Atlantis Online
October 22, 2020, 04:48:30 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: 'Europe's oldest city' found in Cadiz
http://mathaba.net/rss/?x=566660
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

What do Human Beings Owe Each Other..?


Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What do Human Beings Owe Each Other..?  (Read 3271 times)
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3278


HUH?


« Reply #135 on: April 02, 2009, 06:29:27 pm »

Quote
Trust me. It feels so much better then hurting the friends you do have by ruining their buzz with all the drama

Yes, there are worse things then death.


LMAO I love it.....
You are almost as sarcastic as I am.
Report Spam   Logged

Rain
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 179



« Reply #136 on: May 10, 2009, 06:21:08 am »

A better question would be, what does the government owe to it's people?

Offhand, I would say that it's chief function would be to protect the powerless from the powerful, namely the poor from the rich!

Billions of dollars in taxpayer money to these wretched banks that got this economy into this mess and we still can't get regulation passed to regulate them and their ripoff credit cards?  Our politicians are paid whores and their pimps are the banks! 
Report Spam   Logged
unknown
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1603



« Reply #137 on: May 10, 2009, 09:11:27 pm »

right on
Report Spam   Logged

"There exists an agent, which is natural and divine, material and spiritual, a universal plastic mediator, a common receptical of the fluid vibrations of motion and the images of forms, a fluid, and a force, which can be called the Imagination of Nature..."
Elphias Levi
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #138 on: May 11, 2009, 12:50:49 am »

Well if you didn't vote Constitution Party then you only have yourselves to blame.
Report Spam   Logged
Sacred Nothing
Full Member
***
Posts: 19


« Reply #139 on: May 29, 2009, 10:34:33 pm »

What makes you think the Constitution Party is any better than any of the other ones?
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #140 on: May 30, 2009, 02:00:23 pm »

What makes you think the Constitution Party is any better than any of the other ones?

They are anti-Globalism.

They are pro-Sovereignty.

They know how corrupt fractional reserve banking is.

They know the reason why we have the Constitution and 27 Amendments in place.

They are willing to repeal the un-Constitutionally added 16th Amendment for which Ohio was only a 'territory' and not a state at the time and by the Constitution's standard only states can send representatives and senators to Washington DC.  A state must have its borders defined and a resolution passed in Congress making it a state.  Ohio never had a resolution passed, so when Taft signed the 16th Amendment into law he had no legitimate Constitutional authority to do so.

Remember improperly ratifying something is just the same as not ratifying it at all.

Read on...   Wink

16th Amendment improperly ratified.‏

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument. Most claims that Americans aren't required to pay income tax rely on legal interpretations so tortured only a tax resister could possibly believe them. But the Ohio thing has just enough plausibility to give even sane people pause.
It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.
Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.
But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.
But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.
Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.
OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)
Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.
Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.
Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.
A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"
Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.
OK, they're stupid. But great matters have turned on seemingly sillier points of law. It's not like the Ohio argument couldn't have been defeated on the merits. One suspects that from a legal standpoint "ex post facto" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "retroactive." And of course the weight of 150 years of history, during which time everyone thought Ohio had been properly admitted, ought to count for something.
I'm not defending the crackpots. But if you're a parent you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge.
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #141 on: May 30, 2009, 02:03:23 pm »

What makes you think the Constitution Party is any better than any of the other ones?

Plus we in the Constitution Party know that the Republicans and Democrats are owned by the Bilderbergers who are trying to bring in neo-feudalism and a police state.

I'd invite you to watch these films and see the evolution of the New World Order's plan.

Films to See.


The Obama Deception

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7535755025025800195


Endgame

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261&q=Endgame+&ei=1t4QSPaoB5q2rAKJzaywBA


America: Freedom to Fascism

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=Freedom+to+Fascism&ei=at8QSJPIL52mrALI99GwBA

Police State 2000

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1551348336255792191&ei=li3YSe2vEInUrQLMhunlAg&q=Police+state+2000

Loose Change Final Cut

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598&ei=3C3YSYvbKIKwrAKQqqzLAQ&q=Loose+Change+Final+Cut

Fabled Enemies

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407&ei=Fi7YSf6sAo6YrQL3rcXcAg&q=Fabled+Enemies

Washington You're Fired

http://vodpod.com/watch/683877-washington-your-fired
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #142 on: May 30, 2009, 02:05:11 pm »

Here's the history of banking in America and why we need to get rid of fractional reserve banking and have the Treasury Department issue debt free money.

Films to See.


The Money Masters.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+money+changers&ei=Zd4QSMjvB47YqAKQtJmzBA

Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #143 on: May 30, 2009, 02:16:44 pm »

Constitution Party (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Constitution Party:

Party Chairman    Jim Clymer
Senate Leader    None
House Leader    None
Founded    1992 under as Taxpayers party 1999 under as Constitution party
Headquarters    23 North Lime St.  Lancaster, PA 17602
Political ideology    Paleoconservatism
Constitutionalism
Originalism
National conservatism
Christian nationalism
Political position    Fiscal: Economic nationalism
Social: Christian right
International affiliation    None
Seats in the Senate    
Seats in the House of Representatives    
Color(s)    Red, white, and blue
Website    http://constitutionparty.com

The Constitution Party is a nationalist and populist [1] United States political party rooted in the paleoconservative movement. It was founded as the U.S. Taxpayers' Party in 1992. The party's official name was changed to the Constitution Party in 1999; however, some state affiliate parties are known under different names. The party's goal as stated in its own words is "to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations." The party puts a large focus on immigration, calling for stricter penalties towards illegal immigrants and a moratorium on legal immigration until all federal subsidies to immigrants are discontinued.[2] The party absorbed the American Independent Party, originally founded for George Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign. The Party's California affiliate continues to operate under that name.

Overview

According to the editor of Ballot Access News, which periodically compiles and analyzes voter registration statistics as reported by state voter agencies, it ranks third nationally amongst all United States political parties in registered voters, with 384,722 registered members as of February 2008.[3]

The Constitution Party advocates a platform which it says aims to reflect the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the Bible, and the Bill of Rights.

In 2006, Rick Jore of Montana became the first Constitution Party candidate elected to a state-level office,[4][5] although the Constitution Party of Montana had disaffiliated from the national party a short time before the election.

On April 26, 2008, Chuck Baldwin was nominated as the Constitution Party candidate for President of the United States in the 2008 election.

[edit] Affiliates and other similar parties

The Michigan affiliate has kept the U.S. Taxpayers Party name to retain ballot status. In Connecticut the affiliate is the Concerned Citizens Party; in Nebraska the affiliate has recently changed its name from "The Nebraska Party" to "The Nebraska Independent Party".[6].

Reports that the Constitution Party discussed a merger[7] between several third parties such as the Reform Party, Independent American Party, American Independent Party, and the America First Party have been refuted by other accounts of the events.[8] Nevertheless, all of the aforementioned parties except for the Reform Party endorsed Michael Peroutka as their presidential candidate in 2004.

[edit] Notable persons

Pat Buchanan threatened in 1996 to run as the U.S. Taxpayers Party candidate if Bob Dole chose a pro-choice running mate. Dole later chose pro-life Jack Kemp and received Buchanan's endorsement. Buchanan's Reform Party running mate Ezola B. Foster switched her membership to the Constitution Party in 2002. Buchanan stated on the September 7, 2004 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews, "There is a chance I would vote for [Michael] Peroutka."[9] However, he later penned an endorsement of President George W. Bush in the pages of The American Conservative.[10]

U.S. senator Bob Smith announced his switch from Republican to the U.S. Taxpayers Party in 1999 to seek its 2000 presidential nomination. Smith later claimed that anti-New World Order ideologues within the party resisted his candidacy due to his Roman Catholicism. He continued his campaign as a non-partisan independent but ceased the campaign soon thereafter and returned to the Republican party to assume a Senate committee chairmanship. In 2008, he began writing editorials on the Constitution Party's web page, fueling speculation that he would seek its presidential nomination again, although he had endorsed Rep. Duncan Hunter for the Republican nomination. He requested that his name be withheld from consideration in a March 2008 letter to CP supporters.

Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist ran for Congress with the American Independent Party in 2005, but has since rejoined the Republicans.[11]

Author and WorldNetDaily columnist Jerome Corsi launched a brief campaign for the 2008 nomination but in July 2007 decided to return to writing.[12] Former Reagan Administration official and Christian activist Alan Keyes had actively sought the Constitution nod after ending a bid for the GOP nomination.[13]

The party has also attracted notables in the anti-abortion movement such as Dr. Gregory Thompson,[14] Lon Mabon,[15] Paul deParrie, and Missionaries to the Preborn leader Pastor Matthew Trewhella.[16] However, many such notables were involved in the below-mentioned disaffiliation efforts over abortion, and it remains unclear on what effect the movement has upon the current reorganized affiliates.

A 2008 candidate for the Republican nomination, Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), endorsed several third party candidates shortly after bowing out of the race. Ultimately, he would go on to endorse 2008 Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.[17] The Constitution Party of Montana replaced Baldwin with Paul for president and Michael Peroutka for vice president. Paul requested that Montana remove his name from the ballot, but the Secretary of State of Montana denied his request, stating that the request was sent too late.[18]

Dan Itse, a Republican member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives active in the state sovereignty movement, is scheduled to speak at the June 2009 Constitution Party National Committee meeting to be held in Newark, New Jersey.

Platform

For comparison with other parties, see Comparison of politics of parties of the United States.

The Constitution Party platform invokes a preamble that looks to Jesus Christ as Creator, and seeks to secure "our unalienable rights given us by our Creator." [19]

 Fiscal policy

The Constitution Party supports reducing the role of the United States federal government through cutting bureaucratic regulation, reducing spending, and replacing the income tax with a tariff-based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes. Its leaders are among the strongest advocates of abolishing most forms of federal taxation, especially the income tax; they view most current regular federal expenditures, such as those for health care, education, and welfare, as unconstitutional under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. The party also takes the position that the "imposition [] of Federal income, payroll, and estate taxes [] is an unconstitutional Federal assumption of direct taxing authority."[20] The 16th Amendment to the US Constitution does grant Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration,"[21] however, the party disputes the validity of the Amendment's ratification.

The party supports paying off the federal debt through a systematic elimination of further borrowing, programs, and agencies it considers unconstitutional such as the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. The party opposes foreign aid, asking that no further funds be appropriated for any kind of foreign aid program, and encourage the idea that the United States terminate its participation in international lending institutions, such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the Export-Import Bank. It also urges the government to immediately terminate all subsidies, tax preferences, and investment guarantees that encourage U.S. businesses to invest in foreign property; and to seek to collect all foreign debts owed to it.

 Foreign policy

The Constitution Party favors a noninterventionist foreign policy. It advocates reduction and eventual elimination of the role the United States plays in multinational and international organizations such as the United Nations, and favors withdrawal of the United States from most current treaties, such as North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the World Trade Organization. The party takes mercantilist positions in supporting protectionist policies on international trade.

The party also believes in exercising a tariff system to counteract the U.S.' increasingly negative balance of trade.[22] The tariff system would levy additional import costs, the amount of which would vary proportionally with how much less the exporting country's production costs are compared to that of U.S. companies. This system would presumably give U.S. companies a better chance at competing with countries, like Mexico and China, which have lower labor costs. In 2007 the US took in only about 25 billion dollars in import Tariffs while at the same time running a 70 billion dollar per month Import Deficit.

 Immigration policy

The party opposes illegal immigration and also seeks stricter controls on legal immigration. It demands that the federal government restore immigration policies based on the policy that potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the United States on the grounds of ill health, criminality, low morals, or financial dependence, believing that they would impose an improper burden on the United States, any state, and citizens of the United States. The party has stated a long term goal of a moratorium on future immigration, exempting extreme cases where it would be necessary. [23]

Additionally, it opposes the providing of welfare subsidies and other taxpayer-supported benefits to illegal immigrants, rejecting also the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal immigrant parents while in this country (jus soli). The Party also rejects any extension of amnesty to illegal immigrants. The Constitution Party calls for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against an influx of illegal immigrants.


Social policy

The party opposes euthanasia and abortion.[24][25] The party supports a state's right to administer the death penalty to those convicted of "capital crimes"[26]:

    Our support of a State's option to impose the death penalty is limited to those who have been convicted of capital crimes. This is consistent with protecting "innocent" life because the death penalty would only be applied to those who have proven to be a threat to innocent life.

The party opposes government recognition of same-sex unions, and believes state and local governments have the right to criminalize "offensive sexual behavior".[27] The party further opposes pornography, believing it to be, at worst, "a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities," distinguishable from the American citizen's "cherished First Amendment right to free speech." While expressing its belief in the individual responsibility of citizens and corporations, the party maintains that government plays a "vital role" in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in America's community standards.[28] Viewing gambling as destructive and contributing to crime, the party opposes all government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling,[29] and in keeping with the spirit of Article 1 Section 8 and Amendment 10, the party opposes federal anti-drug laws while maintaining that the federal government may have a role in limiting the import of drugs.[30]

The party supports the right to bear arms in accordance with the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It has taken a stand against the USA PATRIOT Act.

The Constitution Party believes that charitable giving is most effective when conducted by private parties. Because the authority to administer charity has not been granted to the government in the Constitution, the party maintains that the government has no business being involved in such endeavors.[31] The party opposes federal restrictions on, or subsidization of, medical treatments.[32]

The party supports English as the official language for all governmental business, opposes bilingual ballots, and insists that those who wish to take part in the electoral process and governance of the U.S. be required to read and comprehend basic English as a precondition of citizenship.[33]

[edit] Abortion stance and post-Tampa state disaffiliations

The Constitution Party officially opposes both early and late-term abortions. Party members, however, have been divided on the subject of exceptions in the cases of ****, incest, and abortions performed to save the life of the mother.

In early 2006, Christopher H. Hansen, the gubernatorial candidate of Independent American Party of Nevada (the Constitution Party state affiliate in Nevada), and candidates in Colorado and Idaho, publicly expressed support for these exceptions, which were contrary to the official Nevada platform.

At the party's April national convention in Tampa, Florida, the assembly voted not to disaffiliate Nevada, citing that affiliate's official position on the issue and national party policy against dictating the internal affairs (such as electing leaders) of any affiliate. They also made it more difficult to introduce a disaffiliation resolution.

In response, nine state parties formally voted to disaffiliate from the national party, believing it to have unacceptably compromised on the issue of abortion.[34][35][36][37][38] Several of these states have since reorganized and reaffiliated.[39][40]

Federalism

The party supports the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, which allows Congress to tax income, and the Seventeenth Amendment, which requires the direct (popular) election of Senators.[41] The party holds that each state's membership in the Union is voluntary,[42] this stance is known as the Compact theory.

 Ballot access

The Constitution Party is on the ballot in the following states, as of December 1, 2008.[43] Several state parties are still disaffiliated following the 2006 Tampa decision.

   1. Colorado (as the American Constitution Party)
   2. Delaware
   3. Florida
   4. Idaho
   5. Maryland
   6. Michigan (as the U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan)
   7. Mississippi
   8. Missouri
   9. Montana (Constitution Party of Montana, disaffiliated in 2006)
  10. Nevada (as the Independent American Party of Nevada)
  11. New Mexico[44]
  12. Oregon (Constitution Party of Oregon, disaffiliated in 2006)
  13. South Carolina
  14. South Dakota
  15. Utah (Constitution Party of Utah)
  16. Vermont
  17. Florida

Started petitioning

The party has already started the process of petitioning for full party ballot access in 2010 in two states Wyoming and Arizona[4].

Presidential tickets

    * 1992 - Howard Phillips and Albion Knight, Jr. - 43,369 votes.
    * 1996 - Howard Phillips and Herb Titus - 184,820 votes
    * 2000 - Howard Phillips and Curtis Frazier - 98,022 votes
    * 2004 - Michael Peroutka and Chuck Baldwin - 143,630 votes
    * 2008 - Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle - 199,314 votes


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_politics_of_parties_of_the_United_States#Politics_comparison
Report Spam   Logged
iwannano
Full Member
***
Posts: 40


« Reply #144 on: June 01, 2009, 12:25:48 am »

Thank you,
I now realize I am a constitutionalist and have been one for a while but didn't know it. I thought I was a libertarian but this fits my beliefs better.

Back to the subject: What do human beings owe each other..?

I'll be paraphrasing Ayn Rand from both "the Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged"

I owe my fellow human beings nothing other than to be my best, to think with my own mind, to ask nor expect nothing from them, to live my life for me, to cause no one harm. This may seem selfish but it is actually self-interest. Selfishness implies a disregard for others. Self-interest can mean caring for oneself while taking others into account. I take care of my family because that is me being my best. I listen to what others think and use their thoughts to help formulate thoughts of my own. I don't ask for anything but if it should come my way I am grateful. I was not put here to be anyone other than myself. I cannot live another's life for them. I will cause no one harm unless they try to force me to change the above. I will not accept the premise that I owe anyone anything nor should anyone think they are owed. When you start to think you are owed then you are owned!!!

Report Spam   Logged
Warrior of the Dawn
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2108



« Reply #145 on: July 05, 2009, 01:51:13 am »

Libertarians lead an entirely selfish existence, they are no better than Republicans.

And the Constitution guarantees one the rights of life liberty and the pursiuit of happiness.  It can't, of course provide those things if it is only catering to the wealthy.
Report Spam   Logged
Dawn Moline
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1943



« Reply #146 on: October 03, 2010, 01:09:51 am »

To my view, the only good from having wealth and power is the greater ability to help each other.  Everyone imagines what it would be like to be rich, but after getting a certain amount of money to be happy, suit your needs, what good is it? 

Cheers,

Dawn
Report Spam   Logged

"The unexamined life is one not worth leading."
-Plato
unknown
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1603



« Reply #147 on: October 03, 2010, 09:06:00 pm »

Hi Dawn

I feel the same way...

Unfortunately, wealth seems to be addictive. The more you have the more you want.
Report Spam   Logged

"There exists an agent, which is natural and divine, material and spiritual, a universal plastic mediator, a common receptical of the fluid vibrations of motion and the images of forms, a fluid, and a force, which can be called the Imagination of Nature..."
Elphias Levi
Dawn Moline
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1943



« Reply #148 on: December 11, 2010, 06:13:54 pm »

How very true, Unknown, greed knows no bounds - for most.

And yet, there have also been reports of bilionaires giving away the bulk of their fortunes to help charities.  In the final analysis, when one is closer to the end, it can't simply be just about greed, but leaving the world in a better place then you found it.

Cheers,

Dawn
Report Spam   Logged

"The unexamined life is one not worth leading."
-Plato
Dawn Moline
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1943



« Reply #149 on: December 22, 2010, 11:31:15 pm »

With charity to all, not just at Christmas time, but all the time.  For what bonds us to this earth if it is not each other?

Cheers,

Dawn
Report Spam   Logged

"The unexamined life is one not worth leading."
-Plato
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy