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 almost had an aneurysm listening to Bachmann debate Bernie Sanders..

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Metallicus


She hits the Obama's economic policy and the state of the economy and she goes on to say how she is all for womens right.


How is anything in the above sentence wrong? These are all right on the nose.

I think the left simply likes to attack conservative women.



Like Sarah Palin? They could be twins, at least mentally.




They are both actually highly intelligent women which is what scares the left.


Bachman and palin are not intelligent. Not remotely intelligent. They are an embarrasement to US politics. How ANYONE can say that they are smart with a straight face is beyond me. And no, they do not scare liberals because they are simple women. Im not from the US so i have no affiliation to either side.

Wendy Davis seemed fairly intelligent. Bachmann? Just no. Ugh


Politicians reflect their constituents. There are a lot of retards in politics. Add Hank (Guam tip over) Johnson and Sheila (drive the Mars rover over to where the Apollo astronauts landed )Jackson Lee to the list.




posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Sanders disguises himself as an Independent yet caucuses with the Democratic party, not an Independent party. He's also a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist...not my political cup of tea at all. In fact, my view is less government intervention equals greater liberty for the individual.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies

originally posted by: dreamingawake
When people talk about a plant(shill) they try to conclude it's Rand or Sanders to throw everyone off. To make them think everything will be okay. However, she's the clear definition of that for the Repubs and Hyjaked Tea Party.


The TEA Party was hijacked by special interests almost right from the start. Koch and Co took it over and turned it into a horrible far, far right wing party.

If it had of remained grass roots, they actually might have had some good, reasonable ideas.


I'm sorry but I've got to say it; "Hijacked my ass!" Did they threaten them with a gun or box-cutter, or what? Explain to me just how did the Koch brothers make the Tea Party voters, vote the way they did and still do?

The Tea Party was far right-wing from the very beginning and all the Koch brothers and Dick Armey did was to provide the name recognition and financial backing needed for them to become a viable voting block.

And just look at what we got for it... The biggest collection of congressional right-wing obstructionist lunatics in U.S. history.. Michelle Bachman being a prime example. Need more? How about Ted Cruz or Louie Gohmert? I could go on and on.

Last I checked, the Koch brothers only make up two votes so it sure as hell wasn't them who elected these nuts to Congress.

Right-wingers did this all by their ignorant, gullible selves and to say they were "hijacked" into voting those people into office is just a "cop-out."

I think the real reasoning behind their, (the Koch brothers and the Tea Party) affiliation was just due to the age-old fact that "birds of a feather, flock together."

ETA; I almost forgot, "a few reasonable ideas" is a pretty low bar for a "political movement."

Hell, I'm pretty sure that even Charles Manson had a reasonable idea or two in his lifetime, but I wouldn't vote for him just because of that.
edit on 17-6-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
"President Obama has created an economic war on women."

I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at that one. It's hilarious, Bachmann should be forced to wear a helmet in public.

I'm a fan of Bernie Sanders, my only problem with him is his physical resemblance to Dick Cheney.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Also, this can be eye opening in terms of which candidate/party you really should be aligned with based upon your individual belief structures. It's a good quiz, and doesn't take long. Apparently I'm in agreement with Mr. Sanders on 84% of the issues.

ISideWith.com



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: babybunnies

originally posted by: dreamingawake
When people talk about a plant(shill) they try to conclude it's Rand or Sanders to throw everyone off. To make them think everything will be okay. However, she's the clear definition of that for the Repubs and Hyjaked Tea Party.


The TEA Party was hijacked by special interests almost right from the start. Koch and Co took it over and turned it into a horrible far, far right wing party.

If it had of remained grass roots, they actually might have had some good, reasonable ideas.


I'm sorry but I've got to say it; "Hijacked my ass!" Did they threaten them with a gun or box-cutter, or what? Explain to me just how did the Koch brothers make the Tea Party voters, vote the way they did and still do?

The Tea Party was far right-wing from the very beginning and all the Koch brothers and Dick Armey did was to provide the name recognition and financial backing needed for them to become a viable voting block.

And just look at what we got for it... The biggest collection of congressional right-wing obstructionist lunatics in U.S. history.. Michelle Bachman being a prime example. Need more? How about Ted Cruz or Louie Gohmert? I could go on and on.

Last I checked, the Koch brothers only make up two votes so it sure as hell wasn't them who elected these nuts to Congress.

Right-wingers did this all by their ignorant, gullible selves and to say they were "hijacked" into voting those people into office is just a "cop-out."

I think the real reasoning behind their, (the Koch brothers and the Tea Party) affiliation was just due to the age-old fact that "birds of a feather, flock together."

ETA; I almost forgot, "a few reasonable ideas" is a pretty low bar for a "political movement."

Hell, I'm pretty sure that even Charles Manson had a reasonable idea or two in his lifetime, but I wouldn't vote for him just because of that.


This is what gets me... People hang their cowboy hat on labels or idioms versus seeing the real problem here which is our entitlement society is growing at an exponential rate. This is at the behest of both parties and does nothing for us as citizens other than we continue to become more and more obliged to suckle the government teat as hidden inflation gobbles up our discretionary income (thanks to Lib's and their tax more policy) and the job situation continues to worsen (thanks to the Pub's for all the stupid trade agreements that sends more jobs overseas).

WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO SPEND AT THIS RATE! AND THERE IS NO SUCH THINGS AS "FREE" AS THE ENTITLEMENT CLASS SEEMS TO THINK!

It's not hyperbole nor anecdotal but an economic fact (there is at least 2,000 years of history of economic failures to reference)! There is a big arsh 800 lbs Gorilla in the room but both the liberals and the Republicans are choosing NOT to address all while they make themselves richer off the backs of their constituents and the country spirals down a path of insolvency!

I'll repeat myself from a previous post. You can increase the taxes all you want to pay for this ridiculous spending we are allowing for our government to do, but COMPANIES DO NOT PAY TAXES!.. The consumer pays the taxes as any increase is passed onto the consumer.

Raising taxes to pay for these subsidies is a repetitive circle that has only one outcome... Insolvency as you will need more subsidies to pay for the higher priced goods. You'll need more taxes to pay for more subsidies. Companies will need to raise their product cost to account for tax liabilities and and remain competitive. Rinse, repeat.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lanisius
Sanders disguises himself as an Independent yet caucuses with the Democratic party, not an Independent party. He's also a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist...not my political cup of tea at all. In fact, my view is less government intervention equals greater liberty for the individual.

An Independent can not win the office of President. A majority of people think there are only two parties in this country and that is reenforced by the MSM that basically only covers the Dems and the Repubs.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

Very true but if history is accurate the far right will take power next as the pendulum NEVER stays in the middle BOTH sides attack then.
A real shame.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Osiris1953
Also, this can be eye opening in terms of which candidate/party you really should be aligned with based upon your individual belief structures. It's a good quiz, and doesn't take long. Apparently I'm in agreement with Mr. Sanders on 84% of the issues.

ISideWith.com


Our country is in the state it is in because of imbecile reasoning for voting for one candidate over another for the mere fact of the little letter behind their name.

Our founding fathers knew of this as an apparent evil and I wish they would have fixed it then as the hens have now come to roost.




John Adams said:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.


And George Washington (The Greatest man this nation ever knew) concurred.




George Washington agreed, saying in his farewell presidential speech:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.



ETA: We should vote on merit and how they can run the government as an individual and not the gifts they promise us or a political platform!
edit on 17-6-2015 by Bearack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bearack
WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO SPEND AT THIS RATE! AND THERE IS NO SUCH THINGS AS "FREE" AS THE ENTITLEMENT CLASS SEEMS TO THINK!


This is what gets me... Who's hanging their cowboy hat on labels?

How about we not further denigrate the impoverished by referring to them as an entirely separate class. Is this India? Should we have a caste system? Let's have some untouchables that we can talk about.

It's the large corporations that are really the entitlement whores, not some poor bastard making $7.25/hr.


edit on 17-6-2015 by Osiris1953 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Bearack

That's a mouthful considering I was just being friendly and sharing a cool website. Everything you responded with is noted... I guess. Odd that you felt the need to post that much.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Osiris1953

originally posted by: Bearack
WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO SPEND AT THIS RATE! AND THERE IS NO SUCH THINGS AS "FREE" AS THE ENTITLEMENT CLASS SEEMS TO THINK!


This is what gets me... Who's hanging their cowboy hat on labels?

How about we not further denigrate the impoverished by referring to them as entire class. Is this India? Should we have a caste system? Let's have some untouchables that we can talk about.

It's the large corporations that are really the entitlement whores, not some poor bastard making $7.25/hr.




You blame the corporation for the wage of $7.25 an hour wage but is it not the consumer that demands that that very same corporation provide faster, bigger and the prettiest service for the bottom dollar?

How about our greed for shopping at Walmart because we can buy more, bigger brighter things for cheap, cheap?

You do realize that we create this dichotomy for our demand to beat the Jones. At some point in our society, we chose quantity over quality and now we are reaping the rewards as we are getting EXACTLY what we asked for.

Many of these very same $7.25 wage workers (corrected as I see you removed the verbiage) have a 60" TV with 385 channels and the latest and greatest Iphone 6 so they can snap chat with their friends and eat out every night at fast food chains.

It's us as a greedy society that created this environment. Corporations merely fill the need of the consumer.
edit on 17-6-2015 by Bearack because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2015 by Bearack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Bearack

It's not possible to make 7.25 an hour and have a big screen and an iPhone 6 let's be realistic here.

The rest of what you say is true though.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Well an independant can't win the office because it's primarily republicans and democrats in the house and senate and they won't vote for someone who's not part of their party.

Who cares what the people want.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Bearack

It's not possible to make 7.25 an hour and have a big screen and an iPhone 6 let's be realistic here.

The rest of what you say is true though.


I know of 2 co-workers of mine (they do make $9.25 per hour and those states that do have $7.25 minimum wage also have a much lower cost of living) that not only have better TV's than I, they have multiple in their houses with seriously nice surround systems.

Not to argue the point (well, maybe a little), but I have personal experience of the said accusation.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Bearack

Sure the consumer is part of the problem. At the same time, people at the bottom of the monetary food chain are the bulk of the consumers. Pay them more, they buy more, money trickles up to the top. It's a win win for everyone. My last sentence in the previous post was just an afterthought.

I was mostly commenting on the fact that you started your previously quoted post about focusing on labels and idioms instead the real problem and then went on to label and denigrate the downtrodden. More than anything I was pointing out that specific irony.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Osiris1953

Apparently you're not seeing the dynamics of the situation. The reason goods and services are so cheap is because we are demanding it. "I'll buy it over there because it's cheaper and who cares how long it will last... I'll just get another". And in order for that box store to provide said product cheaper is they need to reduce their cost liabilities either through low wages, benefits or quality of service (and some cases, all 3). Paying the employee higher wages forces the cost of goods to rise which then once again changes the dynamic of the low wage worker. You're merely moving the goal post in essence.

One way you could turn the dichotomy of low wage positions is to stop supporting low quality goods. Purchase higher quality items from businesses that pay their employees a decent wage. Sure, they won't be able to have the newest and coolest toy on the block but what they do purchase will be quality, will last them and they are supporting higher wages.

Starbucks is a great example of how people are willing to pay for extremely expensive coffee that in turn, allows for the company to pay their employees a higher wage and benefits. But by the same token, many people that are currently earn those minimum wage jobs will not qualify to being a coffee barista as Starbucks has the luxury of finding the best quality of people and are willing to pay them for the quality and work ethic the produce.

If you just merely increase wages, you're merely kicking the can down the road as the same crappy goods will be bought, however, they will be more expensive.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Debates are won by who's best able to talk over the other person and not let them speak or make their points, right? Cuz if so, she killed it!



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus
Yes, we lefties just 'hate' conservative women because of their ???????
We do not 'hate' conservative women, We think that they are most likely crazed or extraordinarily stupid. It actually engenders compassion within us due to their unfortunate ailment(s).

Why any 'person' would choose a party that constantly wants to stomp them into the dirt leaves us not so much confused as dispirited. We understand altruism and support it (especially with YOUR conservative monies. A nitghtmare with no support, as it's the conservatives who reap the most benefits per capita. Loony Tooners for sure write these memes.) so we TRY, again and AGAIN, to comprehend those moronic stances espoused by the 'conservative' women.

They support a party that doesn't particularly like children, old people, the poor, minorities, women, immigrants, the environment, disaster relief (unless it's THEM that are suffering), peace, infrastructure, good paying jobs, equality, voting and that expresses a profound anti-social agenda based on GREED. They are anti-education, science, union, LGBT, students and anyone else that can not make a sizable contribution to their bribery slot on their offices' front doors.

So we do not mock or profess hatred toward these vegetables with breasts. We just think that they are just as undebatebly as horrid as their non-breasted counterparts but obviously more stupid.

If they were not more stupid (an accomplishment of no small measure), they would actually support things that make their lives and the ones they care for to be better.

I feel that the best part of this issue is that of the TWENTY-THREE self appointed candidates for POTUS under the Repusilcan brand, none are women. 23 dim-witted nay sayers/brayers and these two broads can't breach the party walls to throw their brand of BS.

Their party used to be twenty years behind and have actively designed their party to fall further back. I figure the orangs could use these Palin and Bachman to discover fire. First you rub them together until there are sparks.......



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Bearack

You'd be surprised how little prices actually go up when people are paid a living wage.... in most cases, especially food, we're talking pennies per item. In the case of a company like Walmart, where do you think the employees spend most of the money? Walmart. It's the lower income folks and the middle class that keep the economy moving by greasing the wheels with their money and willingness to take on debt.

I don't disagree with any of the points you just made. Sure, any one of us can change our spending habits in such a way that it promotes better quality products being offered at better prices by fairly paid employees. IMHO you are absolutely correct in this sense. Getting enough people to make a change that helps our country is nigh impossible. You can appeal to myself or your friends, etc and we'll listen, but getting America at large to change their habits to help society? Good luck. Though I'm not a fan of our government, waiting around for the general populace to make a change isn't going to get it done.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join