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.

 

50,000 Democratic voter registrations in Georgia mysteriously dissapear

page: 12
13
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66





So, 27 registration forms out of 40,000, justifies disenfranchising 39,976 voters?



It was enough to launch a formal investigation. Just like you folks supported Al Gore throwing an entire Presidential election out of whack.

Because we all know what ACORN and community organizers like the New Georgia Project are doing with fake registrations.




posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Um no, I just wanted to clarify that Karl Marx was the father of communism. Marx himself was not a dictator per se, as he never had that kind of control. But he inspired the people on the list of communist dictators to do what they did on behalf of his communist manifesto. Marx and Lenin both said there would have to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, that there would have to be a group of elites ruling things until capitalism was overthrown.




and you just quoted from Alex Jones' site, and expect to be taken seriously by anyone anywhere?


It was just a reprint of the original Antony Sutton book. Even AJ is capable of that.Here's another site if you are that allergic to AJ. www.american-buddha.com...
But you will have to look for the right link. It does contain the entire book. It's under How The Order Controls Education, and explains in much more detail about Yale


edit on 30-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

ThirdEyeBlind..... that was a direct blast to my handle and to my character. If you cannot perceive how you yourself treat others, I just don't know what to say.
It may be personal bs to you, but I post it so people like you will stop with your own silly attempts to paint me as not so intellectual, not so cultured right wing hick.

And again, until I am satisfied that you have read and understood some of the same materials I have, I will put my intellect and my culture against yours any day.
Why don't you just try it? Sutton talks more about Prescott Bush than any other as a Bonesman, so I dare you to accuse me of being partisan on this issue. Try studying the Hegelian model and then get back to me. I am so tired of hearing people claim that Hitler was some kind of conservative guy. Sutton explains it's only in the Hegelian model.
I double dog dare you to read it and be informed. And while you're at it, would you please read also some of his other works, including "The War on Gold", "Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler", "The Federal Reserve Conspiracy", "Wall Street and the BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION", "Wall Street and FDR".
I also highly recommend reading "The Creature From Jekyll Island" for a better understanding of the economic situation.
Then you will truly begin to understand how the 1% created communism and fascism and crony capitalism(not the same thing as free market econ), and their monopolistic controls.


edit on 30-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

See here is the thing I could never understand why Liberals were against ID laws and Conservatives for.

I always thought both sides were racist to assume that voters who could not afford ID's were poor and minority.

Now I am seeing why they want ID's..they can put a face to the name now. They can now target people by race because an ID card would not lie.

Of course it is hypothetical...but I would not put anything past a republican...


They put a race and face with the name when you answer the census takers questions that comes to your door.

If ID isn't important why do you need it to listen to Eric Holder speak? If ID isn't important why would I let a non citizen have the greatest power a citizen can have? When you have the right to vote you have a say in the direction of the country why would I let a non citizen decide the direction my country takes? If that was the case would you let ISIS members vote?

Anyone who can't afford a $10.00 ID card can't afford a cell phone, and it's democrats that want to give non citizens ID to vote not republicans.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Right so, I'll collect your multiple posts here.

A formal investigation? Right. That's why the Secretary of State's response was: "the law doesn't tell us when to process registrations."

If you think that is comparable at all to what happened with the 2000 election or with the recount in Florida; I don't really know what to say to you. Completely different cases in subject, scale, relevance, etc. But thanks for the "you folks."

(EDIT: Unless you were comparing the commonality of a compromised Republican Secretary of State in both cases, and I don't think you were. Still completely different situations)

Yada, yada ACORN, yada, yada community organizers: yes, you just have beliefs, and that's all you need.

I see you conveniently don't address the other comments from your Newsweek article. I'm not surprised.

So, to you, the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means installing a despot? Have you read the works of Marx? I would agree with you in regard to the way Lenin and certainly Stalin interpreted the phrase, but neither is what Marx meant if you read it in context ... but I just bet I'm barking in the wind on that one.

I'm not allergic to Alex Jones, I just consider him and his work, as do many, ludicrous and disreputable.

Oh good lord. If you were deeply offended at "ThirdEyeBlind" allow me to apologize. I'm sorry if that triggered something for you and caused you pain. Genuinely. I was not aware that you feel like people paint you as a hick. I'd never noticed it.

But, my goodness, this is the internet. Perhaps you should toughen your "skin" a bit. And while you're at it, consider how you speak to others. You certainly took your fair share of snide personal comments at me, commenting on my word choice, your presumption of my beliefs and my character ... but again, all that seems to be okay for you but not for others.

/sigh

Moving on quickly.

Thank you for your reading suggestions; how quaint that you "just know" I haven't read any of that material, and that you offer it in such a condescending way. But if you got the same tone back, hoo-boy, you're just being attacked.

I'm not surprised that you absorbed those, er, theories whole-cloth though. I prefer at least a dash of reality with my conspiracies though.

Believe what you wish.


edit on 15Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:11:25 -050014p0320141066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
A fact just occurred to me that I realized may not have been made clear:

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp is up for re-election next Tuesday as well.

Here's a quote from Secretary Kemp from June of this year:



In closing I just wanted to tell you, real quick, after we get through this runoff, you know the Democrats are working hard, and all these stories about them, you know, registering all these minority voters that are out there and others that are sitting on the sidelines, if they can do that, they can win these elections in November.


Source - Atlanta Journal Constitution

Now, why would Kemp have any reason to try to, as Governor Christie put it, "control the election process."

To insure full disclosure, the AJC article also started with:



This morning, we told you of an audio clip provided to us by Better Georgia, the Democratic-leaning group, of remarks made by Secretary of State Brian Kemp to a group of Gwinnett Republicans in July.


and ended with:



Yes, the secretary of state raised the specter of ACORN, and, yes, the speech was a partisan one. But Kemp wasn’t saying what Better Georgia wanted us to think he was saying.


No, he just implicated that the group was dirty and dishonest. No bias there.

Listen to the audio clip of Secretary Kemp's speech on the AJC site; decide for yourself.
edit on 15Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:12:24 -050014p0320141066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok so you don't like AJ. But I just told you that the post I made from his website was simply a reprint of the work of Antony Sutton. Could it be that you are pre-judging the work of Antony Sutton without even reading it because it was reprinted on a site you don't respect? Does your disrespect of AJ mean that Sutton's work is not important or relevant to the discussion of fascism and totalitarianism?
I gave you an alternate site to look at and compare. I also gave you numerous other book titles to read, and they are all relevant to many of the issues discussed on ATS.
Many people here see the Elites on both sides of the political spectrum as being part of the 1 %. Many people here see Wall Street as the 1%. Though I do not see eye to eye with some of those people, we do agree that Wall Street is culpable.
And you know what? Wall Street consists of both Democrats and Republicans. The CFR consists of both D and R.
This is a conspiracy site.
The ultimate conspiracy theory on voter fraud is that it is being used to defraud the American people of their freedom and liberty, no matter which angle or which party you choose to exemplify, and it is being done by globalist elites.
Both D and R are on board with Agenda 21, which is UN control trickled down into local cities under stealth policies. I bring it up because these things are all tied together.
Squabbles between D and R on voter fraud are simply more conflict created by elites. Does it really matter that Gore lost and Bush won ultimately? Does it matter that Bush won in 04 and his fellow Bonesman John Kerry lost? Probably not a whole lot considering the control the elites have over both parties.
Does it matter that we try to stop fraud wherever it happens and not excuse it because we don't like the other party? Yes, I think it does.




I'm not surprised that you absorbed those, er, theories whole-cloth though



Whole cloth? How the he&& do you know how I have absorbed these theories? Especially when you have not even read them yourself? You are making surface judgements based on some kind of partisan cra$.
Instead of doing that, why don't you just try reading them yourself, instead of making some stupid attack on my character(again). You can make your own judgements on the material instead of telling me what I absorbed.
Why do people such as yourself always have to resort to such ridiculous statements and attacks? I even made a point of showing you that the Antony Sutton material is not partisan. That does not seem to be enough for you. I mean, you might even begin to find some of the work fascinating, if you are open-minded enough to accept some different ideas than the worldview you accept so readily.

Here I'll help you out with vid if it's easier just to watch

edit on 30-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So, to you, the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means installing a despot? Have you read the works of Marx? I would agree with you in regard to the way Lenin and certainly Stalin interpreted the phrase, but neither is what Marx meant if you read it in context ... but I just bet I'm barking in the wind on that one.



No, it means installing a group of despots, an "oligarchy". In Soviet Russia, these were known as "Central Committees" and the like. In modern America, the role seems to be filled generally by something called "bureaucrats".

Marx, on "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat":




Marx stated that in a proletarian-run society, the state should control the "proceeds of labour" (i.e. all the food and products produced), and take from them that which was "an economic necessity", namely enough to replace "the means of production used up", an "additional portion for expansion of production" and "insurance funds" to be used in emergencies such as natural disasters. Furthermore, he believed that the state should then take enough to cover administrative costs, funds for the running of public services, and funds for those who were physically incapable of working. Once enough to cover all of these things had been taken out of the "proceeds of labour", Marx believed that what was left should then be shared out amongst the workers, with each individual getting goods to the equivalent value of how much labour they had invested.[11] In this manner, those workers who put in more labour and worked harder would get more of the proceeds of the collective labour than someone who had not worked as hard.



"The State" controls - not you, not I, not "the proletariat", not the producers, but "The State". The State also does the taking - it makes current tax structure, oneerous though it is, look like a comparative walk in the park. The left over crumbs are then "shared out amongst the workers" - you know, the "proletariat" who actually produced the entirety to begin with.


Direct quotes:




Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.—Critique of the Gotha Program (1875)

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.—Manifesto of the Communist Party[2]



Source. An interesting read, if it can be managed without blinders and with a questioning mind. One wonders which "ruling class" should tremble more - the ares or the wannabes, for after the "overthrow", there is just another "ruling class" - same thing, different faces.

Simply swapping out one ruling class for another is not "classless", it just changes the faces at the top of the dogpile.

The only way to achieve a truly "classless" society is to revert to a hunter-gatherer society, and even then it could be argued that there will be the "hunters" and the "gatherers", resulting in classes. Anything more than that, and someone is going to be running the show - and someone else won't like how they do that... or how they steal the votes to have their wicked way with their world.







edit on 2014/10/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




"just know" I haven't read any of that material, and that you offer it in such a condescending way. But if you got the same tone back, hoo-boy, you're just being attacked.




Mostly because you seem to be unable to argue a point without resorting to personal attacks. Is there any way at all to get you to stop that and just debate civilly? And also you do this to others you disagree with, so I know it's not just me.
Well, have you read ANY of it EVER? Just tell me now if you have read even a portion of Creature From Jekyll Island, or if you've even heard of it.
Something tells me that if you had read anything of Antony Sutton, you would not have had to make silly remarks about the Alex Jones website, because you would have understood the points therein.
edit on 30-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

Squabbles between D and R on voter fraud are simply more conflict created by elites. Does it really matter that Gore lost and Bush won ultimately? Does it matter that Bush won in 04 and his fellow Bonesman John Kerry lost? Probably not a whole lot considering the control the elites have over both parties.


You may be surprised to know that I absolutely agree with these statements!


Whole cloth? How the he&& do you know how I have absorbed these theories? Especially when you have not even read them yourself?


Oh well, that didn't last long ...

How the heck to you know I haven't even read them myself?, Mr. Teapot?

(And please note that "teapot" is not a reference to your political preference but to the old saw "teapot calling the kettle black" ... just want to make sure you're not unnecessarily insulted.)

How do I know? You're discussing the theories, you're offering them as evidence relating to our previous arguments!

I have actually spent years tracing what I thought was the "grand elitist" thread through history, through all the royal Bloodlines, through the Church and particularly the Templars, back to late Rome, to Neoplatonists and the Secret Mystery Schools, even to Egypt, Mesopotamia and *sigh* Atlantis.

So, perhaps I HAVE given alternate histories their due, and perhaps I have opinions that you haven't even considered because you're trapped in the idea that I'm a damn'd dirty Democrat and therefore in league with all the dark forces ... or whatever it is you believe.

So, there. Nyah.

I dare say my research on the topic is at least equal to yours and those whom you cite from.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Gryphon66




"just know" I haven't read any of that material, and that you offer it in such a condescending way. But if you got the same tone back, hoo-boy, you're just being attacked.




Mostly because you seem to be unable to argue a point without resorting to personal attacks. Is there any way at all to get you to stop that and just debate civilly? And also you do this to others you disagree with, so I know it's not just me.
Well, have you read ANY of it EVER? Just tell me now if you have read even a portion of Creature From Jekyll Island, or if you've even heard of it.
Something tells me that if you had read anything of Antony Sutton, you would not have had to make silly remarks about the Alex Jones website, because you would have understood the points therein.


You have got to be kidding!!! About every other sentence of yours is some snide implication that anyone who disagrees with you or the mainline Republican talking points you favor is either mentally challenged, intellectually elitist, or overtly dishonest. You don't see that as attacks though, I'm sure, because you're just "tellin' the truth."

Good lord.

I HONESTLY don't understand what you mean about "personal attacks" from me! Provide an example. Are you labelling anything that I say that you don't like as a personal attack? You don't like a word choice and the negative emotion that generates is my fault?

Physician, heal thyself.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Dead people or illegals or people who have left the state years ago suddenly got removed from the registries, but there are probably still more than that left on.
Maybe they got worried and dumped them or maybe they dumped some and want to use it for political purposes and point the finger( probably).
edit on 4-11-2014 by Dutchowl because: spelling check



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Dutchowl

See...now, I could almost believe that. A good Secretary of State would regularly review the voter rolls and remove ones that likely are deceased through matching public records or people who likely registered in a different district/state (there is interstate collaboration on that information). A good Secretary of State would do this on, at least, an annual basis. Removing 50,000 people though? That seems pretty high.

There was a very large voter registration effort not too long ago followed by this registration purge. That's the problem that a lot of people have, particularly after the fact that a majority of the purge were recently registered Democrats.




top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join