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.

 

I Awoke To A Red Map

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

The media is in the hip pocket of those who own it. A list you can fit onto a standard post-it note.

Oh, those same people happen to be the same ones who buy and sell our representation and laws wholesale.

MSNBC tends to go left, Fox goes right. As for the rest - they tend to play the middle. They have with all POTUS's since Carter IMO. It's not unique to Obama. Reagan and the recent Bush both enjoyed being press darlings - even when Bush's approval ratings were lower than any previous POTUS's.

You'll argue this point because it doesn't suit your narrative - but that makes it no less true.




posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

I can't believe you posted that Bush was a darling of the media.
.
.
.
.
still can't believe you posted that.


edit on 5-11-2014 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

They let him stand on a ship with "Mission Accomplished" hanging in huge letters - and pushed the story. The whole nation worshipped him for his entire first term.

Your perception is selective.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: TinfoilTP

They let him stand on a ship with "Mission Accomplished" hanging in huge letters - and pushed the story. The whole nation worshipped him for his entire first term.

Your perception is selective.


The moment "Mission Accomplished" was unfurled, it was used by the media as a rallying call for the left.
Along with body counts
and more body counts, daily body counts

More died under Obama, yet not one body count.

Edit to add, the whole nation according to the media was astonished that Bush Jr won a second term. Kind of nullifies your point of view.
edit on 5-11-2014 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Fun stuff, that little snippet since what they did accomplish was letting money = votes by creating a never ending fountain of black funds for politicians to use at their whim. Yes, that Citizens United.

When did returning America to family values involve giving personhood to corporate entities and letting them give as much money as they want, in secret, to political groups masquerading as non profits?



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: beezzer

Fun stuff, that little snippet since what they did accomplish was letting money = votes by creating a never ending fountain of black funds for politicians to use at their whim. Yes, that Citizens United.

When did returning America to family values involve giving personhood to corporate entities and letting them give as much money as they want, in secret, to political groups masquerading as non profits?



*sigh*

**************PLEASE SIT DOWN BEFORE YOU READ THIS**********************

I agree, how about that.


I am, at heart, a libertarian with an ever growing steak of anarchism.

People tend to focus on the issues that I debate and they, therefor, define me as such.

Government has gotten too big.

And when to take away freedom and disguise it as liberty and freedom, well, I have issues with that.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Didn't have to sit down Beez. You and I butt heads, quite often - but you surely know I respect the Hell out of you, even if you are a freaking bunny.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

About the same time that any group of private citizens who band together to pool their money decide to incorporate for legal (read tax) reasons so that their money makes a bigger impact.

Or do you think that my $5 competes with the billions poured in by unions and private individuals like Soros and Buffet and others like them? But when I hook up and form a PAC with others of like mind, my money now means something, but in order to do that, I have to form a corporation. In that sense, corporations are people, just as much as unions are at any rate, and unions have been freely giving almost exclusively to democrats forever.

But really, if you read the decision, what lost that case was the government arguing that they could use campaign finance laws to censor political speech they didn't like. You know, ban books at election time because they mentioned certain candidates in the wrong way, and that was one step too far for the SCOTUS to swallow. Maybe if that argument hadn't come to the fore, we wouldn't be having this problem. But instead of mention that, the whole portrayal of the decision was that candidates are now walking around wearing endorsements like Sony and Microsoft when in reality most big corporations try to split the difference IF they give at all because they know what happens to them in an unfriendly political environment.


edit on 5-11-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
yeah, Imagine my surprise when I woke up and discovered that we have a republican governor in Maryland.We have only had 2 republican governors in the last 55 years our new governor will be the 3rd republican governor in 55 years.

something is definitely wrong with the universe.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I think you partially misunderstood me, but to be honest I think to go off on this whole tact, which I think this little sub-topic is worthy of doing so, would probably become fairly off topic for this thread.

I would be interested in discussing this topic though... perhaps one of us can make a thread where we can freely discuss? Would you be interested?
edit on 6-11-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

If you think I misunderstood your point, can you try rephrasing in another thread and linking me to it via u2u? Would be awfully hard to start a thread when the subject has been thrown into ambiguity.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide
They're not going after abortion, that's a dead horse. I believe they will change things in Obummercare, not repeal it. They will like I've been hearing do the keystone pipe line. Hopefully drop down the corporate tax rate. But one thing they will need to do for sure and that is grow up and learn to compromise, that goes for both sides of the aisle. People are done with the childish games that are being played by both parties. All the yahoos in Washington need to represent the nation first before their parties. In the end its about We the People, not we the party.




posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
It's the end of day two with a red map in my world and I'm a bit less shocked than I was yesterday. In fact, given most of the replies to this thread, I am even hesitantly optimistic. Many conservatives are posting things that I see as open doors to at least a dialogue - a desire to get America back to functional.

I do realize that I come across as a massive liberal but there is no way to paint me with a single brush. I believe in smaller government, for example. My approach to getting there might be a tad different than other folks, however. I've worked in the private sector my whole life and was always expected to perform at a very high rate of production. Walk into a Government office and what do you usually see? Twenty people doing the work of two... and even doing that poorly.

We can downsize and streamline without having to eliminate social programs.

I think we should take care of our sick, elderly, young, and our veterans. I think those are societal obligations.

For as much as we are taxed, I think we should receive more in return. I think it's time to stop funding mega corporations with tax breaks and begin investing in things like affordable or free University level education - for everyone.

If we got rid of the graft and corruption there would be so much left to do so much with. We could pay teachers more. We could pay those who work in social services more. We could end hunger in America.

And all that for the price of simply holding Washington accountable for their theft? Seems like a no brainer to me.

Maybe my red state friends can agree with at least some of this.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide




For as much as we are taxed, I think we should receive more in return.


Unfortunately for you Americans, the only way for you guys to get more bang for your tax bucks would be to drastically reduce the allocations directed towards your military budgets... since military budgets (especially the hidden ones) are the biggest expense coming out of your pockets, undoubtedly.

And by doing that, would mean risking the loss of your 'pole position' in worldwide military might.

It's not possible to have it both ways...

Rome and Britain are perfect examples of how the neverending maintenance of military dominance will ultimately drive an empire into bankruptcy. The more enemies you make via military domination, the higher your budget has to go towards keeping it that way.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Heff, my friend, we all want the same things.

We just see different ways of getting there.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

also proof that partisanship is alive and well and conservatives and liberals are incapable of ever seeing the wrong in their own side

didn't you get the memo? GOP/right has never done anything untoward



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: StarGazer77
a reply to: Hefficide

Confronted with dark side of the DNC = "Well, the parties have shifted"

Confronted with no evidence of a mythical party switch = "Well both parties suck".


No, Heff is right - it's not a "mythical" switch, it's an actual one.

In 1865, and all through "Reconstruction" (what an oxymoron!), the Republican Party was liberal, flamingly so. They even referred to themselves as "Radicals". At the time, the Democrat Party was the bastion of conservatism in America.

There has been a flip, a reversal - several, in fact. have you never wondered WHY the majority of African Americans support the Democrat Party, when it was the Republican Party that freed the slaves? They followed the politics, rather than the Party.

The last major shift that I know of was in the 1950's. The blue/red color scheme representing the parties flipped in 2000, but I think that was more reflective of the new Republicans (i.e. the "Neocons) shifting way to the "left" more than any real mutual flip of both parties.








edit on 2014/11/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

I like this doozey, Al Frankin's stealing money from the 1990 Child Care Act to give to the Indians.


On the Amendment S.Amdt. 2822: Franken Amdt. No. 2822; To reserve not less than 2 percent of the amount appropriated under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 in each fiscal year for payments to Indian tribes and tribal organizations.


High priority stuff man, you must be proud.


DAMMIT!

Why is everyone suddenly pushing me to vote Democrat when I've already said I'm not going to do that - ever?

It's not the government's job to pay for upkeep on other folks kids.

it IS the government's job to keep the agreements they make, and pay out the treaty obligations they've promised.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hefficide

Honestly, if I had to do it, my first thing would be to change subsidies to pay-outs.

Those of us who earn our money have to figure out how to budget, so why don't the poor have to do it, too?

Instead of paying their bills for them with subsidies for housing, daycare, utilities, etc., why don't we just figure out what the amount of that support is and make it a yearly block grant disbursed in 12 monthly payments? If we did that, we could basically eliminate the need for all the support bureaucracies that oversee all the other agencies currently in place to administer those subsidies.

The poor would still get their accustomed support, and we'd save a ton of money by cutting out the administrators.

Then, I'd start means testing so that the amount of support tapers with the amount of self-support a family on aid takes in. Right now, it's all or nothing. Make too much and you lose all your aid which makes it hard to get off the dole. Taper the support incrementally so it's not so hard to start working for your independence and require people to find jobs or enter job programs and maybe more people would actually start working toward independence.



Let me tell you a little story.

Yesterday afternoon, for the first time in my life, I started receiving food stamps. That's right - neno is now on the dole. Oh, I applied a couple of times before, but never was approved, because I "made too much money" - which in one case 30 years ago was not quite 7500 dollars a year, whereas the chubby chica next to me in the waiting room was making 38k per year, and got a full ride. Didn't make sense, and I didn't ask again, for years. The next time, I was making even less, but still "too much", so I gave up.

My rationale this go round was that I paid in for years and years, and never got anything back out, at all. I figure I was due a refund of sorts in my turn. Still, it's not going to go on any longer than it has to, and there are no other subsidies for utilities and whatnot involved.

I don't like owing anyone for anything. That's why I cut up all my credit cards 20 years ago, and never looked back at them.

You think people should be required to get jobs? Your wish has been granted. My wife, who is disabled, has to have a job of at least 20 hours a week in the next 3 months, or her share of the stamps is cut off cold. That makes great sense - either be able to afford to eat on your own, or we won't help you eat. 'Tis the American Way. When we can afford to eat on our own, the government can stick it. Why on Earth would I want their help if I don't need it?

My case is a bit different - they'll feed me anyhow, because apparently now I'm old, and not required to work. That's probably the only reason they caved in on the food stamps, any how. They can bite me there, too. I'll work until I die, if the work is available. It makes no sense to me - by rights, I'M the one they ought to be starving out, since I'm the one who has outlived my usefulness.

You lamented the fact that you have to budget, so poor folks ought to have to budget, too. I had to budget too, for years. It's not always easy, but it's doable - except in one case. How does one budget "nothing"? If you want poor folks to have to budget, you have to first give them something that they CAN budget.

Don't worry, though. My Mercedes won't be blocking your Walmart access.

I don't have a car, not even a beater. The last one I had got sold. To buy groceries.

That fact is going to make it hard to get to work for a while, but as they say, where there is a will, there is a way. I have the will. I'll make the way.

Someone else is going to have to cough up the job to go to, though. Another fact of life I've discovered lately is that there isn't much opportunity for self-employment out here in the boonies.

I can always make a career of poaching though, right? Just have to scare up the money for shells, eh?



edit on 2014/11/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh I would've been murdered if I had done that and I grew up in a fancy family, lol. I nearly did get murdered for continuously getting my coats stolen out of my locker and that wasn't even leaving it out. I found out about the high end Goodwill thing via my mother. She went to look for something old fashioned for a dress up party and well, was shocked to see the brands she'd been paying full for there.

It seems to me that those inner city kids are getting alternative sources of money that may be very well unreported sources of money. Gangs, drugs--those things could have played a factor and dropping the dough in school and bragging about it does act as a recruitment tool--"look how good I got it, man...". Hard to say. I haven't seen any super well dressed impoverished where I'm at. Most of the ones that I see using food stamps here fully look the part. Could be area difference relating to that. I'm mystified on that one. Good on you for being a teacher. I wish we paid you all more.


I used to live in Ketsuko's neck of the woods, in what I was told was the worst part of town. I won't mention the street, to preserve her anonymity, but it could be a rough joint at times. She's right about the kids there... but so are you. Lots of them "dressed fancy" for the culture... had no pride of ownership of their stuff... and the money came from, for the most part, "under the table" dealings. That's not to say that a huge portion of them weren't on public assistance, because they were, but it IS to say that there was a deal of, erm, "supplimental" income that couldn't be reported. Well, couldn't be reported and still stay on the open side of the bars.

Also, RE the "Goodwill" - one of the jobs I worked there was at a Burlington Coat Factory. We gave not only clothes that we couldn't unload to Goodwill and the like, but also, on several occasions, boxes of hangers, racks, and such. When we closed the store, it was a sight to behold. H-racks from that store are all over town now.

And brand-new, still tagged clothes.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join