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.

 

Do you agree with the following:

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes!

As long as unions and leftist groups are included into your description of "big money".




posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes!

As long as unions and leftist groups are included into your description of "big money".


Of course though it is not germaine to my point. I'm just looking at broad stroke ideas.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Question #3 and the last one.

Should indiviudal 'consumers' have the right to make fully informed choice about the food, drink and drugs they purchase?



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes!

As long as unions and leftist groups are included into your description of "big money".


Of course though it is not germaine to my point. I'm just looking at broad stroke ideas.






posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Definitely yes!



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Dear FyreByrd,

Nice question (I'm thinking of #1). I'm not sure I can agree to it without some clarification.


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


I think it's fairly clear that big money doesn't have a stranglehold, if by that you mean controlling policies, laws and the politicians themselves. They have influence, but big money is often found fighting itself. Billionaires have differing ideas on what's desirable and the can pull in opposite directions.

Sometimes, it's something beyond money that is offered. Union support in parades, letters to the editor, election day turnout and judges (honest or not), all has an effect as well.

We've also seen how politics has very strong influence over companies and unions. Labor laws, bailouts, Toyota's fine of over a billion dollars while GM gets a 35 million dollar fine. Regulations shutting down companies, or making businesses more difficult. The tax structure has a huge effect.

It's hard to tell who is doing the dominating.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
You know I'm with the world elites on this one. We need to be destroyed we are so corrupt.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd
yes
Canada wants OUT
yes



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd


Yes, at least for the most part, but at the same time, as beezzer stated, it needs to apply equally to all sources of big money in politics, including labor unions and activist groups.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Should indiviudal 'consumers' have the right to make fully informed choice about the food, drink and drugs they purchase?


Yes!



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes I agree and IMO, there is only one way to accomplish it.

It's going to take legislation and/or a Constitutional Amendment that outlaws ALL forms of paid lobbying of elected officials at ALL levels of government.

More than likely, it will take the later of two. This is due to the fact that most elected officials look at the lobbyist profession as a retirement option and are very unlikely to vote for legislation that would eliminate their future income.

For that reason alone, I believe it will probably take something on the order of an "Amendment Convention" or "Article V Convention" to get it accomplished.

Not sure what to think of question number 2 but I vote yes on question number 3.
edit on 26-5-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd


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




Yes.

I can't imagine a single person disagreeing with that statement



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: FyreByrd

Question #3 and the last one.

Should indiviudal 'consumers' have the right to make fully informed choice about the food, drink and drugs they purchase?





Yes, Absolutely.


I've answered 1 & 3 but have no idea what you're asking in question 2.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 10:32 AM
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....





Maybe I'm not too bright and, as such, do not completely understand this question - but I assume you mean to ask if we would support punishment to those entities which violate our personal privacy? If that's the case, then yes I would support that... of course it would all depend on the specifics of the situation. My spidey sense is beginning to tingle as if I'm being led to something...

And if I have completely missed the point or misunderstood the question - then please forgive me and move along. I'm, uh, a little... well I live in Washington state and we get away with things that 48 other states don't.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: FyreByrd

Question #3 and the last one.

Should indiviudal 'consumers' have the right to make fully informed choice about the food, drink and drugs they purchase?



Yes - but now I'm rally starting to feel like this is going to be one of those political things that ends with "surprise - you're a progressive", or democrat or republican or NAZI or whatever... These are somewhat broad stroked questions that could be used to support either side of many arguments. Nothing against you OP, just making an observation.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
No the difficult question: (and thank you to all for answering and being patient.)

Are you willing to support measures to attain these widely held concepts, even, even, if:


1) It isn't a perfect solution.

2) It is a compromise solution.

3) You have to work with people you don't like to help implement the solution.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes. (still don't understand #2)



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Whose big money?



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I would include the collection of person information by Organizations for their profit (in whatever way).

I.E. Google collecting your browsing and other personal information to use for targeted marketing.

I.E. Government contracting with google for the collected information for it's purposes.

I.E. Mass collection of telephone and internet to obtain your 'affiliations'.

I.E. All the above with out any 'just cause' and/or court order.

There are hundreds of examples.

The 'just cause' and 'court order' provisions seemed to work pretty well but didn't cover Business Data Gathering.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd



Should indiviudal 'consumers' have the right to make fully informed choice about the food, drink and drugs they purchase?


Sure. Absolutely. The "how" of implementation comes quickly to mind, though...




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join