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 XPLodER
new stratagy
as soon as the finacial investigations are complete petition state govs with the information gathered on insider trading
I understand that you are from New Zealand -- which makes me wonder your complete stake in this! Why are you driving so hard -- outside the obvious implications of American politics?
Originally posted by Battleline
reply to post by XPLodER
All in all very good info, thank you.
The insider corruption is comeing out but the bootlicking MSM is ignoreing it.I will be watching to see if the OWS movement can do something more then yell for revolution,a futile gesture for anything other then cannon fodder.
Good luck with your............."wham".
edit on 24-11-2011 by Battleline because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by kellerphoenix
reply to post by XPLodER
What scares me more than WWIII, an asteroid impact, a supervolcano or anything else is the idea of this movement. There needs to be structure in any leadership. There need to be laws, rules, control without it there is only anarchy.edit on 23-11-2011 by kellerphoenix because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by XPLodER
Social psychology and sociology have repeatedly demonstrated . . .
in study and experiment after experiment as well as study of real groups as they function, evolve and exist . . . that
THERE IS !NO! SUCH THING AS A LEADERLESS GROUP.
It can be the case that an agreed upon formula can be chosen for rotating leaders. However, even in such a case . . . sooner or later charismatic, powerful, influential etc. leaders rise to the top and are given the lion's share of respect and power.
It may well be that a structure and set of rules could be devised that would emphasize humility and selflessness. However, enforcing it and insuring that leaders didn't consolodate and embellish their personal fifedoms . . . could be a real challenge.
Originally posted by XPLodER
so if 2/3 of the occupy groups could petition their legislators the this could be fixed real fast
thank you for the intel
new stratagy
as soon as the finacial investigations are complete petition state govs with the information gathered on insider trading
constitutional amendment called anti criminal subversion of finance and govenmnet act lol
thanks
xploder
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jacklondonmiller
Of course, you think this because of my fierce defense of unalienable rights, and you know enough of the law to know that when rights are respected as much as I show to them, it is inevitable that groups are going to be extended this same respect.
If it is a right, and particularly a right Congress has been expressly forbidden from legislating against.
This is why you think I am "bigger on corporations" because you must have a good idea how I view the Citizens United ruling, and of course, I view that ruling as a gigantic win for the First Amendment.
You keep yammering on and on and on, ad nauseum about the distinction of "person"
this last time making the distinction that corporations get the full force of the law, implicitly stating that living breathing individuals do not.
In reality, the system is only rigged against the individual as long as they agree to play by the rules of that system.
assuming that Ninth Amendment is a tool for corporatism.
then that alone should reveal for the legal fraud you are.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I did not fail to see anything. We are discussing a particular case -- in which in a footnote a judge provided dicta pertaining to that particular case. While such dicta can be referenced and utilized later on in further cases -- there is no precedents to follow in regards to such dicta.
While I know I can fall into fallacious traps and since I am human will never be free of performing a fallacious argument -- you sir, have taken the cake. Your presumptuous attitude and appeal to authority (in which you do so quite passive-aggressively) cannot be allowed to go unchecked if we are to have a serious discussion and debate.
You are correct, but under false presumption, that I am not "pre-law"; though I am a student of Law and have been studying it and learning for a little of time now. But you wish to carry this air of smugness by continually pointing out that I am not pre-law or wish to paint my opinion and statements as matters of facts.