling is beginning to kill some of Johnson's thunder. He was polling over 10% in some states and the idea of him being included in the debates started looking somewhat plausible. Now? I can't count the number of people I've heard tell me "WE HAVE TO VOTE ROMNEY TO GET RID OF OBAMACARE!"



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
Another sad thing is that this ruling is beginning to kill some of Johnson's thunder. He was polling over 10% in some states and the idea of him being included in the debates started looking somewhat plausible. Now? I can't count the number of people I've heard tell me "WE HAVE TO VOTE ROMNEY TO GET RID OF OBAMACARE!"


That kneejerk reaction will fade promptly when people realize Romney is badmouthing a health plan he instituted himself in Mass. Even the guy Obama hired to work up the plan said that it's idiotic for Romney to run on an anti Obamacare platform, because it's the same plan he wrote for Romney, and the same plan that now has 98% of people in Mass. covered.

The flipping point will be if Gary can get in the debates (but we've already seen the gross manipulations of polling data or ignoring of them to deny him access). When people compare Gary's honesty and straight talking to both the empty suit Romney and the still bombing people all over the place Obama, they'll realize they don't have to hold their nose to vote in November. The possibilities for a third party rise have never been greater.

I don't have a teevee anymore and don't watch network news except occasionally on line, but I find it fascinating how little press the third party is getting this time around. When it was Perot or Nader, they were constantly discussed (and in the case of Perot, mocked as a sideshow). The press is keeping spectacularly quiet about Johnson and has from the beginning. The Republican party ignored him into oblivion from the git-go in favor of their already-chosen Romney, even though Johnson was the FIRST to declare his candidacy, way back in April 2011. The silence and refusal to let him in debates is telling. They're VERY afraid of when people compare him to Romney.

Remember how every three weeks, there was a new Republican 'front-runner' to gin up enthusiasm? Along with the fake candidacies of Trump and Palin, there was, in no particular order, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum, Pawlenty, a tiny two minute long surge for Huntsman until he let on that he spoke Chinese, then he was too smart for Republicans, and meanwhile Ron Paul was pretended to not exist even though he was pulling in huge crowds. Gary was even more ghost-like, and neither RP or him ever had their three week moment in the polling sun. The manipulation by the RNC of which candidate was going to 'win the nomination' was never so obvious.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join