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.

 

The obvious is confirmed. The Republican party is a fraud.

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   
You'll have to forgive me, it's been a long day... but I'll try to explain while I fall asleep


originally posted by: nwtrucker
Fascism? A little extreme, don't you think? What system are they trying to replace it with?


No. I think fascism is a perfect description for it, maybe not necessarily on the social policy portions but definitely on the economic policy.

Under the policies proposed we get a merging of corporate and government interests. These things should not be the same. Lets look at what has happened in America in the past 15 years. The major banks have merged, they are 1 step away from monopoly status. The utility companies are on monopoly status. The internet companies merged and merged until they too became monopolies. These monopolies wield significant political power and they use it to write their legislation. Reduced corporate taxes, reduced pay, reduced oversight, these are all the things that let the problem grow.

These issues need to be addressed, but the Koch's don't want to do it, and it angers me. The Democrats won't do anything because they want to be hands off for when it collapsed. The business minded Republicans want to do something, but then the Kochs who bought their way to the head of the party shut it down.

Corporations should not be dictating the terms at which they do business with the government because that leads to psychopaths drafting legislation purely for their own benefit. It should be the opposite: The government tells the large corporation that if they want access to our markets they will provide X jobs here.


I get your more of an Establishment Republican and have no problem with 'big government', but publically announcing the intent to donate and the amount strikes me as far more honest than the rest of the Corporate donators and their backdoor support of Obama's amnesty program.


Big government isn't my favorite because government can be used against the people. However when the choice is to have power sit in the hands of the government who we elect and can influence in voting vs that power sitting in the hands of a corporation that may or may not be a monopoly, and is too big to fail I'll pick the government each and every time.

They announced the big donation for a particular reason. What would get my vote is if whoever the nominee is, takes his nomination, says thanks, then turns away all of the money.

My personal philosophy is that goals can be achieved with enough skill and hard work. Money is the short cut for those who aren't capable. Someone taking a billion dollars is just admitting he's unqualified. There's always untapped advertising sources that can be done inexpensively and cost effective marketing. I'm just going to quietly sit aside and hope a tech person one day runs (or I'll do it myself). It doesn't cost a billion dollars to create a media presence and some people realize that, web admins do it daily for pennies. I think that would be a great election gimmick actually. Be financially responsible in your campaign to prove you can be financially responsible with the budget. You can contrast this with recent politicians who took everything they could, spent it, took more, spent it, borrowed more, and ended in debt. It sounds a bit like our budgetary policies to me.


That doesn't sound like an attempt to overthrow Gov't and replace it with Fascism...
. It sounds more like a couple of guys who have the means and are more than a little pissed off with the goings on, both in the media and in our 'party'.


Should they have that means? I've said this before but I take great offense to a handful of people buying a political party. It means the only say in that party is theirs. Not yours, not mine, and not anyone elses. It ceases to be democratic and turns into despotic.


We'll see who gets it. Christie I'm fine with, Giuliani I'm fine with, Walker I'll atleast listen to based on his record. I'm not seeing anyone else right now




posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I'm getting the feeling that we actually agree far more than we disagree.


originally posted by: nwtrucker

Ok, here's an example of the Balance I refer to. Generally, 10th amendment or it's out. The hue and cry of Liberatrians, seems like a good idea...but wait a minute. Like take the EPA as an example. I will assume we agree that that entity is rabid and insane. Let's get rid of it...Sorry. I don't want Corporation with Market pressure to increase quarterly profit to be able to pollute our environment.

It's throwing the baby out with the bath-water. We NEED an EPA!! There's a shock...LOL. One with a very specific and limited mandate and effective over-site.


Agreed. In my opinion, though, the EPA is legitimate and falls under both the commerce clause, incorporation laws, and the general welfare clause. However, one of the serious flaws in the process is that regulations dictated by appointed bureaucrats -- NOT congress -- are being applied under color of law for political purposes. Congress has been derelict in their duty in writing and passing laws (deliberately, in my opinion, for plausible deniability. "Not our fault! We didn't write that!").


Quote passage all day from the giants of the past, this is the reality we face today.


But that's the beauty of natural law. The human condition has not changed. Just the means by which some people tyrannize the rest of us under color and force of law. Natural law evolves as we evolve. Hence it is just as relevant and valid today as it was in Plato's day.


(You know perfectly well, A Convention of the States would end up a bar room brawl..)


A barroom brawl is probably the best we could hope for! A Convention of States would be a catastrophe. There is no good reason to trust the same people who refuse to follow the Constitution now to re-write the Constitution. Amendments can be proffered and passed without putting the entire Constitution on the chopping block.


Your infinite value of 'mother nature' I see as just another addition to the cocktails of mind-altering compounds.


Forget getting high and think "industrial hemp" as opposed to "marijuana." The hemp plant provides ropes, paper, cloth, medicines, and virtually anything made from petro products can be made from hemp -- including combustible fuel that burns so clean you can burn it in a closed room with no toxic side effects. In the medical marijuana industry, fantastic gains are being made in hybridizing strains for epilepsy and other seizure conditions -- with no psychoactive effects. Hemp seed oil is a nutritional wonder food, with the ideal ratio of Omega 3s, 6s, and 9s, with anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties. In terms of cultivation, it is an annual -- i.e., renewable crop, requiring little if any pesticides or herbicides, literally growing like a weed, with minimal water needs, unlike cotton or flax (for linen). Hemp was the #1 cash crop in the country for it's first 150 years. The original Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper. One can even make a good case that the War of 1812 was fought for hemp. There is a ton of info on the internet about the amazing qualities and uses for hemp products. There is a film called "The Hemp Revolution," made probably 30 years ago (?) that is well worth a watch too. Hemp is one of the main reasons I do not buy into the whole man-made global warming scare mongering. If it's as bad as they want us to believe, we would have replaced 90% of our manufacturing base with hemp products long long ago.... and if I'm wrong, and man-made global warming is a real danger, then it is grossly irresponsible and downright murderous that hemp hasn't been decriminalized, cultivated and exploited to the maximum extent possible.


That's why it's a democracy, The majority holds sway.


And here I cry. No. We do not have a democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic, guaranteeing, protecting and defending inalienable rights for each and every one of us, the individual, the smallest minority. The majority doesn't get to bully the minority. The majority doesn't get to decide if I have a right to life. The majority doesn't get to decide if I have the right to worship freely. The majority doesn't get to decide when, if and what I have the right to say. Natural law is our organic law... the foundation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights... the heart and soul of these United States.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

And here I cry. No. We do not have a democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic, guaranteeing, protecting and defending inalienable rights for each and every one of us, the individual, the smallest minority. The majority doesn't get to bully the minority. The majority doesn't get to decide if I have a right to life. The majority doesn't get to decide if I have the right to worship freely. The majority doesn't get to decide when, if and what I have the right to say. Natural law is our organic law... the foundation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights... the heart and soul of these United States.


When I read words like this, I relax, just a little bit, because it's obvious that someone else appreciates our System of government.

Thank you!



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

When I read words like this, I relax, just a little bit, because it's obvious that someone else appreciates our System of government.

Thank you!


And thank you! For the same reason!!!

It may seem like such a little thing in theory... but in practice it's everything. As we see all around us.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The only point I'd question in your post, "the business minded Republicans want to do something".

I see zero evidence of that at all. I'd say between Bush's smaller bank bail-outs and Obama's huge ones that the difference between the two is semantics at best. (I don't dislike Bush, per say, he has his 'advisors' as does Obama.)

I listen to your input closely. I have come to the conclusion you have more connection to the Establishment side of the Republican party than you've mentioned. Granted, you have stated some views that I can see are 'yours'. Your general loyalties are evident.

To single the Koch's out for donations and the mechanism it represents and omit the corporations which operate similarly, suggests/implies attachments/mulligans that the Koch's don't get from you.

For now, I will give the Koch's my mulligan...if for no other reason than the media and left attacks them about as strongly as you do. (Lousy positioning on your part.) LOL



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Cry not. LOL. I refer to a law in a state whether to legalize Mary-Jane or not.

I understand the theory of our Constitutional Republic. Please tell me where it went...I want to go there.

It sure the hell isn't our present gov't. Gryphon66 pontificating or not.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Boadicea

Cry not. LOL. I refer to a law in a state whether to legalize Mary-Jane or not.

I understand the theory of our Constitutional Republic. Please tell me where it went...I want to go there.

It sure the hell isn't our present gov't. Gryphon66 pontificating or not.



Whew! Wiping my tears away then...

And you're right. We haven't lived up to the opportunity and promise as well as we should be. But it ain't over till it's over. There's always time to do better.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I see zero evidence of that at all. I'd say between Bush's smaller bank bail-outs and Obama's huge ones that the difference between the two is semantics at best. (I don't dislike Bush, per say, he has his 'advisors' as does Obama.)


I've said since 2009 or 2010 that Obama has been nothing but terms 3, and later 4 of Bush. Regardless of what the pundits try to claim, Obama has been remarkably similar to Bush on just about everything. This similarly is a huge part of why I can't take anyone serious who claims Obama is some far left loon. He's a loon alright but an extreme leftist he is not.


I listen to your input closely. I have come to the conclusion you have more connection to the Establishment side of the Republican party than you've mentioned. Granted, you have stated some views that I can see are 'yours'. Your general loyalties are evident.


No real connections, and no real loyalties either. The closest I am to the political establishment is doing the occasional volunteer work for a third party that holds almost no offices. I find the lefts idea that the state is always right to be distasteful, but I find it equally distasteful to say the mega corporations get to make the rules as is often the case on the right. Oddly enough I'm not a fan of a million smaller groups either though because they tend to get caught up in group think. If there's an ideology I go by in life it would be everything in moderation and I think much the same way about politics. There's room for a little bit of everything, but no singular ideology should be dominant.


To single the Koch's out for donations and the mechanism it represents and omit the corporations which operate similarly, suggests/implies attachments/mulligans that the Koch's don't get from you.


It takes Buffet, Soros, and a few others to match the donations from the Kochs. Those individuals have different agendas, which means no singular person is in charge of the left. They're still ruled by money and that drowns out the voices of the ordinary people but it's not as bad. They're also trying to improve government. The Kochs are trying to remove the current government and create a new one that puts them at the top. Essentially they're trying to buy themselves a kingdom. Are you aware of the plot against FDR during WW2 to try and turn the US into a fascist nation? Here is a brief rundown of it. There's some good threads on it here too that suggests it was far closer to execution than the media suggests. I see the Koch's as doing something very similar except they're being very open and visible about it, which makes it hard to accuse them of some shadowy plot. By acting in the open they present their actions as legitimate but when the Senate shuts down business for the day mid debate in order for half the senators to visit a Koch party there is a very real and serious issue going on.

The Kochs may be the enemy of the left, but the axiom "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not always true.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Fair enough.

What I see is two guys who got pissed off at the heat from the left and media.

Unlike Gates, and perhaps Buffet, they're not caving in. I see a fight by the Koch's that match/counter the other guys.
Up to now, that money was directed to the left.

Corporate money is generally, corporate motivatd. To wit, an enhancement to their profits. Not political, rather apolitical in the sense that they switch sides in a heart-beat.

Without checking, I'd bet the number of corporations donating to the left outstrips donations to the right. With some covering both bases. A much different scene than, say, in the '70s.

Obamacare and the 'immigration reform' topping the list of massive support by big business.

You say again that the Koch's are trying to remove the current gov't? Again, I ask you where? How? ( I certainly don't buy into your positioning the Koch Brothers to some incident in WWII.)




top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join