| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/27/2009 5:33:30 PM | Hey dukky
This is not news, it hs been circulating for a while. Lord Monkton lays out a very compelling case for not signing the treaty, with which I agree, because man made global warming is BS, and every treaty having to do with global warming makes the USA everybody else **** and we must pay for everything.
There is only one saving grace to this, and that is our, the US's, track record at keeping treaties...... Just ask the Red man.............. I find it hard to believe that "they" could enforce anything on us that we wouldn't want enforced. So, as soon as howdy doody is out of office, we just tell them to KMA....................... Issuing a bill for money owed is a lot different than collecting on it.....................
Simple. If you think different, who is going to enforce this "treaty" against us? Remember, we still have the biggest RED button to push. They would whine and moan and cry, but piss on'em.
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/27/2009 5:59:26 PM |
Issuing a bill for money owed is a lot different than collecting on it.....................
Surprise!!...They've been collecting from you since 1913 thru the Fed. Who owns the Fed?...The same people who are going to be billing the US...The same people who already run your government. If you think Obama's in charge you are sadly mistaken. He only does what he's told.
Unless you guys start rioting like they did in Seattle over globalization, or hanging a few of your "representatives", you will find your country being run undemocratically, by a few foreign bankers & businessmen you never even voted for! Come to think of it, I guess nothing is gonna change after all. Why do I smell Kissinger's hand in this?
Actually, I'm serious here. It's high time we all put our foot down and told these slobs just where to get off! | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/27/2009 6:22:15 PM | Here's the rub Any President can sign any Treaty he chooses, yet it will not be enforced until ratified until the 2/3 of the Congress approves. The President doesn't have those kinds of numbers. Heck he can't even get his "popular" health reform measure through. Honestly I'm more afraid of the Treaty of the Sea.
Should he put pen to paper, that would annouce an intention to disolve the United States that would be grounds for his immediate Impeachment for High Treason. He isn't that dumb and the American people would never stand for such an action. He isn't that popular. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/27/2009 6:53:01 PM | Hey dukky
You wrote:
"you will find your country being run undemocratically,"
We have never been run "undemocratically", we have been run "represntative republically", as we are a representative republic.
As Gadget says, unless congress ratifies it, it means less than single ply buttwipe. I would really hope that howdy doody signs it, and then impeachment procedings are brought. I am not holding my breath, as almost all politicians have their heads firmly planted up his butt................... For what reason, I still can't figure out. The problem you would have if you are waiting for the general populace of the US to rise up, is that half of these dumb a$$es actually think that signing such an accord is a good thing. So, he basically has got us.
As far as the Treaty of the Seas..... thank God for the 2/3 majority for ratification rule.
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/27/2009 10:37:07 PM |
we are a representative republic.
I didn't say you were a democracy; I said democratically elected. Your republic still elects isr representatives by a democratic "process" (which is distinctly different from claiming it to be a direct democracy).
You know as well as I do what double-dealing, lying backstabbers politicians are. The only thing most of your "representatives" represent is their own interests, which are more often than not inimical to the interests of the people who elected them. The lobbyist with the biggest load of "palm grease", campain contributions and/or the most "dirt" on a "representative's" life is the one who gets his interests served.
Probably the best way to ensure better and more honest government is for the constituents to vote on whether or not their "representative" should hang for treason at the END of their term. The threat of a noose is probably the only thing that stands a chance of keeping them honest.
Don't get me wrong...the republic of the united states was a great idea. Unfortunately, the crooks with the money bought their way in through the loopholes over the years and it is now only a shadow of what it once represented. Look around you...You know as well as I do that a nation is only as good as the integrity of its people. You can't honestly tell me (and this applies to Canada & most of the affluent countries, so I'm not picking on you) that a people whose idea of high living & prosperity is watching reality shows on a big screen TV with a take-out "Happy Meal", or whose idea of patriotism is believing & doing what they are told by "Big Brother" is anything like their freedom-loving ancestors (who would rather die than bend a knee to a tyrant). Is everybody like that?...No...but FAR too many are!
I'm descended from people who fought on both sides of the revolutionary war, and when I was a young & stupid monarchist, I sided with my "Loyalist" ancestors. As I learned history & politics, I came to admire your founding fathers (especially Jefferson). I am now anti-monarchy (and anti-just-about-everything-else...but I digress) and look forward to the day (not far off) that the government of Canada falls to a new, free Republic of Canada. It would sure be nice if our next door neighbor would quit acting like the old, Imperial King George and become once again the great republic it once was.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday ...ah, hell...You know the words. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 306 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/28/2009 3:20:44 PM | The voting process should not revolve around who spends the most money on their campaign.
The 2008 campaign was the costliest in history, with a record-shattering $5.3 billion in
spending by candidates, political parties and interest groups on the congressional and presidential races.
That sum marks a 27 percent increase over the $4.2 billion spent on the 2004 campaign,
according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiled the figures.
WHY should it cost anything more than $ 1 Million ?
We are talking 5 BILLION $$$$ pissed away by the candidates never to be seen again !  | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/28/2009 6:37:39 PM | Quick lesson in funding a national campaign
You have to lodge your staff and yourself where you're speaking. You and your staff need to eat. Let's say you stay at a super 8 every night that's $60 a night $450 a week for just one person before meals. Lets say you eat cheap that spend an average of 5.50 per meal. I know breakfast is cheaper but dinner is typically more so it will average 17 dollars a day in food again for one person.
Then you have your junk mail that you have to send out for every 1000 pieces you'll get half a percent in response. It costs to get them printed. Then you have to pay for the postage to have them mailed.
Then you have your call centers. You will typically have somewhere between 15-50 phones that you have pay the bill on. Then there is the lease of the space that they are in, as well as the electric bill. Then you multiply that by the number of states and typically cites that you're in.
Then there is radio ads which aren't cheap. Television is worse.
You have to pay for yard signs, bumper stickers, and pins.
Then you have to pay some of your staff. Not everyone can voluenteer. Some people have families.
Then there is the marketing polling research that your doing to target your message to your audience for their hot button issues. It is still what you believe but you put their priorities towards the top and the other issues your addressing somewhere in the middle, then end with another priority. Keep them excited about you.
Then there is the Transportation costs. Fuel, Plans, Trains, and Automobiles.
This is why Organization is so important to any political campaign.
Dukky I actually heard a report about the treaty Lord Monkton was speaking about on the Savage show today. So I guess you're a bit ahead of the power curve. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/28/2009 7:04:19 PM |
I guess you're a bit ahead of the power curve.
Little ahead...Big behind...and a bottle somewhere in between...That's me.  | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 309 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/28/2009 9:21:20 PM | There needs to be limits on the power of moneyed-interests 
Curtail the media time to influence the vote and cull favors in Washington.
We must provide all ballot qualified candidates with equal access to the media
Political equality requires building barriers between money and the ballot box.
The best way for citizens to make informed choices is to ensure that all points of view are heard.
Broadcast media spending is the single largest component of campaign budgets.
From 1980 to 2000 the number of owners of major media dropped from 50 to just 6.
This has led to greater censorship of third party candidates.
Access to the media is seen as a guaranteed right for all qualified candidates in many other democratic countries.
( those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives )
The USA is far, far behind in it's illusion of democracy. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:38:48 AM | @ HO2
That was an excellent post, containing first-rate observations & recommendations!! I hope everyone gives it a serious read. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/29/2009 12:46:31 PM | Hey dukky
you wrote:
"It would sure be nice if our next door neighbor would quit acting like the old, Imperial King George and become once again the great republic it once was."
Having actually read and pondered the Declaration of Independence that was read before King George, I am wondering what part of that is it that resembles what the USA is today? I just re-read most of it, and besides being amazed at the style and beauty of the writing itself, and really don't see any similiarities. Except in the minds of those who have a predeliction towards conspiracies...........
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/29/2009 3:46:31 PM | Is voting a right? Some say no. Let's for arguement sake say it is. Is it a proper use of tax dollars to fund political advertisements? Then the next question becomes how much do we alot? Do we factor in a COLA (cost of living adjustment) for inflation?
HO2 I do agree with you that there is few owners of too many media outlets. This was started under Clinton, and sped up under Dubya.
Paul I will read the Declaration again myself and answer your question. Just give me some time. I'm a slow reader. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 313 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/30/2009 12:21:20 PM | The bizarre thing is you have the Right to influence the vote , even if you are dead !
Federal agencies and some state governments have rules that allow the departed
to have a voice in the political system — even if they lack the breath to make it heard.
People listed as “dead” or “deceased” have donated more than $1 million to federal campaigns,
political parties and political action committees since 1994,
according to a CQ MoneyLine study of campaign finance records.
Estates chipped in another $1.2 million during the same time period.
In most cases, the money was set aside as part of a will.
These donations aren’t illegal so long as they stay within contribution limits,
which apply equally to the living and the dead. The dead also hire lobbyists.
More than a dozen estates have hired lobbyists to spend about $6 million to push their legislative interests. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/30/2009 12:33:21 PM | Hey gadget
you wrote:
"Paul I will read the Declaration again myself and answer your question. Just give me some time. I'm a slow reader."
While you are reading it, imagine that YOU were the person standing in front of King George, an absolute monarch, in HIS palace, in HIS country, and You are the one reading it to him........
Now THAT took a pair of KING KONG size juevos to do.
Paul K. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/30/2009 1:10:42 PM | @ Paul
I am wondering what part of that is it that resembles what the USA is today?
Less of it all the time, and that was my point. US imperialism has been a thorn in the side of much of the planet for many decades now. Who appointed the USA as the world's "cop"? Why doesn't it just tend to its own domestic business and quit sticking its nose where it isn't wanted internationally? Aside from the imperialism issue, I see the republic losing its proper division of powers, as more of it get's channeled away from congress towards the executive. Another issue is the concentration of power away from the states, toward the federal level. If I'm not mistaken, the federal government was supposed to have its power delegated to it by the states...It appears to be the other way around from what I can see. It seems to me like the country somehow screwed up its originally intended republican form by apparently screwing up the distribution of power. What's your take on it? | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/30/2009 1:11:47 PM |
Now THAT took a pair of KING KONG size juevos to do.
I wish it could have been me!...I would have loved to see the look in his eyes! | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/30/2009 1:32:00 PM | hey dukky
you wrote:
"Another issue is the concentration of power away from the states, toward the federal level. If I'm not mistaken, the federal government was supposed to have its power delegated to it by the states...It appears to be the other way around from what I can see."
That explains a lot of why you write what you do. The states were to delegate power to the federal government? Tell the ones who told you that to stop drinking the bong water................
Read the 10th amendment. Actually, read the whole Consititution. It is not that long, and it really makes sense. I've always said it was one of the greatest documents ever written, and why every generation that comes along always wants to change it is something I will never understand.
Paul K | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 318 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/30/2009 4:34:37 PM | The constitution doesn't reflect current reality tooo well.
It's an old document that needs amending and revision to reflect the current millenium
i.e. years 2,000 and up. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 11/1/2009 1:44:05 AM |
who is going to enforce this "treaty" against us? Remember, we still have the biggest RED button to push.
Sorry Paul, the guys enforcing the treaty are the ones in charge of your country. The button doesn't get pushed without their urging. Your elected representatives only work for them (and that includes "Howdy Doody")
The US has been and will continue to be the "muscle", or "hired thug" for the world's ruling elite, who are now consolidating their power to lord it over all nations. If the US wants out, it will have to first kick out the ruling elite IN the US, and since they are running the country, it will require a civil war to do it.
Since the Fed came in, your country has been in the hands of criminal traitors, who have successfully milked the American people dry while entrenching themselves so deeply in your government through legislation that they can't be taken out except by force. These are the guys who take out the presidents they don't like (like JFK). The presidents don't (can't) take them out. | |
|
| |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 11/2/2009 4:28:50 PM | Hey ho2
What you wrote tells me that you have never even been in the same room as a copy of the Consititution. Yeah, I know, old line, but true.
Paul K | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 322 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 11/2/2009 11:21:56 PM | Don't really give a damn what the original document said or where it's kept or looking at it between layers of glass.
This serves my purposes quite well :
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 11/3/2009 11:16:39 AM | ^^^^^^
You do realize that the reference you just gave at the bottom line of the post is the original document that you don't "give a damn" in what it says?
This is worse than I thought.
Paul K | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 324 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 11/3/2009 3:32:18 PM | I like to stay current; like late 2009 and early 2010 instead of the 1776 stuff
Don't really care if taxes were or were not paid on tea...prefer how my Rights are affected today | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 11/5/2009 8:58:19 PM | | Thing is since the Consitution is the law, it is current. Rights are an interesting thing, you have to claim them. Otherwise others will step on them. I'm interested in a bunch of stuff, tax policy, regulation, criminal legislation. All of which effects my rights to live the life, and own the property that I want to. Like is drug scheduling Consitutional? Does it infrige upon the 10th Admendment? Or does it fall under Art 1 Section 8 the Commerce Clause? This is why knowing the Consitution is so important. You can get a free Declaration, and Constitution that fits into your pocket at heritage.org. I know they are a bit of a "right wing" group but they have some good information. For me politics is like crossing the street. Look right, then left, then decide if it is safe to cross. | |
|
Home
login 
