Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Heffs ATS Barack Obama Victory Tracking and Celebration Thread!

page: 8
85
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by SunnyDee
So what happened to Outkastsearcher? Strange that he is gone, so close to the election. Onto a new job?

Wierd how some of the most outspoken members disappear.


I think Outkast was banned.

It would be interesting to see a tally of left wing/right wing posters who got banned over the last few months.


I think it would beev4en MORE Interesting to see a tally for which ones acted like complete asses to get banned regardless of that political affiliation shield and banner...




posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by beezzer
 


I'm willing to include unions in the mix, but with the caveat that a "Workers Bill of Rights" is a necessary step in our nations evolution.

After all - there is a thread from a day or two ago calling for the minimum wage to be lowered to four cents an hour. While this one thread is not important - it does show that there is a need for a clearly stated set of rules to be put into place - laws that would ensure productive Americans deserve to have a fair shot at living.

Since deregulation and bad business practices drove us into this service economy... We really do need incentives ( legal or otherwise ) to bring our economy back to something more production based.

Unions, which were meant to assist in these areas, have failed for the most part.

~Heff


Bolded, mine

Who defines fair?



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Living constitution

The term originally derives from the title of a 1927 book of that name by Prof. Howard McBain,[2] while early efforts at developing the concept in modern form have been credited to figures including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, and Woodrow Wilson.


Source

The more ya know!



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by froglegs79
[Snipped]
where I work, half of my department (including me) voted before work, my husband (works 2nd shift) voted this morning and my mom (retired military) also voted this morning. Brother and his wife voted on Saturday, my boss last friday. All but my mom (retired militry) hold full time jobs. My mom does not pull SS yet (only her retirement and a poor amount that is for 26 years in the military)

Well, that seals it.

If those were the only registered voters in America.

[Mod note: excessive quotes within quotes removed and the one being replied to left untouched. Please, either edit the material down as I have done or use the "reply to" tag. Thank you. ~Mike]
edit on 6/11/12 by JustMike because: See mod note above.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by beezzer
 



Living constitution

The term originally derives from the title of a 1927 book of that name by Prof. Howard McBain,[2] while early efforts at developing the concept in modern form have been credited to figures including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, and Woodrow Wilson.


Source

The more ya know!


Mea Culpa.

Clinton/Gore were still poop-heads, tho. . . . .



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


Well...I disagree. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

I mean... shoot...we are supposed to accept corporate leaders telling their workers that if they vote for the wrong guy they might lose their jobs...freedom of speech...right?

So...if a Mod wants to share an opinion...I am fine with that, even if I disagree with that opinion. I can actually recall what freedom and liberty actually mean.

I think someone else kinda gave the right idea. Don't enter a thread you disagree with and complain about who started it.

Rebuttal it or


Pretty simple really.
edit on 11/6/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


What about the 2nd amendment?

I can buy any gun I could have 4 years ago. If I have a business liscense and my place is zoned, I can get my FFL and Class III and have a .50 cal machine gun if I want. I just have to do the paperwork and pay the taxes.



Currently yes, you can.

But you must also remember when Obama told Mrs. Brady that they'll be working "under the radar" to pass legislation that are anti-gun.

I believe that we'll be back to the Clinton era bans within four years if Obama gets his way.

He try to get the rest of America to look like Chicago.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advantage

I think it would beev4en MORE Interesting to see a tally for which ones acted like complete asses to get banned regardless of that political affiliation shield and banner...


If that was the case, ATS would only have about 3 members and all of them in the typing by Channeling forum.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Fair is an easy definition. Able to exist on a wage. Everyone who works and is responsible should be able to afford basics - a modest home, nutrition, medical care.

Now if some fool goes hungry because he thought a plasma screen and full cable mattered more than food? Different subject. But, as it stands, a full time minimum wage worker, in most of America, cannot even subsist on their wages.

That is simply wrong.

~Heff



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Clinton/Gore were still poop-heads

oh, the burden that formerly typical poop-heads must now bear.

What did poop-heads do to deserve such slander?



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by beezzer
 


Fair is an easy definition. Able to exist on a wage. Everyone who works and is responsible should be able to afford basics - a modest home, nutrition, medical care.

Now if some fool goes hungry because he thought a plasma screen and full cable mattered more than food? Different subject. But, as it stands, a full time minimum wage worker, in most of America, cannot even subsist on their wages.

That is simply wrong.

~Heff


True. But minimum wage wasn't supposed to be for families to subsist on.

That is, until the past few years.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon
[Snip]
I did respond. The definitions I posted are important for understanding the law.

The current de facto government works outside of the federal constitution. I urge you to research the law.

www.pacalliance.us...


Will streamline it for you:
Constitution:
To be preserved, or to be built upon?

[Mod note: excessive multiple quotes within quotes removed and the one being replied to left untouched. Please edit down as I have done, or use the "reply to" tag. Thank you. ~Mike]
edit on 6/11/12 by JustMike because: As above in mod note.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by beezzer
 



Clinton/Gore were still poop-heads

oh, the burden that formerly typical poop-heads must now bear.

What did poop-heads do to deserve such slander?


My aologies to all the poop-heads out there. I never, in any way, wanted nor meant to associate them with Clinton/Gore.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Well you're wrong. The founding fathers disagree...hence why they made the ability for it to be amended.

Oh, and Thomas Jefferson said this;


“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment...But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.”



We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. It is this preposterous idea which has lately deluged Europe in blood. Their monarchs, instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits, and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations, which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs.


teachingamericanhistory.org...
www.goodreads.com...

Why do none of these self proclaimed patriots read NOTHING ever written by the founding fathers?
edit on 6-11-2012 by Trustfund because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trustfund
reply to post by beezzer
 


Well you're wrong. The founding fathers disagree...hence why they made the ability for it to be amended.

Oh, and Thomas Jefferson said this;


“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment...But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.”


www.goodreads.com...

Why do none of these self proclaimed patriots read NOTHING ever written by the founding fathers?


There's a difference between ammeding the Constitution and reinterpreting it.

One, enacts real change.

The other? Is interpreted to fit an agenda.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


What about the 2nd amendment?

I can buy any gun I could have 4 years ago. If I have a business liscense and my place is zoned, I can get my FFL and Class III and have a .50 cal machine gun if I want. I just have to do the paperwork and pay the taxes.

Heck, I don't even need a consealed weapons permit in my state.

So, I don't really see my 2nd amendment rights being taken away up here in Alaska by the Feds.



And don't forget the only firearm legislation President Obama signed made it legal to take your gun into National Parks. Must be really great to live in make believe land where reality has no stake in the game.



Oh and Obama for the win!!!!!!!!!




posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I totally agree.

Take the money out out of the equation, emphasize the words "public service".

BTW your avatar is creeping me out......



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 



Natural born Winner!



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
[Snip]

I did respond. The definitions I posted are important for understanding the law.

The current de facto government works outside of the federal constitution. I urge you to research the law.

www.pacalliance.us...


Will streamline it for you:
Constitution:
To be preserved, or to be built upon?

To be preserved and built upon. Any amendment that is added, needs to work with what was previously created.

The states, being countries, have their own state constitutions. That being said, the states can improve their own internal workings through their own constitutions far more efficiently than working through the federal constitution.

But this does not address the problem with voting.

Nationality is Key
edit on 6-11-2012 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)


[Mod note: PLEASE edit down the quoted material to the minimum required. It is not necessary to have quotes five layers deep. Or use the "reply to" tag. Thank you. ~Mike]
edit on 6/11/12 by JustMike because: AS ABOVE!!!



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 



And don't forget the only firearm legislation President Obama signed made it legal to take your gun into National Parks. Must be really great to live in make believe land where reality has no stake in the game.


Yes, but he did say this in the second debate....


“I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.


Source: Business Week

I guess I should add that all weapons were designed for soldiers to use in theaters of war, originally. The bolt-action rifle preferred by many hunters today were designed as weapons of war in the late 1800's and were used through WWII.

edit on 6-11-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join