This left/right; liberal/conservative; progressive/libertarian crap has got to STOP!! We must come t

reply to post by GrantedBail


It is actually the whole point of our conversation..


I dont have the same world map yall do..

so will this limit my access or vote....


The plan you have involves tossing out the old rascals to put in new ones..

'with limmits and new shiny things'

The new rascals you want in

what traits you want
consensus builder
media support
believer in cause
gets things done

Great I am qualified to the max in all these areas...

I build consensus pretty quickly..

most people state I dont get it and dont like me.. (see I got everyone to come to a consensus.. like congress not fixing the budget but voting payraises for themselves across the board... it counts)

Media support...

See I am a member of ATS.. and several other sites...so by extension I have media support

Believer in cause..

I too believe we must come together.. to build a better tommorrow.. I have come prepared.. With your help, we,together can remove those who are destroying this country.. With the right select people in office we can build that better tomorrow starting today.. I will need your continued support in these trying times.. We are right!



Get things done

In my first administration I promise to get things done... Like finishing and posting this response..



I understand fully what your say it is interesting to observe the quick dismisal because you do not like what your hearing.. It is okay... I feel your pain

What we need to do is set talking points like a thousand points of light..

Together we can apply change and have hope for a better tomorrow..

Read my lips, I believe in your cause...



They are nothing but words that can be altered to fit those that are in power..


the question for you is what are you actually doing to make this world a better place

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by GrantedBail

 

I'm not hating on anyone. In case you misread I'm all for those liberties and more. No division with me. I dont care two bits what you or anyone else wants to do with your lives. I just know that I'm in some super-minority that is essentially dismissed as irrelevant.

All I said is what you said. Very few people would stand.

I just realized you're the OP.

It is wrong and should only be exercised if the well-being of the mother is at stake.

So you wont stand with me then? Wasnt it you who wondered why we couldnt?

edit on 13-6-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

You've put up some very valid points. Stand together--sounds nice, but would the OP stop wanting to tax the hell out of me because I'm an evil "1%-er" or want to ban the guns I own?

Go bak to what? Limited government without the ability to tax and regulate things into oblivion like it was in the beginning or just eliminate the one influence they don't like and then retain the big-government, nanny state, wealth redistribution just without corporate influences?

reply to post by GrantedBail


Bail I think this is a great thread and glad you started this. I don't mean to sound helpless or disuasive by any means but looking at the scenerio given, it makes it that much harder to come up with a peaceful resolution.

Your last comment jumping ship is what many bright minded politicians do because the scenerio is that grim. My comments are meant to challange the original thought of your OP and help look at sides of the coin that are over looked when talking about said subject.

My apologies, I only wanted to help.

reply to post by GrantedBail


why run

stay and fight for your beliefs

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Back from the Executive power grab. Back from the NDAA Back from the TSA and Homeland Security. Back from the fake War on Terror Inc. Back from the secret surveillance of American citizens. That is enough to keep us busy for a minute.

More than enough. But you'll notice that those are all pretty divisive things. After all the War on Terror must be waged to keep our children safe. The surveillance is a good thing to keep us safe and that Snowden fellow is a traitor to this great nation who put all our children in harms way.

See? Plenty divisive.

I'll say that it's a better divisiveness if there is such a thing in that it breaks down the typical left/right nonsense and we see D's and R's coming together on both sides of it. Hypocritically and inconsistently but at least it's a change.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Oh you are just being argumentative. Those are issues that this whole country can get down with. Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party, Tea Party, Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and all those that are undeclared.

reply to post by ripcontrol


I like you. Your post before this one was funny. I wish you would gain some weight though

Originally posted by sulaw
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

What about the "realization" that we are all "human" we all came in the same way (unless you were a c-section

)
And we all Die. Anything else is just people wanting to express there lives in different ways, which should not be discriminated against. If we all treated others with the same respect as "Majority" treat there children/parents (I'm talking about kindness and love not the opposite which some "Majority" embody") we might be able to make some ground....

So this would require a spokesman or woman.... That person would be assasinated.... back to the drawing board... We dont' need another John Lennon / Bob Marley

But people don't want to just "express themselves" - they want full acceptance of whatever that expression happens to be. Homosexuals, for example, are simply not content with keeping sex behind closed doors. Pedophiles are not content with kidnapping and molesting their nieces and nephews. In their ideal world, homosexuality is a created normalcy and pedophiles convince themselves that it is NORMAL to show love to children. And so they fight for that approval and acceptance. Just where does it end? At what point do we wake up to understand that words like love have simply been redefined as tolerance, and realise that once that happens, a pedophile can argue that it is hate to not accept them and their choices.

The point being, there is no end to divisions when those divisions are based upon desires and lusts. These things do not care if they produce life or death. That is where we have erred greatly. Greed, sex, control, idolatry etc all produce things which hurt others, yet many still keep giving in to them. And in order to do so, they simply redefine the end result as a "good thing". Pedophiles, instead of recognising the harm to children, actually are persuaded that it is is GOOD for children. Women, thinking that convenience and more money are great things, chooses to view the killing of her baby as a lessor evil. Pick any major subject and the fight boils down to those who stand up for rights and those who stand up for wrongs thinking that they are rights. These two can never ever come together because then truth MUST be comprised. True good cannot bring misery and death, but only peace and life. But this world just wants what it wants, and so we keep lying to ourselves in order to justify what it is that we want...yes we are all human, but in our hearts lies wickedness that deceives us, so much so that we can actually convince ourselves that the misery and death stemming from our own actions is actially a good. Once that happens, it truly becomes to hell with my neighbour, to hell with the children kidnapped and molested to produce porn, to hell with women drugged up to produce my porn, to hell with the babies murdered to satisfy sexual desires, to hell with the 'burden' of elderly let's give them euthanasia , to hell with....do you not see that this type of humanity actually has united but they don't realise it? They have united on their complete disregard for the consequences to others which stem from their own selfishness. Now try uniting that group with those who take care of all the bruised and injured from that other train wreck that refuses to see the damage that they have caused, thinking that it's all good!

Mankind will never be in peace until it accepts the sovereignty and will of Our Creator, in whom is no darkness. We are all locked up in sin and death until we learn and understand that darkness is at the core of our beings. That darkness which so many have grown to love, and fight for. So I would ask the OP, why would you willingly join hands with darkness? What do you have in common with it? The leadership who divide have no intentions of leading us to unity in Christ, the Life, but have every intention of furthering unity in darkness. Dividing segments of populations is merely to open dialectic, dialogue on things that should never be comprised. It's an age old tactic that, once opened, never pulls the darkness into the light but rather dims the light of Truth by comprising with darkness. Ten kind youth bring kindness out in the one rough youth, but ten unkind youth thoroughly corrupt the one kind youth. Knowing this, can you not see the end game plan? People so fed up with divisions that they will accept a compromise of peace and safety, never understanding that it is leading to the vety 'unity' envisioned by these same dividers? Problem, reaction, solution. They bank on you compromising, in fact, because they understand human nature, they can manipulate you to do so.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by interupt42

 

That's really just trading one tyranny for another. The tyranny of the rich and powerful for the tyranny of the mass.

I'm not trading any tyranny or changing any governing system. I'm saying to clean up and close some of our loop holes that we have. The grey line between politicians and the special interest groups is a huge issue.

However, I would much prefer that the mass lead our policies over corporations. Corporations have an unattainable goal to increase profits indefinitely , which eventually makes them do questionable things to continue increasing revenues year after year.

Note I don't have a problem with corporations , but I do have a problem with a corporation that is desperate to indefinitely increase its profits margin and has the power to change our laws or influence our elected officials to modify the market place or rules to meet their needs.

If 51% of the population votes electronically or however that GMO labeling is unnecessary should that 49% thinking otherwise just suck it up and stand together with the 51%?

How about 60/40? 70/30? Even 95/5?

At this point , the only thing that matters is the masses identifying or recognizing the problem. Then we can talk about magical ratios and actual solutions. The electronic method I propose is just one possible solution. The problem I have is no one is discussing or questioning if perhaps it might not be a good idea for our politicians to be so inundated with money from the same people they are suppose to over watch?

A representative version is no better than a democratic version either. It just makes the counting easier.

Well , accountability is not a bad thing and neither is the truth.

A representative system at least give you check and balances. Did the GMO bill get passed because the people wanted it or because their is profit to be made for the minority? Did health concern get trampled over profit?

Just because more people think things should be a certain way doesnt mean they are right or that the minority should just go along happily because it is the will of the majority.

I never said that its perfect nor just because the majority feel a certain way its the correct way to think.

However, you don't have a problem with or you appear to think or at least it comes over across to me as: That its OK for the minority to determine what is right or that the majority should go along happily because it is the will of the minority?

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Oh you are just being argumentative. Those are issues that this whole country can get down with. Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party, Tea Party, Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and all those that are undeclared.

You cant just dismiss the reality that not everyone thinks the spying and the wars are bad.

The whole country is getting on board with it. One side of it or the other.

The ones who cling to their trivial ideologies in the face of true treachery are simply pawns for the ones who are watching and reading our every word on here. The ones who view us as people of interest and enemies.

Let go of your ideology, your prejudices, and your fears of your fellow man. Embrace the difference that you have with the next man or woman, and embrace the similarities. We have a lot to learn from each other about the world, and the divisive environment that has been bred by the ones who watch us has been purposely designed to keep us all ignorant of what we all are, and what we can accomplish together. This is what they want...divided subjects, to the monarchies of days past that still rule us all, and seek to keep that rule with their spooks, armies, weaponry, police, NSAs, etc.

They want to kill us all. American, European, African, Indian, Asian, Australian, Arab, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Liberal, Conservative, it does not matter one bit to these sick people. They want all of us dead, or enslaved.

Keep looking at your neighbor as your enemy, you're all playing right into their hands.

reply to post by supremecommander


That is right Sister. You got to be a girl or a very tuned in male.

Love what you said.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Yikes! I'll take that as a compliment

Originally posted by interupt42

However, you don't have a problem with or you appear to think or at least it comes over across to me as: That its OK for the minority to determine what is right or that the majority should go along happily because it is the will of the minority?

I dont think anyone should be dictating anything to anyone else outside of issues like direct harm to persons other than yourself or property other than your own.

My life should be ruled by the will of me and yours by the will of you.

Originally posted by sulaw
reply to post by interupt42

 

I understand the logic your using but it's flawed IMO.

For example, we can use existing technology to allow for lobbying to continue but without monetary influences. Electronic voting should designate what issues are discussed and prioritized by our officials instead of Money.

Technology is important yes, but if anything technology has shown us is that it can be tampered with and used for cynical reasons. I would be more apt to paper ballots and not electronic voting as in the past it's been shown to be inacurate, also that it can be hacked.

I'm not even saying to do away with lobbying. I'm saying make this priority one , unite, and come up with solutions to ensure that general public is equally heard from and not just special interest groups with deep pockets.

I agree, unit and come up with solutions to ensure the general public is heard. There is now no benefit from being a leader and those benefits are what keeps this sham of a game running. This alone would cause a crash IMO of epic proportions which would inherintly lead to riots, murders and civil disobediance.

Please understand I agree but I can't say for sure this is the most logical solution to a unlogical scenerio.

No problem and criticism is always good when trying to come up with the best solution.

With that said. I'm not claiming that I have the solution , I just provided a possible example. We aren't ready to discuss solutions, because the monetary influences among our gov't is not even an issue that is discussed among the public.

Whether you use paper or electronic is irrelevant at this time.

However, in regards to your statement

Technology is important yes, but if anything technology has shown us is that it can be tampered with and used for cynical reasons. I would be more apt to paper ballots and not electronic voting as in the past it's been shown to be inacurate, also that it can be hacked.

I hear you and If at present time the people don't feel comfortable with the existing technologies they have in place to do their banking then:

The voting system doesn't have to be used as the final authority when it comes to deciding the fate of the issues. Much like the existing system we have in place. The popular vote doesn't decide who the next president of the United States is , but none the less the popular vote is a good check and balance. Perhaps the system could be slowly implemented and initially used as a check and balance.

For example when a bill gets discussed in Washington , it will have to have the following mandatory items associated with it.

1. Numerical identifier. That way people don't get conned by the bill name "Patriot Act,etc"
2. One page summary.
3. A One paragraph summary will be also be provide by each opponent, Pro and Con.
4. Popularity vote: A counter identifying how many people agree with the vote.
5. Electronically published online where users can freely comment.

Note: this is only a very HIGH HIGH LEVEL view.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by interupt42

However, you don't have a problem with or you appear to think or at least it comes over across to me as: That its OK for the minority to determine what is right or that the majority should go along happily because it is the will of the minority?

I dont think anyone should be dictating anything to anyone else outside of issues like direct harm to persons other than yourself or property other than your own.

My life should be ruled by the will of me and yours by the will of you.

I don't disagree with you but you aren't getting that today are you? If anything you are getting the exact opposite of that, while the special interest groups dictate what you can buy, have to buy, know, or need.

The goal of separating monetary influences from our elected officials is so we can hear the truth and having the truth we can make educated decisions.

For example:
Immigration: Immigration is one of the easiest things to fix.

The truth and the reason they come here:
Illegal immigrants come here because their is a demand for them. large corporate industries utilize them because they are cheap and undocumented labor.


How to stop them:
1. Prosecute companies that hire them.
2. Significantly increase monetary fines. For companies who significantly get caught hiring illegal immigrants impose percentage fines based on their profit margin. 1st offence 10%, 2nd offence 20%, etc.
3. Hold individuals accountable. CEO, Board members and executive level managers involved with those companies will get the same fines and the penalties will follow them regardless which companies they move to.

Outcome:
1. It doesn't become cost effective to hire them.
2. The demand for illegal immigrants drops and they significantly stop coming here.



Instead the solutions both party are offering is build an unsustainable great wall of China. Coincidently, that great wall of China will be built by a large special interest group or corporation. The outcome will be that the company who gets the contract makes several billions, we the tax payers pick up the tab and they will continue to come here.

reply to post by GrantedBail


I am fluffy enough thank you




Nope you jump through hoops for me first..


besides I am in a relationship already.. Three in fact...

My mother still thinks I am a wayward bad child

My cats are mad because I made them live on dry food and did not give them wet food this morning

My girlfriend is still asleep after we partied last night...

Four would be to much.... However the rest of ATS is listening..



What issues do you think the human race will get behind?

I am still miffed with major hurt feelings over trying to have a conversation over Alien life and asking a question. Then getting a warning for stating we needed to define life first...

For taking the conversation outside the bounds of the rules...

However for the exploration of planets you will need a definition of what constitutes life... Your left with the definition of sentience.. Because cats and dogs are alive we keep them in cages, with collars, and we raise them.. technically slavery.. The conversation I was referring to got me stopped because someone thought I was refering to abortion.. And dear god we cant talk about it during alien conversations... mind you it was not even on my mind.. Defining life is an important step in space exploration.. something lesser minds freak over..

See the mess.. and those who want power will attack through these venues... First the main step for this group of people is how do they come to power.. how strong is there power base.. and can they maintain there power and do what has to be done...

Hurry they await your answer... I have crimes and misdemeanors to attend to .. I might check back in...

reply to post by WhoKnows100

I think the difference between how you look at it and I look at it is that I think every human being is selfish. They all have lusts and desires and they all want to think that their way of doing things is righteous. BUT the results of their actions are not the same and this is where you and I agree. Evolution puts everything to the test and it keeps the things that works. It doesn't keep the people who're holy, it keeps the people who're, by chance, correct. For example, studies have shown that the embracing of community increases lifespan for human beings. Helping others is a social trait and this is part of communities. People who embrace community and social aptitude aren't any more holy than people who don't, but they're on the right path and so evolution has tended to make them survive. People who do not embrace community are bound to be left in the dust as evolution weeds them out of the gene pool. This applies to psychopaths and anti-socials as well.

I don't see good people and bad people, I see evolution and selection pressure. Inevitably, I don't see issues from a moral perspective, I see them from a logical perspective. Most of the time the moral choice is the logical choice. Evolution makes us value what works.

Sometimes evolution isn't perfect and sometimes "moral" choices are unclear.

For example, lets assume we're in a hideout with 40 other people. Soldiers are outside this hideout looking for people to take them prisoner. There's a baby and its mother. The baby starts to cry. Now, what happens if the mother has to suffocate the baby to keep it from crying???? Is that moral? If the baby cries then they're all going to be taken prisoner and probably many of them killed. Is it not more moral to suffocate the baby than it's to let the soldiers capture them? After all, the baby probably will be killed by the soldiers anyway. But it's still a very tough choice for the mother. Bottom line, whatever choice ends with the most deaths is going to be the most "evil", but people might not agree on what action produces the most deaths or harm. For example, the mother proibably will refuse to kill her baby out of instinct. Someone else may have to do it, but they won't be liked by the others for doing it. I think many moral choices are like this because we're not perfect. We cannot predict eveyr outcome. We lack information. We make many of our choices under a "fog of war".

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by interupt42

However, you don't have a problem with or you appear to think or at least it comes over across to me as: That its OK for the minority to determine what is right or that the majority should go along happily because it is the will of the minority?

I dont think anyone should be dictating anything to anyone else outside of issues like direct harm to persons other than yourself or property other than your own.

My life should be ruled by the will of me and yours by the will of you.

And that's a valid point. One of hte many reasons why our government is such an inrusive behemoth is that people have decided they want to use the coercive powers of government to push their values on their fellow man. For example, this is why we have a 22,000 page tax code...because people demand that things they do not like get taxed hard and things they do like get tax exemptions. They want to use the tax code, not just to bring in the revenue for the needed duties of government, but to control behavior.

There would be no corporate lobbyists if the government want not involved with extreme taxation and regulation of corporations. The people want corporations to be controlled, they empower their government to do so, and then the corporations lobby to try to get that overbearing reach of the government to effect them less and their competition more.

As long as people want to use government to control their fellow man, there will always be big and intrusive government.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

There would be no corporate lobbyists if the government want not involved with extreme taxation and regulation of corporations. The people want corporations to be controlled, they empower their government to do so, and then the corporations lobby to try to get that overbearing reach of the government to effect them less and their competition more.

As long as people want to use government to control their fellow man, there will always be big and intrusive government.

Funny how government begets more government to counter government.

A vicious self perpetuating monster.

Every office needs a counter office and each of those need an oversight office and each respective office need their own set of lobbyists and each lobbyist needs an oversight office and on and on it grows.