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.

 

Mitt Romney's Re-Invention As Anti-Poverty Warrior

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

I am pretty sure these are the most important factors in individual and collective individuals life;

time, money, health, education/skill, law, desire.

The biggest reason for the apparent need for harsh class system with relatively little mobility, is because 'there is crap work, that needs to be done'.

That is the source of the pyramid, and the motivation for those that do not want to be stuck slaving away a life of crap work, to scamper to the top at all costs, and remain there at all costs.

That is the game of money, of getting wealthy, to avoid exerting yourself to a repetitive life of crap labor.

This is 'the working class vs. the rich' paradigm.

For the most part, there is a large working class, who are fighting each other because in the bottom of the pyramid it is a very much 'life or death', at the top of the pyramid its very much 'freak out because your pilates instructor bailed out so now you have to play golf instead'.

If right now everyone was wealthy, who would want to do the crap work, and who would want to do it 5/6 days a week for 45 years straight?

Because, time, is part of the high valuables of life. And the hourly wage is how time is controlled. A person with a tremendous amount of money, in theory has a tremendous amount of time, or free time, there are many people, and these are the people I am referring to when I say the term 'rich', who do not need to spend their time anyway, to receive the security of life, as in, they have enough money to live the rest of their life, in a quality greater than the majority of humans.

Part of this, very complex situation, stems from the fact of the nature of leadership. Would it make sense having 1000 bosses and 5 workers? That wouldnt be a productive company would it, if we imagine it a standard company of product production. It is quite natural, in a too many cooks in the kitchen sense, that the actual physical work is largely the meat and potatoes of productivity, while yes lots of the 'brain' or the lateral competition of this company, this organism, against others in the marketplace, is steered by a few drivers.

Then the nature of supply and demand comes in, there are so many poor at the bottom of the period who have no choice but to compete with one another to dedicate their lives to a crap job, that the owners of company can feel safe knowing that they always will have a fresh source of slaves to fight it out to be the lowest bidder.

This is the method and means of providing good and service to the public, but providing a good and service to the public is usually not the main motivation of business, providing a good and service to the public is usually a pesky game to be played to reach the real fruit of desiree, which is providing oneself with infinite money. So that system is in place, the bottom up, keep the majority of humans poor, to have a source of people fighting and begging to do crap work, for cheap, and with given little time, freedom. While, those born into the higher classes who have been taking advantage of these sorts of systems for ages past, can attempt to compete in their class, to become shepherds of the beasts of labor, dedicating their lives not to struggling to survive, but struggling to acquire infinite amounts of money.




posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

people also like to set goals for themselves and challenge themselves to improve in some way, which fits comfortably in the functions of capitalism. it doesn't, however, fit comfortably in marxism, as marxism requires you to do what the state dictates, whether it is even remotely in your best interest, desire or skill set.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Mitt can have any message and be any "avatar" he wants to be, but the harsh reality is he doesn't come across as anti poverty or pro middle class. Obama Killed him in the debates and was on point last election cycle.

Not to mention that he's going to take a huge beat down in the primaries from the other GOP contenders.

People don't like Mitt. I wouldn't vote for him, I wouldn't vote for Bush or Carson or Jindal. Who else is there?



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: ImaFungi

people also like to set goals for themselves and challenge themselves to improve in some way, which fits comfortably in the functions of capitalism. it doesn't, however, fit comfortably in marxism, as marxism requires you to do what the state dictates, whether it is even remotely in your best interest, desire or skill set.


The world at large is not so opportune as you in whatever way you do imagine it is.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

naturally it isn't, because marxism screws with the results in an effort to replace whatever form of government it is targeting.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: ImaFungi

naturally it isn't, because marxism screws with the results in an effort to replace whatever form of government it is targeting.


I dont know what you are talking about. Do you want to quote something I have written above, you disagree with, and we can talk about that?



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:34 AM
link   
So we have the potential sociopathic narcissistic plutocrat (Romney), the sociopathic neo-monarchy (Bush), and the... I don't know... Ideologically hopeful (Clinton) running. We're !@#$%
edit on 21-1-2015 by Flux8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
Her future was been mortgaged to the tune of about $10 trillion by the Democratic President Obama who claimed Bush's additional $4.4 trillion in national debt was "unpatriotic."

How about this thought....

If you would have made $10 million by the time you were 64 instead of just getting by, your granddaughter's future would be much more secure than having to rely on the government, right?

Making more money for yourself and your family is a good thing.


If she made more, someone else would have made less. What you're saying doesn't fix the problem, it just changes who ends up in poverty. There's still a winner and a loser in the exchange.
edit on 21-1-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: FlyersFan
I wouldn't worry about it. He won't get the republican nod.
Looks like it'll be a Bush vs Clinton election again.


...And FF, doesn't that just sound delicious? I can hardly wait. Not so sure though. I like Jeb well enough. Wondering how far Elizabeth Warren can be pushed? She's got quite a few fans.

Including Me



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan
A vote for either one of these is a vote for the problem , not the solution. Most politicians keep rebranding themselves to try and get the sheeples vote. Clinton will swing towards the middle and if she wins will swing back to the left. Bush will do the same except swing right. These so called people (politicians) will do anything it takes to get the power. Its all about them ............but they want you to think its truly about you.




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

If this man ever told the truth it was by accident.




Mitt doesn't lie he's just a dumbazz. Also a closet democrat. He will make a bunch of promises and then have to deliver la de da ect, ect.

Hell why not just vote for a strait democrat? Mitt sounds like a political hermaphrodite or a political transsexual. We will see him dropping big conservative punch lies or lines rather and then find him in drag at a lefty after hours bar dancing on the tables.

Anyway, all this is simply out to touch republican leadership trying to stay in power by appeasement. No real core values just a rag blowing in the wind, political pandering, a chicken in every pot, 40 acres and a mule, ect.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I can still hear the term "Class Warfare" echoing off the walls in my house and now I'm supposed to believe they're concerned with income inequality? PLEASE!!!



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Is it true about the White Horse Prophecy, is that why he and his dad wanted to be president so bad?



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Jamie1
Her future was been mortgaged to the tune of about $10 trillion by the Democratic President Obama who claimed Bush's additional $4.4 trillion in national debt was "unpatriotic."

How about this thought....

If you would have made $10 million by the time you were 64 instead of just getting by, your granddaughter's future would be much more secure than having to rely on the government, right?

Making more money for yourself and your family is a good thing.


If she made more, someone else would have made less. What you're saying doesn't fix the problem, it just changes who ends up in poverty. There's still a winner and a loser in the exchange.


No there isn't. It is not a zero sum game.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
I can still hear the term "Class Warfare" echoing off the walls in my house and now I'm supposed to believe they're concerned with income inequality? PLEASE!!!


One solves "income inequality" by improving the economy and enabling opportunity, not through redistribution. Mittens does have a point.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Flatfish
I can still hear the term "Class Warfare" echoing off the walls in my house and now I'm supposed to believe they're concerned with income inequality? PLEASE!!!


One solves "income inequality" by improving the economy and enabling opportunity, not through redistribution. Mittens does have a point.

Doc the economy have never been better, by all index Wall Street have been doing very very well thank u,but that trickle down thing just taste wet, salty, pungent and leave a yellow stain.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Is it 'income redistribution" when a multi-billionaire dies, and leaves billions to his two children? Isn't that a type of "unearned income"?

Couldn't the two offspring live just as well, having two billion dollars assigned for inheritance, rather than multiple billions?
edit on 1/23/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
...Guess this should go in the "Jokes and Pranks" forum?


With the shake of an Etch-A-Sketch, Mitt Romney reintroduced himself to the Republican Party on Friday as a man interested in running for president because of his desire to address poverty and income inequality. One only wonders why the former governor of Massachusetts neglected to focus on the growing problems the last time he held the title of GOP standard bearer.

Addressing a gathering of Republican National Committee officials below deck of the decommissioned U.S.S. Midway aircraft carrier in San Diego, California, Romney ticked off three priorities crucial to what he called the "post-Obama era": making the world safer with a more muscular foreign policy, providing opportunity to all Americans, and lifting people out of poverty.

"It's a tragedy, a human tragedy, that the middle class in this country by and large doesn't believe that the future will be better than the past," he said. "We haven't seen rising incomes over decades."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

and this...




"The rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse and there are more people in poverty than ever before under this president," he added


Anybody who falls for his "re-invention" or tries to apologize for it is a fool. I'm sure many Republicans will start claiming that he always was all about poverty or inequality.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Is it true about the White Horse Prophecy, is that why he and his dad wanted to be president so bad?


From Wikipedia:


Mitt Romney

In 2007, U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the Salt Lake Tribune that "I haven't heard my name associated with [the White Horse Prophecy] or anything of that nature. That's not official church doctrine.... I don't put that at the heart of my religious belief."[5][23]


That might make for an interesting thread! Also, the Bushes reportedly belong or have belonged to a group in Texas who want to force the second coming. Vanity Fair had an article about it when G.W. was in office, I also found interesting.

Neither here nor there. Just interesting.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock


Mitt doesn't lie, he's just a dumazz


Ya know, yeah, he is sorta of a dumazz, but I do believe, he lies like a rug. : )


Hell why not just vote for a strait democrat?


Hm. I think I will, yes. : )


Anyway, all this is simply out to touch republican leadership trying to stay in power by appeasement. No real core values just a rag blowing in the wind, political pandering, a chicken in every pot, 40 acres and a mule, ect.


I am quoting these two sentences simply because I love them.




top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join