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: 5
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Then why is there this?


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.


2% going to the tribes and tribal organizations. You're whining about 2% going to Native Americans. Umm, did you know that Native Americans have children, too? Seriously, they do. They have children and well, things between the tribes and the federal government are handled a bit differently from the states as the tribes have partial sovereignty. Still, it's 2%. That meant 98% of the appropriated funds went everywhere else BUT the tribes. I guess you're probably screaming that 2% was too much for a population whose demographic is 1% of the population. However, considering a few other circumstances, I can give them that extra 1%.

You are a strange bird.


It's just handing it over to them, they won't buy baby formula they will build more casinos.


It's their money, to do with as they see fit. You wouldn't much care to have an Indian come up to you and start dictating how you spend YOUR money, would you?

Your government promised them that money to induce them to give up their entire way of life.

I'd say they've earned it.




posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

A caveat.

IF they're going to make corporate groups "persons" with the ability to donate, the same should apply to Labor Unions, and as I understand it, it does.

Conversely, IF they are going to deny personhood to corporations simply to curtail their political spending, the same should again apply to Labor Unions.

I think that's where the donkey starts balking and braying.


Personally, I think ALL political "donations" should be capped low, regardless of the source. Let the politicians demonstrate an ability to budget BEFORE they are elected.





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



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

I cannot argue with anything that promotes freedom of speech.

But if you wrap a baseball bat in the Bill of Rights, then it still hurts when they beat you with it.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

It may be that you and I see "freedom of speech" from different perspectives. I can stand on a soapbox on the corner (or a forum at ATS) and scream "Those BASTARDS! Here's why I think that...", and am exercising the freedom of speech. On the other hand, I can quietly slip them 30 grand in a brown envelope to grease their skids, and not say a thing.

I think that "donations" ought to be capped with a low cap, for the exact reason I stated. let the politicians demonstrate an ability to stay within a budget and be effective BEFORE we hand over the public coffers to them.

I think what "Citizens United" was more about was people (erm, I mean "corporations") buying air time to make their speech heard, which to me is just a "super soap box" - not a direct effect on the politicians or the process. The fear stated was that it would be used for "propaganda". So be it. ALL political speech is "propaganda", whether issued by a candidate or by "Life Sucks, Inc." in a full page ad. It's difficult to stop one without seriously curtailing the other. If they want to silence corporations at campaign time, then they have to silence Unions as well.... and to a great extent all of the rest of us, as individuals.

It can be one way, or the other way, but not both ways. Either bind us all, or let the free-for-all fly, but when they start "selectively silencing", that is NEVER going to turn out well - it will ALWAYS lead, eventually, to state-sponsored everything, and people-sponsored nothing.

The reason for that is, well, guess who gets to do the selection for the "selective silencing". Those Selectors will eventually get around to silencing you, I, and Heff, too.

besides, if people CAN be swayed by "propaganda", without putting any independent thought into it themselves to evaluate it, well, they get what they've got coming to them. Stupid has it's own pricing structure.

I still think direct "donations" should be capped, and capped LOW. Shout from the rooftops if you must, but keep your money in your pocket. let the politicians sort out how to be effective without it, and give us a practical demonstration before we hire them.




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



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

When you start with caps, then, in effect, aren't you qualifying "freedom of speech"?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: nenothtu

When you start with caps, then, in effect, aren't you qualifying "freedom of speech"?


Only if your ability to speak has dollar signs in the little cartoon balloon that comes out the mouth.

I can freely speak even if I have not two nickels to rub together.

I can also rub two nickels together and not say a word - only wink and give a knowing smile.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

If we had enough money we could make an advertisement to tell the politicians what we expect of them... it seems they watch tv..



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: nenothtu

If we had enough money we could make an advertisement to tell the politicians what we expect of them... it seems they watch tv..


They also have phones and mail boxes.

If they want to come around for dinner, I can give them an earful then, too.

All things considered, the phone and mail options are less expensive... but the talent exists here at ATS to make some pretty slick productions advertisement-wise, for next to NO money... and a viral YouTube campaign would probably reach the politicians ears and eyes about as fast, or faster, than a TV ad... and more often.

I guess what it boils down to may be more along the lines of exercising one's own convictions, as opposed to trying to buy the convictions of others.

ETA: That set me to thinking. I wonder just how long it would take the government to shut down political speech at YouTube if someone were to, for instance, run a viral Presidential campaign via the virtual world for next to nothing in competition with the Big Two Parties come 2016?





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



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Then why is there this?


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.


2% going to the tribes and tribal organizations. You're whining about 2% going to Native Americans. Umm, did you know that Native Americans have children, too? Seriously, they do. They have children and well, things between the tribes and the federal government are handled a bit differently from the states as the tribes have partial sovereignty. Still, it's 2%. That meant 98% of the appropriated funds went everywhere else BUT the tribes. I guess you're probably screaming that 2% was too much for a population whose demographic is 1% of the population. However, considering a few other circumstances, I can give them that extra 1%.

You are a strange bird.


It's just handing it over to them, they won't buy baby formula they will build more casinos.


It's their money, to do with as they see fit. You wouldn't much care to have an Indian come up to you and start dictating how you spend YOUR money, would you?

Your government promised them that money to induce them to give up their entire way of life.

I'd say they've earned it.




Go give them all your money then, don't have some liberal weasel steal money designated for Child Care back in 1990 steal for your cause.
edit on 8-11-2014 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

Go give them all your money then, don't have some liberal weasel steal money designated for Child Care back in 1990 steal for your cause.


I could say it just the opposite - give YOUR money to any daycare you like, but don't ask some liberal weasel to divert money that was promised 150 years ago to wipe some kid's nose with.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide

But, my God, what we have done in our folly.



What happened was a direct result of Obama being POTUS.

Say what you will about George.....but all the hope and change promised by Barack has done nothing good for the country.
And red is the result.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join