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.
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
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...
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)
Originally posted by Unity88
Only a unified humanity will rise up against the madness. Anything less falls hopelessly short.
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!
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.
In Washington, it is illegal to have sex with a virgin under any circumstances.
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
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. ).
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.
"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