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.

 

Still A Supporter Of ANY Political Party????? HOW??? WHY??? and OMG!!!!

page: 2
27
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Sly1one
 


I watched a Youtube video Yesterday ( from my current point of view, currently day before yesterday, now, but I am an insomniac ) where a seemingly bright, and very well intentioned young man fell into a trap by trying to say that "government" was a world that, when broken down, meant "govern - to control, and ment (mental) thoughts."

Cute word play, and close to home. But the true birth of the word means "guidance or steerage ( in the nautical sense ).

What we have today, even in the west, is not a government in any sense of the world. We have moved from "guidance" to "control and forced reliance"

So, in that sense, I agree. But would happily support a return to something that had the spirit of the original concept of governance. A guiding hand - not a forceful one.

~Heff


To guide would require force in the end no? The ship sailing gets guidance from the rudder...which is forcing the ship in a direction it would not naturally head in...

If the government is NOT voluntary...force is required...if I cannot denounce there to be no governance over me, then that government is not voluntary and in the end force will escalate until one wins over the other...(usually the government). If I CAN denounce there is no governance over me...then indeed the government dies that very second...Wouldn't that then imply that the only government that can exist...is one that ensures its survival through force...

I cannot honestly say that I know what the traditional intent of government was...I just know what history shows it always turns into...which is usually far from the proclaimed (good) intent...which I assume is why the phrase "good intentions pave the road to hell" seems so relevant...

guidance...hmm how indeed would a guidance non forced voluntary government look? act? I am honestly curious...




posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by Hefficide
 


In a democracy....where everyone that is a citizen has a right to vote...how can one person be chosen to represent the many differing masses fairly??? It can't...someone, somewhere, some group somewhere will be the minority and subject to the wills and desires of the masses. This is not independence...this is not liberty...this is mob rule...

The house, the senate, the this, the that...are merely symptoms of the overall problem...there are fundamental issues and contradictions of the governmental machine and its proclamations that are of a larger concern...

I'm not concerned with the house...the senate...the presidency...I'm concerned with the very nature of government...the nature of that beast implies the many over the few...or the few over the many...neither of which are capable of providing freedom, liberty, and justice for ALL...and to proclaim it is possible is an outright lie...


IMHO, the constitution of the USA is the best blueprint for a government in recorded history. There may have been better before our liftetimes but I think most people would be thrilled with a government that followed the constitution of the USA. Of course it's not perfect but no such system will ever be perfect.

I wish that instead of an occupy movement we had a "follow the constitution" movement. I suppose that's what the Ron Paul movement has been about. I don't understand why most Americans can't get on board a "follow the constitution" movement. I really think that based on history and such that's the best we can realistically hope for in our lifetimes.
edit on 3-10-2012 by infiniteclarity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
It's refreshing to finally have an outlet in which I can truly contribute. Your subject and heartfelt response is right on target my friend.
Last night I was sitting at my kitchen table and jotting a few things down that were really bothering me. The next thing I knew two hours had passed and I actually felt some relief. I also decided that after a little editing I'm going to submit my thoughts to the local news rag.

My rant is basically this: We have become so divisive and separated because of our belief systems. I'm speaking about our beliefs in Life, Love, and God. We insist on living in a "Right-Wrong" paradigm instead of viewing things as simply as "what works and what doesn't work." We've all become so hell-bent on casting stones that the wool is being pulled over our eyes and the problems surmount! We're pitted against one another and we don't stop to question why.
Only a unified humanity will rise up against the madness. Anything less falls hopelessly short.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by infiniteclarity

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by Hefficide
 


In a democracy....where everyone that is a citizen has a right to vote...how can one person be chosen to represent the many differing masses fairly??? It can't...someone, somewhere, some group somewhere will be the minority and subject to the wills and desires of the masses. This is not independence...this is not liberty...this is mob rule...

The house, the senate, the this, the that...are merely symptoms of the overall problem...there are fundamental issues and contradictions of the governmental machine and its proclamations that are of a larger concern...

I'm not concerned with the house...the senate...the presidency...I'm concerned with the very nature of government...the nature of that beast implies the many over the few...or the few over the many...neither of which are capable of providing freedom, liberty, and justice for ALL...and to proclaim it is possible is an outright lie...


IMHO, the constitution of the USA is the best blueprint for a government in recorded history. There may have been better before our liftetimes but I think most people would be thrilled with a government that followed the constitution of the USA. Of course it's not perfect but no such system will ever be perfect.

I wish that instead of an occupy movement we had a "follow the constitution" movement. I suppose that's what the Ron Paul movement has been about. I don't understand why most Americans can't get on board a "follow the constitution" movement. I really think that based on history and such that's the best we can realistically hope for in our lifetimes.
edit on 3-10-2012 by infiniteclarity because: (no reason given)


The constitution and the bill of rights is an amazing doctrine that is for sure...Someone please correct me if I am wrong but traditionally the constitution and bill of rights were to LIMIT government and draws a line in the sand that they must not ever cross...its a non negotiable set of LIMITATIONS that governments would have to respect to remain relevant and of the people...if they ever did cross those lines they were considered "rogue"...

now, the current government has flipped the constitution on its head and convinced the people that the government is necessary to protect those rights and in order to protect those rights we must sacrifice those rights and in order to provide and protect our "freedoms" they must violate others rights...

isn't the constitution something completely different than government??...its nor provided by or protected by the government...its a list of limitations on government...its a detailed list of live and let live principals on a piece of paper...

how ironic is it that the government was told that they must never violate these rights...so they create government institutions to protect those rights...by violating them...modern day law enforcements is a perfect example...

the individual was responsible for securing their rights the government was responsible for never violating them...now the government tells you they are the only ones who can violate them to protect you from "yourself" or "others"...because you are not capable of doing so yourself...

I personally think the constitution could exist without a government...its really a set of live and let live principals and those can exist without Obama or Romney...
edit on 3-10-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity88
Only a unified humanity will rise up against the madness. Anything less falls hopelessly short.


Unified humanity...the varying methods of uniting humanity is the issue...

Some think conformity will unite humanity...some think force will unite humanity...some think social engineering, manipulation, lies, and deceit will unite humanity...some think a common enemy real or fake will unite humanity...some think a NWO will unite humanity...

uniting humanity is quite a dangerous endeavor...

Humanity will unite when everyone adopts a live and let live policy and stops trying to control and conform each other. When people respect differing opinions and other cultures and not out of force but out of a common desire for freedom...

humanity will unite then and only then as far as I can tell...and we still have a very very long way to go on that front...



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Sly1one
 


The Constitution is a beautiful document and is actually quite easy to read. But the movement to return to it in a "pure" form troubles me. I think it even troubled the Framers, as they immediately adopted a series of clarifications on it ( The Bill of Rights ). Since those days other men have had to adapt it and clarify it as well. ( Our world is vastly different, now, than it was in 1776. ).

Immigration standards is a great example. In 1776 if one wished to become an American, most had to save money, sell everything they had, get onto a ship for a dangerous Atlantic crossing, and literally risk life, limb, and their total future to come here. Only to find that America, in those days, was a vast wild land with a few muddy cities. Now? A few hundred bucks will buy one a ticket for a plane trip that takes less than a night to finish.

So a "pure" Constitution doesn't work today.

Where we've gone wrong, IMO, is that we let lawyers get hold of things and now not only do WE not understand the laws, but neither do the freaking lawyers. A bit of Googling brings up a very frightening fact. No source, expert, or agency can even list how many laws we have. Seriously. NOBODY KNOWS!

Once that happens.... and our legal standard is "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

Well extrapolate the potential abuses. A country like that might end up leading the world in incarcerations and percentage of citizens incarcerated during their lifetimes. Wait... too late.


~Heff



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Sly1one
A bit of Googling brings up a very frightening fact. No source, expert, or agency can even list how many laws we have. Seriously. NOBODY KNOWS!


I think you'll enjoy this: "Laugh then Follow: Top 37 Most Ridiculous Laws in the World"

www.yoshke.com...

Some classics:


In Owensboro, Kentucky, it is illegal for a woman to buy a new hat without her husband trying it on first.



In Pennsylvania, no man may purchase alcohol without written consent from his wife.



In Vermont, it is illegal for women to wear false teeth without written permission from their husbands.



In Colorado, it is illegal for men to kiss their wives on a Sunday.


This could be the ultimate:


In Washington, it is illegal to have sex with a virgin under any circumstances.

edit on 3-10-2012 by infiniteclarity because: (no reason given)


If that Washington law were really followed, how long would it take before the human race went extinct there?

edit on 3-10-2012 by infiniteclarity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Sly1one
 


The Constitution is a beautiful document and is actually quite easy to read. But the movement to return to it in a "pure" form troubles me. I think it even troubled the Framers, as they immediately adopted a series of clarifications on it ( The Bill of Rights ). Since those days other men have had to adapt it and clarify it as well. ( Our world is vastly different, now, than it was in 1776. ).

Immigration standards is a great example. In 1776 if one wished to become an American, most had to save money, sell everything they had, get onto a ship for a dangerous Atlantic crossing, and literally risk life, limb, and their total future to come here. Only to find that America, in those days, was a vast wild land with a few muddy cities. Now? A few hundred bucks will buy one a ticket for a plane trip that takes less than a night to finish.

So a "pure" Constitution doesn't work today.

Where we've gone wrong, IMO, is that we let lawyers get hold of things and now not only do WE not understand the laws, but neither do the freaking lawyers. A bit of Googling brings up a very frightening fact. No source, expert, or agency can even list how many laws we have. Seriously. NOBODY KNOWS!

Once that happens.... and our legal standard is "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

Well extrapolate the potential abuses. A country like that might end up leading the world in incarcerations and percentage of citizens incarcerated during their lifetimes. Wait... too late.


~Heff


Well I agree that the legislative and judicial branches of the machine compound and exacerbate the issues inherently involved in government...it doesn't surprise me that no one knows how many laws there really are as we only pass more and more without ever removing any of the previous...A free country where you can be arrested for anything...because were almost at the point people can quite literally make laws up in their heads...and sure enough, it will actually exist...

the constitution is old yes...but I find most of it to address basic fundamental human rights...which I don't changes over time...they are forever...

interpretation...can almost single highhandedly make the written word a horrible means of communication...

its all a mess...



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Sly1one
 


The Constitution is a beautiful document and is actually quite easy to read. But the movement to return to it in a "pure" form troubles me. I think it even troubled the Framers, as they immediately adopted a series of clarifications on it ( The Bill of Rights ). Since those days other men have had to adapt it and clarify it as well. ( Our world is vastly different, now, than it was in 1776. ).


I've given this issue some thought and I see nothing wrong with returning to the Constitution completely because there's allowances for it to be amended as necessary. I think when you consider that there's no reason not to return to the Constitution 100%. If there are things that need changing there's procedures to do it included as part of the Constitution.

I'll give you a frightening scenario that probably no level-headed person wants: What if the Constitution was scrapped and people like John McCain were put in charge of writing a new one? It boggles my mind.
edit on 3-10-2012 by infiniteclarity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
The fact the Republicans and Democrats shut out third-party candidates tells me they are protecting a common system between themselves and aren't really offering us a truly free choice. I believe the phrase I'm looking for is "rigged system".

There is no choice.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by thepixelpusher
The fact the Republicans and Democrats shut out third-party candidates tells me they are protecting a common system between themselves and aren't really offering us a truly free choice. I believe the phrase I'm looking for is "rigged system".

There is no choice.


The following is a quote by Michael Tsarion concerning Ron Paul but I think it applies to most politicians not only today but for a long time (most of the "founding fathers" were freemasons according to many scholars):



"On the street level hey maybe this guy (Paul) can get you some justice or whatever, for God sakes go ahead. Just don't think that he's not on a chain, on a lead. He's just permitted to give you now a little more legal freedom. He's just permitting you to now be a little more green or to have a few more ecological justices because they know how to give you a little bit more so that valve pressure won't build up so much. But, don't ever forget that he's tattooed already. Don't forget that behind the lodge, they're all in together. They're all on the level as they say in freemasonry. They're all on the square. It's just that they do sometimes realize that people are going buck-mad with this, uh, mediocrity and with the open injustices. So as your injustices increase you know that people are going to get more disgruntled so let's pacify them and sometimes we throw out an individual, I'm not going to name any names, a person, who may appear to be a good brother. A little brother instead of a big brother... -

Michael Tsarion - "Irish Origins Part 3 - Atonism & World Control", Red Ice Creations 10/07

edit on 4-10-2012 by infiniteclarity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I'm not naive enough to think a third party candidate is the solution to all ills. I think, as I said, the system is "rigged" and the SYSTEM needs to be changed so the good/bad people entering the SYSTEM don't get corrupted or badly transformed by it.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1   >>

log in

join