Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Do you agree with the following:

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Yes or no please and bear with me as another question will be forthcoming.

We desperately need to release the nation from the stranglehoul of corporate interests and a politics dominated by big money.

I want to get a sense of the group on the above statement. Not how you think it should be done or how it can't just whether or not you agree with the basic premise.




posted on May, 25 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes, I agree that corporations and the politicians bought out by them need to lose their influence.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd
Yes



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Yea,sure ok , where do I sign up ?



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes, more emphasis on people, less on profits.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=17961236]FyreByrd[/post
undoubtably



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

YES!!!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Absolutely agree - the lives of Americans and human beings in general are worth more than what they can spend. Americans need to be represented again, not corporations - especially big pharma. Profits over actual health every time - but that's pretty much the philosophy of all giant corporatins...


It should be about the welfare of humanity and not the almighty dollar!



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Do these replies mean we should be expecting unmarked cars to show up soon to take us to the re-education camplokjnhbgvczz................



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
We desperately need to release the nation from the strangleho[ld] of corporate interests and a politics dominated by big money.


I would change "nation" to "world" and "politics" to "humanity," but I would agree in a generalized way.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
To the OP: Yes. At this point, though, I think most will agree that the only means to that end would be violence. Violence that most would refuse to participate in. So on goes the circle. I would love to be proven wrong but I don't see that happening.

a reply to: tallcool1

Proxies and VPNs. Look into the VPN project by Tsukuba University. I used to use their SoftEther VPN with no noticeable browser speed change. It's totally free, too.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Sure! So here's how to do it to get the change you want. First get George Soros to sink hundreds of millions into a super-PAC to defeat the corporate monsters, then get Michael Bloomberg to spend hundreds of millions on anti-gun advertising. Then get a "green billionaire" to fund a fortune in advertising against GOP anti-science climate deniers. Get a few more left-leaning billionaires to fund this thing and you could drive money out of politics!

Oh, wait......



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Yes



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I would definitely concur. But would replace the words "big-money" with "greed". Big money has its influences, but "greed" driven capitalism has a social engineering dimension which has underpinned the nature of the cold war as it now does for the global war on terrorism. It undermines world freedom.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Yes.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Yes. They are still needed, but some better laws that are actually stuck to. Single out the most greedy law circumventing ones and get rid of them.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Question #2:

Privacy violations by government and big business - as both customer and contractor need to be restored and strengthened.

I just want to know if you agree with the general idea/goal not the means or particularities....



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Yes to #1! Absolutely!
I'm not sure what question 2 means. Sorry.
edit on 5/25/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Question No.2 is far too general to answer. You would need to define the violations, because one man's violation is another man's security.

But in the most basic blanket definition of "privacy" and the implications of government and big business, the sentiment is agreeable.
edit on 25-5-2014 by JaspersCheese because: Added musings



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: FyreByrd

Question #2:

Privacy violations by government and big business - as both customer and contractor need to be restored and strengthened.

I just want to know if you agree with the general idea/goal not the means or particularities....





Question #2 appears to be a question that maneuvers one into the arena of whether businesses are individuals or collective entities. It wouldn't be prudent to address a manifold question with a simple yes or no.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join