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.

 

Why is ATS so Right Wing?

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

Eliminating redundant agencies that exist at the state and federal level does not significantly impact regulatory enforcement. There are 80,000 pages of regulation that were implemented last year, it is safe to assume there are enough.




posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
Obamacare is the minimal amount of citizenship self-responsability about one of the most relevant structure that any 'civilized' state should put in place for its citizens : a decent healthcare system.


A "civilized" state is not supposed to put anything into place for it's citizens without the consent of the governed. I don't recall Obama asking if we wanted an individual mandate to buy health insurance. He seemed pretty sure that was the wrong way to go way back in the day when he was begging for votes.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Eliminating redundant agencies that exist at the state and federal level does not significantly impact regulatory enforcement.


I never denied this. I just don't understand why so many Americans are saying it's not the role of the government to regulate the corporate sphere, that it is abusing it's power.


originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
There are 80,000 pages of regulation that were implemented last year, it is safe to assume there are enough.


If it's enough then surely the corporate world is perfect now and shouldn't be criticized anymore.

80.000 pages of bad regulations isn't worth much. Until there is a real desire both in the general population and in the political world to put the corporate world in front of their responsibilities, nothing will change.

It's not easy in a country where said corporations can finance political campaigns. In other countries this is called corruption. Not in the US though...



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
I don't recall Obama asking if we wanted an individual mandate to buy health insurance.


That's what elections are for, you are supposed to trust a candidate based on program. If he disappointed you, you don't vote for him next time.

Seems like he got re-elected though. This means the voting majority was satisfied. People who are not happy should vote more.
edit on 21-4-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
As long as the Corporations have all the money, lobbyists and influence; they will control the government regardless if it's a bloated bureaucracy or a tiny cabal of elitist.

Elections are meaningless....


edit on 21-4-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
As long as the Corporations have all the money, lobbyists and influence; they will control the government regardless if it's a bloated bureaucracy or a tiny cabal of elitist.



Forbid the financing of campaigns by corporations. Regulate lobbying by forcing transparency.

It can be done.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Non$en$e! $top being $o $illy!



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: thesearchfortruth

Probably because most people who believe in things endorsed by the current regime in power label anything not towing that line as "Conervative Republican Right Wing" as a catch-all for basically "not us."

I don't like the mainstream Republican Party. When it comes to most legal issues, I lean libertarian. However, I think you have to unwrap a lot of the law in place before you simply start knocking down laws, too, otherwise the law of unintended consequences is a b****. Legalize drugs without unwrapping the social safety net that would enable those who get stuck on their high, for example, and you simply create a permanent subclass of state supported addicts.

I like personal responsibility, but if you want it, you need to have it in all things, not just the things you want to take responsibility for. The good and the bad. That is what true libertarianism is all about - the fun and the not so fun responsibility.

I also have an independent nature and deep distrust of government. It cracks me up how many stories daily get posted here about what a cock-up our government is, and how many people fall all over themselves to denounce this or that aspect of our government systems. However, when it comes to a public policy they like that essentially puts that very same government in control of some other aspect of our lives, those same people will come out of the woodwork and defend and support that very same government or explain why it really isn't all that bad.

I distrust people who are so inconsistent in their position. Either the government is unworthy of our trust and should always be watched in all its phases and kept sharply constrained because giving it power over us is risky at best, or there is no point in ever decrying what it does because you have knowingly taken it as your master for better or worse. IMO.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: olaru12
As long as the Corporations have all the money, lobbyists and influence; they will control the government regardless if it's a bloated bureaucracy or a tiny cabal of elitist.



Forbid the financing of campaigns by corporations. Regulate lobbying by forcing transparency.

It can be done.


How can this be accomplished in a fascist Corporate Oligarchy?



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

Then you can also forbid the same financing by groups like Unions, too.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JUhrman

Then you can also forbid the same financing by groups like Unions, too.



Of course. Unions don't finance candidates in other democratic countries neither. It's still corruption.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
How can this be accomplished in a fascist Corporate Oligarchy?


People like you are the reason why most Americans don't vote.

And the reason why it's always the status quo.


Americans don't take their voter responsibility seriously enough. You can blame a "corporate oligarchy" (funny for a country claiming to export democracy to the world) but the truth is that by staying silent and apathetic people are agreeing with all this.

If the 45% non-voters all voted for an underdog candidate he would win hands down. Yet people keep going "boohoo our votes mean nothing".


In other countries people march in the street when they want the government down or want their voice heard. The US constitution claims Americans should do the same. Are they too lazy to protest anymore? There was a time when it wasn't like that...

edit on 21-4-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
I never denied this. I just don't understand why so many Americans are saying it's not the role of the government to regulate the corporate sphere, that it is abusing it's power.


I do not think that the majority of Americans are saying this.



If it's enough then surely the corporate world is perfect now and shouldn't be criticized anymore.

80.000 pages of bad regulations isn't worth much. Until there is a real desire both in the general population and in the political world to put the corporate world in front of their responsibilities, nothing will change.

It's not easy in a country where said corporations can finance political campaigns. In other countries this is called corruption. Not in the US though...


Corporate contributions to politics exists outside of the United States, this is not an America-only situation. The only way this can change is by either an Amendment to the Constitution or a comprehensive law, which stands up to a Constitutional challenge. Additionally, it is not just corporations which are the problem in politics, it is all special interests which do the same type of lobbying.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I knew it was someone's fault! YOU!

It's all your fault!

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
I don't recall Obama asking if we wanted an individual mandate to buy health insurance.


That's what elections are for, you are supposed to trust a candidate based on program. If he disappointed you, you don't vote for him next time.


Yeah. It would have helped if "next time" (2012) his only viable opponent hadn't been Mitt (Romneycare) Romney, who had supposedly recently turned over a new leaf and decided he didn't like mandates anymore and he was only joking all along. Big surprise nobody believed it.

Obama didn't just disappoint. He lied. That should have been obvious but it seems he's a pretty good liar. People don't seem to be able to remember that far back. Especially when the media doesn't make a big deal out of the lie that really matters (the one about the mandate).


Seems like he got re-elected though.


Yeah. Like I said. Big surprise there. It also seems Obamacare survived on one supposedly conservative vote in the court so maybe things are not all exactly as they seem?

At any rate, it seems the liberals finally got what was coming to them in this most recent election. And they've been throwing the biggest tantrum imaginable ever since. I guess even lies and scheming and bad candidates on the other side couldn't save them that time.

edit on 21-4-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Corporate contributions to politics exists outside of the United States, this is not an America-only situation.


Not in most if not all European democracies though. I don't doubt it exists elsewhere. I'm saying it's terrible. But eh, if you like this system, more power to you!
edit on 21-4-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
But eh, if you like this system, more power to you!


Where did I state I like this?



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The other thing about this one is that this sudden fear of corporate contributions only grew after the one SCOTUS case where the government was asking to have the PACs that more or less grew out of the TEA Party blocked in their contributions.

No one worried about it before then.

Basically, after the SCOTUS ruled that the PACs, which are basically legal groupings of like-minded citizens who can then pool their $5 and $10 contributions together to do things like make TV and radio ads for their candidates, could still operate and donate as they saw fit, all of a sudden everyone had the vapors about corporations being people, and the decision was likened to the SCOTUS suddenly allowing SONY to buy out the elections (which is interesting because the recent WikiLeaks docudrop exposes that if anything, SONY lobbies Democrat.

What it really meant is that the TEA Party suddenly put together a bunch of politically active PACs to rival the leftist PACs and the SCOTUS didn't act to black them from playing in the pool. The left then started getting upset about that.

A PAC is for all intents and purposes a corporation although it is not a business entity.


edit on 21-4-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JUhrman
But eh, if you like this system, more power to you!


Where did I state I like this?


Then why do you post like you try to defend the system I criticized? Is it just to be an antagonist or something?



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

A "civilized" state is not supposed to put anything into place for it's citizens without the consent of the governed. I don't recall Obama asking if we wanted an individual mandate to buy health insurance. He seemed pretty sure that was the wrong way to go way back in the day when he was begging for votes.


Then why do you agree with mandatory conscription, taxes, speed limits, ...
Juhrman and I come from one of the few country where the absolute minimal amount of self-responsibility for a citizen is mandatory : voting. I guess we don't consider ourselves enslaved by that, but that you opposed the idea when in popped up recently in the US actuality.
About taxes, we are #5 in the top 10 countries with highest taxes. But that's not for the wealthiest, just the upper middle class, the wealthiest can benefit for creative fiscal engineering schemes. So does the US ... ever heard of Delaware ?

The whole thing is very hypocrite ... Who is the target - who benefits regulation/deregulation ?



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join