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.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: olaru12
A Corporatist? As opposed to what? A governmentist? Which is Just another corporation? Bought and paid for?
The label is cute, but ends up muddying the waters even more.....
originally posted by: Daedal
originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Daedal
Increased military spending abroad ( external tyranny)
I quit reading right there as it became pretty obvious you have no idea what you were talking about. Your link is nothing more than a political attack written with biased views.
Can you explain to me what it is I have no idea about?
Synopsis:
The Cycle of State
It's not a political attack as you mentioned. It applies to both parties, Dem and Republican alike.
I much rather like this idea. It would certainly curb efforts against prioritizing war. If it hits the multimillionaires in their pockets, perhaps their constituents in DC lobbying for militarization and war profiteering may decrease.
Source
Sen. Sanders isn’t just demanding the war tax. He is going to force Republicans to vote on it by proposing a war tax amendment. The way the Vermont senator has handled the Republican budget is the exact reason why Harry Reid gave him the top Democratic seat on the Senate Budget Committee. Bernie Sanders has waged a tireless battle against the Republican budget all week long. After Republican war hawks, led by Lindsey Graham, threatened to blow up the budget over military funding cuts, Republicans caved, but now they are going to have to deal with Sen. Sanders pointing out their hypocrisy at every turn.
originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Daedal
Honestly I don't know. But your position was Rand Paul's position prior to viewing the undisclosed information. I'm not going to pretend to be clairvoyant but I think he must've seen something he agrees with.
originally posted by: Willtell
One thing needs to be pointed out here:
ALL THE CANDIDATES IN BOTH PARTIES ARE CORPORATE SELL OUTS
All we can expect to get is the crumbs that fall from the table of the corporate elite and masters of this oligarchial system
originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Daedal
I agree with a lot of things his father said. I will ask you to look at the history of all the presidential candidates and find one that has stuck more solidly to his beliefs since he began politics.
I'm from Kentucky I have liked him from the beginning. I researched him back to 1992 and his politics have not changed he still carries the same messages. ( anti-tax smaller government)
I think me and you differ at the junction of actual information. I will choose to obtain all the information I can about a subject before I judge it.
I have a problem anymore with the millennium generation. I call it the "mi" (me) generation. It seems that most members of this generation want instant gratification on all issues no matter how many years it took to screw the issues up.
Politics is a game of absolutes and compromises. I have no problem with someone compromising in order to obtain his absolute positions.
originally posted by: Willtell
Libertarians are dangerous because of their apathetic attitude towards corporate power. They mistake freedom (a relative proposition) for freedom to do what you want to do to anybody in the name of freedom, such as kill and oppress workers and consumers in the name of libertarian “freedom.”